CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
Bill C-12. Motion for third reading. 2727
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2738
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2752
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2753
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2753
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2755
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2756
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2756
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2756
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2756
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2757
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2757
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2758
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2758
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2758
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2758
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2758
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2759
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2759
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2763
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2763
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2763
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2769
Motion moved and agreed to 2773
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2774
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2774
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2779
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2788
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 123; Nays, 80 2788
(Bill read the third time and passed). 2789
Bill C-19. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 2789
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 169; Nays, 34 2789
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 2790
Bill C-218. Motion for second reading 2790
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2790
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2795
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2799
2721
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, would you please join with me in
welcoming home the oldest sitting member of our House of
Commons. Herb, we have missed you. Welcome home to your
House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Colleagues, on May 1st, 1996, the hon. member
for Richelieu raised a point of order to argue that, contrary to my
statement that remarks made outside the House are not necessarily
within the purview of the House, the hon. member for Rosemont
had been obliged in 1993 to withdraw remarks he had made outside
the House. I explained that, as I recalled the 1993 case, it differed
because the remarks made in that instance concerned the House
directly. Nonetheless, I promised to review the matter and come
back to the House, if necessary.
[English]
I am now prepared to respond to this point of order. Let me point
out that the 1993 case is not analogous because the remarks in
question were a direct attack on the Chair. What was at issue is that
a member was reported in a newspaper article and had criticized
the conduct of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of
the Whole.
Remarks critical of the speakership, be they uttered inside the
House or outside the Chamber, particularly when uttered by a
member of the House, are very serious and in themselves have been
ruled to be breaches of privilege as per Beauchesne's sixth edition,
citation 168(1):
Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as
breaches of privilege. The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized
incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a
substantive motion.
[
Translation]
When this matter was raised in the House in 1993, the hon.
member for Rosemont was given the opportunity to respond and
explain his comments. Speaker Fraser, having listened to this
explanation and to remarks from all sides of the House, stated, in
part, on page 17404 of the Debates:
If we consider the words that were reported, we clearly have a prima facie
case that affects the dignity of this House and our colleague, because our
colleague is an officer of this House- like the Speaker, he is an officer of this
House and an attack against the integrity of a person in that position is an attack
against this House.
The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of
privilege. A motion was moved to refer the matter to the then
Standing Committee on House Management for examination, and
the motion was adopted. Two days later, the member for Rosemont
rose in the House and withdrew his comments. From there, the
matter was considered closed.
There is no question that both sets of remarks, the remarks by the
hon. member for Rosemont in 1993 and the remarks by the hon
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, two weeks ago, were made
outside the House. The distinction to be made between the two,
however, is not where the remarks were made, but rather that the
remarks in one case were critical of the Chair and in the other case
were not directed to the House or any of its members.
I thank the hon. member for Richelieu for bringing this matter to
the attention of the House.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
2722
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1995
public report and program outlook of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I give the annual statement on national security, I would like
to express my sincere thanks to colleagues on all sides of the House
for their expressions of support, encouragement and good wishes. I
appreciate them very much, as I appreciate similar expressions
from Canadians in every part of the country.
I am especially touched by expressions of support and
encouragement from people I likely have never met who have
faced situations similar to the one I am facing and have surmounted
them. Once again, my deep thanks to all these expressions of
encouragement and support. I am deeply touched by them and I
appreciate them very much.
I am pleased to rise today to present to Parliament the fifth
annual statement on national security and to table in the House the
1995 public report and program outlook of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service. This document provides both
parliamentarians and the public with a review of the current global
and domestic security environment.
Additionally, the program outlook provides information on CSIS
resource levels for the current year and for the two next fiscal
years. We are providing this information in keeping with the
government's commitment to more openness and accountability.
It is the view of the government that a well focused and effective
security intelligence capability is vital in today's world. Let me
review the efforts of CSIS to protect Canada's interest and, most
important, to protect Canadians from threats to their safety and
security.
Today's security threats are multi-faceted. I say this because they
are global in their reach and effect, they come from a variety of
sources, not just a few states as during the cold war era, and they
are targeted against a wider range of institutions.
For example, today economic espionage is a real concern. So is
the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry.
Ethnic conflict and the collapse of states threaten international
security and have numerous implications for a country such as
Canada which is noted for its refugee efforts and peacekeeping
contributions.
Transnational crime was identified by leaders at the last G-7
summit as a growing threat to the security of nations. I think the
House is well aware that terrorism remains the primary concern of
security agencies around the world. We know the terrorist threat is
increasingly sophisticated and global in nature, with some
organizations having transnational structures while some continue
to be state sponsored.
We must also face the reality of domestic extremism which has
been manifested so tragically in the United States in the bombing
of a United States federal building in Oklahoma City last year and
in Japan with the poison gas attacks on Tokyo subways.
In another act of domestic terrorism we were horrified late last
year by the assassination of the former prime minister of Israel,
Yitzhak Rabin, an act which has threatened the very delicate efforts
which we hope will bring about peace in the Middle East and which
contributed to the latest resurgence of violent outbreaks between
Israel and Hamas in Lebanon.
(1015 )
In another corner of the world we see the resumption of IRA
bombings of civilian targets in Britain. The assassination of Prime
Minister Rabin and the resumption of IRA bombings are examples
of how promising political solutions to longstanding grievances
can be jeopardized when terrorists strike.
I want to confirm that Canada has been a keen and active
participant in international co-operative efforts to combat
terrorism. In June of last year the Prime Minister chaired the G-7
summit in Halifax which placed international terrorism high on the
agenda of discussion by world leaders.
The heads of government agreed to share their experiences of
and lessons learned from major terrorist incidents. As well, they
agreed to strengthen their co-operation in all efforts against
terrorism.
Following up on this commitment, last December in Ottawa I
chaired the very first ministerial level meeting of the G-7 countries,
together with Russia, to discuss specific co-operative measures to
prevent and investigate terrorist acts. The result of that meeting
was a document known as the Ottawa declaration. It is a milestone
in international co-operation and in the strengthening of our
common resolve to defeat terrorism. I would like to briefly review
the agreements contained in the Ottawa declaration.
First, we all know of the existence of a number of international
conventions that spell out concrete actions against terrorist acts
such as hijacking and hostage taking. We resolved that greater
efforts needed to be made to get all states to join in and implement
these conventions by the year 2000. We agreed that this is the key
to circumscribing the ambit of international terrorism and denying
it sanctuary.
2723
In this spirit, the ministers were unanimous in denouncing states
that support terrorists. The declaration called on all states to
renounce terrorism and deny financial support as well as the use
of territory to terrorist organizations. Ministers also committed to
action to inhibit the movement of terrorists and to develop
measures to prevent falsification of travel documents.
The Ottawa declaration was unequivocal on the need to bring
perpetrators of terrorist acts to swift justice. We also agreed to
increase our preventative efforts against terrorism in our aviation,
maritime and other transport systems.
One of the most important tools we have to counter terrorism is
the sharing of information. We agreed, through the Ottawa
declaration, to strengthen the sharing of intelligence in information
on terrorism in a large number of specific technical areas.
[Translation]
We were encouraged by the progress made in Canadian and
multilateral efforts to combat terrorism, and we are proud of the
significant accomplishment embodied in the Ottawa Declaration.
As the Prime Minister stated to the participants of the March
Summit of Peacemakers in Egypt, Canada is doing its part to fight
terrorism and we are doing so in a way that is consistent with
international standards of human rights and laws.
He noted that Canada is pursuing the objectives of the Ottawa
Declaration in every available international forum.
Further progress was made on this front just last month, when
Canada joined with twenty-one western hemisphere countries in
signing the Lima Declaration, at an anti-terrorism conference of
the Organization of American States.
[English]
Here at home we continue to monitor threats to security and their
implications for Canada. We are concerned, for example, with the
potential for foreign conflicts to spill over to Canada and threaten
Canadians. Canada, by its very peaceful and democratic nature, can
be attractive to terrorist organizations seeking sanctuary or funds to
continue terrorism in other lands. CSIS identifies and investigates
such groups. It acts as the linchpin in assuring effective
consultation and information sharing with appropriate Canadian
law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police and other police services as well as with its foreign
counterparts.
(1020)
The primary role of CSIS is to forewarn and advise. CSIS threat
assessments provide timely information to the government
concerning potential or imminent threats. As well, CSIS helps
keep terrorists and other dangerous individuals from entering
Canada through its assistance to Citizenship and Immigration
Canada in screening individuals wishing to enter our country.
I mentioned that CSIS, while not itself a law enforcement
agency, works in co-operation with the police, in particular with the
RCMP. I should point out that the RCMP has an important role to
play because of its extensive role in security enforcement under the
Security Offences Act and in providing security to designated
persons, federal property, as well as foreign embassies and
missions here in Canada.
Violence in the pursuit of political objectives has no place in
Canadian society. While CSIS and the police have separate
mandates, they are joined by a common mission which is to protect
the interests of all Canadians. Co-operation and co-ordination
between police and security authorities has proven successful in
defining threats and getting the best possible intelligence on
criminal activities of terrorists.
Although since the end of the cold war espionage has changed its
focus and its character, its intensity remains a concern to Canada
and its allies. CSIS remains vigilant and active in discerning and
investigating such threats to the security of Canada.
Canada plays a prominent role in the world community. We all
know well that in various areas of the world, the world community
is fraught with strife and unrest. In this volatile environment
persistent threats must be dealt with and new ones emerge almost
daily.
I want to conclude by reiterating that this government continues
to put a premium on the need for reliable and timely security
intelligence and security enforcement in order to protect the
interests of all Canadians and of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like first of all to say how pleased I am to see that the
Solicitor General is back. We were all very concerned about his
condition during his absence, and we are pleased to see him back in
his seat today, because he was sorely missed. This makes us realize
how fragile a gift health is. As the hon. member for Laval Centre
would probably say, we must be ever mindful of our health.
I am somewhat torn between the pleasure of welcoming the
Solicitor General back and the comments I have a duty to make, as
a member of the official opposition, about the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service. Having participated in 11 elections, the
Solicitor General will no doubt understand that, as much as I may
admire his work, I must also do mine, hence the following
criticism.
Of course I agree with the statements of principle the Solicitor
General made with regard to the role of the Canadian Security
2724
Intelligence Service. I am also happy to see that the hon. member
for Fundy-Royal agrees with my previous remarks. I hope that we
can continue to see eye to eye.
The trouble does not lie so much with what the Solicitor General
said. We can of course readily share his views about Canada's best
interests and threats to national security. On the subject of
espionage, industrial espionage and new spying techniques, he
expressed some interesting thoughts because, as he said, these
problems have to be tackled.
(1025)
He talked about the worldwide nuclear threat arising from the
break-up of countries possessing deterrent and even nuclear attack
capabilities; that too is something that concerns us. The same goes
for international terrorism using chemical weapons. The incidents
in Oklahoma City or Tokyo and the assassination of Prime Minister
Rabin in Israel were mentioned.
But not a word was said about the role played by the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service at home, in Canada, and that is our
main concern. Our main concern stems from the realization that,
for all intents and purposes, the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service is out of control. It has literally become a state within the
state.
Who knows about CSIS operations? Perhaps a handful of
officials at the Department of the Solicitor General, sometimes the
Solicitor General himself. But it has become obvious since the
beginning of the 35th Parliament, since I personally became
involved in the work of the national security sub-committee, that
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service does not have any
watchdog, inasmuch as the legislation provides for one, in the form
of a review committee, which reviews whatever it is given to
review.
The Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC-CSARS
in French-is an organization that has demonstrated its utter
inefficiency in carrying out the duties entrusted to it by Parliament.
If the Solicitor General has privileged information from SIRC, he
should pass it on to us.
Since the end of 1994, almost two years ago, we have been
working on the Heritage Front affair. This problem did not occur in
Israel, Belarus or the Middle East, but here in this country. There
are allegations that an extremist group may have committed illegal
acts here in this country.
For two years we have been bogged down in our efforts to enlist
the co-operation of members of the famous SIRC or Security
Intelligence Review Committee, who have appeared before us
parliamentarians in the Sub-committee on National Security but
who have been hiding behind their so-called immunity to refuse to
answer the legitimate questions asked by members. This ordeal
has lasted for nearly two years. They laughed at us and refused to
answer our questions, so that we have not made much progress so
far. We, of course, had to make deductions rather than rely on
honest, clear and precise answers to our questions.
There is a problem in a democratic society when a review
committee, an external committee like SIRC, sees parliamentarians
as the enemy. Rather, those people should see us as those who are
responsible for public administration and for monitoring them, and
should give us all the information they have without arguing.
Unfortunately, such was not the case.
It is with sadness that once again this year I must point out that
the membership of SIRC has not been reviewed. We as the official
opposition, and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley on behalf of the Reform Party, had asked that SIRC be a
reflection of the 35th Parliament. Who are the members of SIRC,
the Security Intelligence Review Committee? Only people who
represent or were appointed on the recommendation of the Liberal
Party of Canada or of other parties that are not even recognized any
more in this House, namely the Progressive Conservative Party and
the New Democratic Party. Since the beginning of the 35th
Parliament, no one has been appointed on the recommendation of
the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party. This is
not normal.
How can we trust an organization that deals in this fashion with
national security issues that may have a direct impact on
democracy in Canada? The level of confidence is extremely low,
and perhaps even non existent. Psychologists refer to ``basic trust''.
The basic trust is no longer there. The basic trust required for an
organization to function properly is gone; it has been gone for a
long time.
(1030)
It is imperative to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service Act so as to change, among others, the Security
Intelligence Review Committee and decide on its membership at
the beginning of each Parliament, based on the will expressed by
Canadians through their ballots. It is not normal to see an
organization such as this one represent political parties that were in
place previously, instead of reflecting the current situation.
Once again, I urge the minister to consider this request to review
the act. We will, of course, support the measures we have been
seeking for a long time. I will continue to raise this issue.
I also want to point out the lack of co-operation between the
government and the parliamentary sub-committee on national
security. Throughout 1995, and for a good part of 1996, we
benefited from the contribution of the hon. member for
Scarborough West, who was a full-fledged member of this
committee. His help allowed us to make major progress on the
Heritage Front
2725
issue, concerning which we should normally table a report. In fact,
we are meeting this morning at eleven.
I urge government authorities, and particularly the Solicitor
General, to reinstate the member for Scarborough West as a
full-fledged member of the national security sub-committee, so
that we can arrive at a decision. The member was a regular at the
committee, as well as a leader in the search for truth that we were
obliged to conduct by inference, since we had little information to
go on.
I also ask the government to follow up on the unanimous wish of
this House, as expressed by the adoption of Motion M-38, on
March, 21, 1995, more than a year ago. The motion, tabled by the
hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, asked that the
operations of the Communications Security Establishment, the
CSE, be reviewed by an independent body. The CSE was set up
during World War II, by order in council and, today, its operations
are not monitored by anyone, except the Prime Minister's office
and, from time to time, the office of the Minister of National
Defence. The time has come to act, since the House sent a message
to that effect.
As I said earlier, we should amend the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons, to make the Sub-committee on National
Security a standing committee. The same members could sit on this
standing committee and meet throughout the duration of a
Parliament. They could have a much broader power of inquiry than
they have now, including the powers to call witnesses, to order the
production of documents and to carry out in-depth cross
interrogations, thongs we cannot do right now. Were are a bit like a
paper tiger and have become a laughing stock.
Moreover, all reports submitted to the Solicitor General pursuant
to section 54 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act
should also be forwarded to the Sub-committee on National
Security for examination, in camera of course. Granting us this
power would go a long way in enhancing the role we have to play
as parliamentarians. Such a committee would provide a very
efficient service and help all Canadians to regain confidence in the
parliamentarians they have elected to run the country.
We have one last request for the Solicitor General. We would
like the government, through the Treasury Board, to act as soon as
possible in order to grant, as requested by the current director of
CSIS the money needed to pay the bilingual bonus to RCMP
officers transferred to the service when it was first established in
1984, as well as to other employees of the service. In a letter he
sent us last Friday, the Solicitor General said that in order to pay
these bilingual bonuses cuts within the service would be needed.
(1035)
The thing is, we should not have to cut the services CSIS needs,
rather we must inject the money needed, as was done in the rest of
the public service, in order to pay a bilingual bonus to the
employees who deserve it and are entitled to it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and your patience
and for giving me 20 additional seconds to conclude.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome the Solicitor General of Canada
back to the House. Our prayers have been and continue to be with
him.
I am sure the minister knows better than the rest of us that the
demands of government and the House do not wait for any one
individual.
Today we have the annual national security address. As is
tradition, the minister has reminded us of some recent terrorist
activity: last year's bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma
City, poison gas attacks on the Tokyo subways, the recent
assassination of the Prime Minister of Israel and the resumption of
IRA bombings in London. Terrorism remains a worldwide
problem.
In addition, the media is usually full of tragedies arising from
conflicts around the world. Many of these conflicts from faraway
lands have implications here in Canada. Be it the Middle East,
Bosnia, Somalia, Sri Lanka or Punjab, conflicts in these diverse
locations impact on the emigre communities in Canada. While the
overwhelming majority of immigrants or refugees from these areas
are intent on starting new lives in Canada, a small majority involve
themselves in activities supporting terrorist groups.
As the minister stated in his address, Canada has joined the other
G-7 nations to deal with terrorism. A document known as the
Ottawa declaration calls on all states to renounce terrorism and
deny financial support, including the use of territory, to terrorist
organizations. While the government has congratulated itself on its
efforts in this regard, its actual commitment has been somewhat
underwhelming.
The minister boasts of the government's efforts to fight terrorism
and to pursue the objectives of the Ottawa declaration. However, I
would like to draw the attention of the House back to last year
around this time.
On May 4, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Revenue about
the Sikh militant group, the Babbar Khalsa, having charitable tax
status. The minister's response was: ``I would be grateful if the
hon. member would provide that information so that investigations
can be carried out rather than simply making allegations of the type
she has made today''.
I attempted to follow up this issue on June 5, 1995. On that date I
provided the Minister of National Revenue with photographs of the
founder of the Babbar Khalsa, surrounded by weapons, and a
2726
statement in which Talwinder Singh Parmar declared that if anyone
wanted to commit suicide he should board an Air India plane.
The minister's response was a lame attempt at humour, stating
that he felt it was contradictory for the Reform Party to be against
terrorism at the same time that it was opposed to Bill C-68. That
was the government's response to fundraising for terrorist groups a
year ago.
Fortunately things have changed. The Prime Minister went to a
conference in Cairo and suddenly the government is concerned
about fundraising for terrorist groups. As well, we have a new
Minister of National Revenue. There are grand pronouncements
about the tough action the government will take to stop the support
of terrorism in Canada.
Finally, on April 13, 1996 the government buried a small little
notice in the Canada Gazette. The item was that Revenue Canada
has withdrawn the charitable status of the Babbar Khalsa. A year
ago the government thought it was a joke. Now it realizes that the
Reform Party's concerns were valid right from the beginning.
I am sure the minister is aware that there are a number of other
groups involved in this kind of activity. Last week we heard that the
RCMP had arrested one of its former translators on charges of
attempting to obstruct justice and perjury. According to a police
affidavit this individual was hired by the RCMP to translate
wiretaps in a major investigation into a Tamil-speaking Sri Lankan
forgery and alien smuggling group.
(1040)
Unfortunately for the RCMP, neither the translator nor the
Mounties initial background check mentioned anything about his
membership in the terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam, also known as the Tamil Tigers.
The police stated: ``It is our belief that he tried to infiltrate the
RCMP while a member of a terrorist organization''. The Mounties
are concerned that the translator may have been working on
sensitive documents relating to his homeland and they are now
going through a damage control exercise.
Who would have thought that a translator in one of the solicitor
general's agencies was actually working against the interest of his
employer? It is important for the government to live up to its
commitment to stop individuals living in Canada from supporting
terrorists overseas.
The government cannot just talk about taking a stand against
these activities, it must act and it must be seen to be acting.
Burying announcements in the Canada Gazette is not sufficient.
Let those involved know that their activities are unacceptable,
make them illegal and prosecute them.
The minister says in his statement that he cannot canvas all the
activities of CSIS and the RCMP in support of national security and
I do not imagine that he would have.
In the May 12 edition of the Vancouver Province we learn that
CSIS officers in British Columbia have been questioning Tamil
leaders to determine if they are raising money to support guerrilla
warfare in Sri Lanka. The response of the president of the Eelam
Tamil Community Association of B.C. was that while he owes his
allegiance to the Tamil Tigers, his group raises money only for
humanitarian uses.
A number of terrorist organizations do have a faction that is
involved in humanitarian endeavours, but how much money goes
to humanitarian efforts and how much money goes to terrorist
activities is impossible to measure.
If the government is serious about the Ottawa declaration, and if
it is serious about the summit of peacemakers that took place in
Cairo in March, it must make clear to everyone that support for
terrorism will not be tolerated no matter what disguise it tries to
take. Any organization that targets innocent civilians is a terrorist
group and must be dealt with as such. The government may have to
offend some individuals and groups to make that message loud and
clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
table a petition that was sent to me by the workers of MIL Davie. It
reads as follows: ``Since 1990, the federal government has not
contributed a single penny to the unemployment insurance
program, which is funded entirely by workers and employers.
Following legislative amendments made in 1990, 1993 and 1994,
benefits paid have decreased, which has resulted in a large surplus
in the UI fund. That surplus will reach an estimated $7 billion by
the end of 1996. Ottawa wants to reduce benefits paid by a further
$2 billion a year and use the UI fund surplus for its own purposes.
We say no to drastic cuts in the unemployment insurance program
and ask the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to
withdraw this bill''.
* * *
(1045)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
2727
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw your attention to the fact that four questions to
the Minister of Human Resources Development and one to the
Minister of Public Works have been standing in my name on the
Order Paper since March 11, 1996.
The government was supposed to answer these questions within
45 days, and that period expired a good 15 days ago. In the public
interest, I would like to know when the government will answer
these four questions, which will shed new light on a rather
controversial issue, namely the transfer of the human resources
development department regional management centre from
Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan, an issue where the public interest
has not been taken into account.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to mention that the
hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked
that all Order Paper questions be allowed to stand and the official
opposition gave its consent. We want you to know there is
unanimous consent in this regard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I take the point of order
raised by hon. member for Trois-Rivières under advisement. I
thank the hon. member for having brought to the attention of the
House and, in particular, of the government, the issue he raised
quite a while ago already.
According to the practice in this House, the government should
answer your question, as I hope it will, but feel free to call on the
Chair if you think it necessary. Unfortunately, since nobody seems
to be able to respond to this point of order for the time being, I will
take the issue raised by the hon. member for Trois-Rivières under
advisement.
[English]
Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions signed by people in my riding.
The first petition contains 225 names. It refers to the Canadian
Human Rights Act, which of course has already been amended.
However, I will refer to the second part which has to do with the
charter of rights and freedoms.
The petitioners pray that we do not grant societal approval of
same sex relationships and homosexuality, including amendments
to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the charter of rights and
freedoms to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
The second petition is basically on the same matter. The
petitioners pray that we do not amend the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms to include or otherwise define the undefined
phrase of sexual orientation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will
be extended by 31 minutes.
_____________________________________________
2727
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1050)
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-12, an act respecting
employment insurance in Canada, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
employment insurance system set out in Bill C-12 is not just
another version of the old UI program. It is in fact Canada's
employment insurance system for the 21st century. It supports the
government's agenda for jobs and growth. It is a system that
Canadians themselves have helped to define and shape for the
future.
As we have mentioned in this House before, we have had
extensive consultations not only on Bill C-12 but on the whole
question of social security reform over the past year and one-half.
Over and over again Canadians from all walks of life, from every
possible kind of business, occupation or organization repeated one
message loud and clear: the best form of security is a job.
We have listened to that message. Employment insurance first
and foremost is about jobs. It is about jobs in a very simple and
direct way. It will make it easier for people to work longer and
encourage employers to keep people in their jobs longer. It will
help employers hire more workers. It will create more work and
more jobs for Canadians. It will help increase the earned income of
Canadian workers. Every part of this bill is focused on that goal.
Let me give some examples.
With EI insurance premiums, the tax on jobs will be lower. The
premium cut and reduced maximum insurable earnings will save
workers and employers over $1 billion in premium payments in
this year alone. Streamlined administration and reporting
requirements will save employers another $150 million and some
300,000 small businesses will get a special temporary rebate so
employers can afford to hire more workers.
This system will support job creation instead of perpetuating
unemployment. Income benefits are structured to make it easier for
people to work longer removing the barriers that sometimes keep
people from accepting the jobs they need. This system is pro
2728
employment and makes work pay. Active employment benefits are
there for those who lose their jobs and need help getting back to
work.
We will be reinvesting $800 million in the tools which help
people help themselves and create employment opportunities for
Canadians. As well, we are investing another $300 million in a
transitional jobs fund to kick start employment in areas of high
unemployment. Some 15,000 jobs for Canadians will be created as
a result of this initiative.
When the measures described in this bill are fully implemented,
there will be 75,000 to 100,000 more jobs for Canadians. That is
just part of the story.
Employment insurance is an integral part of the government's
broader vision for jobs and growth in this country. It is a growth
agenda that sees economic growth going hand in hand with the best
social security system in the world. Our agenda is based on creating
a healthy economic climate for growth. We brought inflation down
to its lowest level in 30 years. We are meeting and exceeding our
deficit reduction targets. Our agenda recognizes Canada can
compete with the best in the world.
Over the past 14 months the government's Team Canada
approach to international trade has brought $20 billion worth of
new deals for Canadian exports. Every $1 billion in exports means
11,000 jobs for Canadian workers. It can be seen that our agenda is
beyond all doubt working. More than 600,000 new jobs have been
created in this country since November 1993.
(1055 )
As jobs and our economy grow, we must ensure that our social
safety net keeps pace. That is the fundamental message in the
government's budget. We are taking action to ensure that
Canadians can continue to rely on a strong social safety net that is
affordable, effective and in tune with the future.
The bottom line is clear. This government is totally committed to
bringing Canada into the 21st century with a strong and growing
economy and the best social programs of any country in the world.
Bill C-12 is part of that commitment. We want to make sure that
employment insurance is not only pro employment, but balanced
and fair for all Canadians. That is why we have listened very
carefully to the comments and advice from Canadians throughout
the hearings on this bill.
We heard tremendous support for an insurance system that is
truly focused on jobs and employment. We also heard some real
concerns that the system would not be flexible enough to reflect the
real job opportunities that exist in different parts of Canada. We
listened to those concerns and we have taken action.
We recognize the need for a number of important amendments to
the bill. For example, people from all parts of the country, from the
New Brunswick Federation of Labour to the National Action
Committee on the Status of Women to the Kativik Regional
Government argued that the method proposed for calculating
benefits was too inflexible.
The amended divisor used to calculate benefits fixes that
problem. As a result, EI will be more responsive to monthly
changes in local employment conditions. That is a change that
makes sense. It is a change that deserves our support.
Many groups, especially those representing the concerns of
workers in seasonal industries and students expressed serious
concerns about the effects gaps in work would have under the new
system. Under the amended system, EI claimants will have a longer
reference period to put together the required weeks of work and
gaps will not affect the outcome. For example, a person who needs
15 weeks of work to qualify can look back over 26 weeks and
ignore up to 11 empty weeks if necessary. Again, this is a change
that makes good sense.
Many people were concerned that the intensity rule which
reduces the benefit rate for repeat users would be particularly hard
on the most vulnerable and those in most need. In the amended
system, people who receive the EI family income supplement will
be exempt from the intensity rule. This will safeguard a basic level
of EI income for low income claimants with family
responsibilities.
We will also take steps to address concerns about potential fraud
and abuse of EI with stiffer sanctions and penalties for claimants
and employers who break the rules in order to get benefits they are
not entitled to.
In all of these cases, we have listened closely to what Canadians
are saying. The employment insurance system will be better as a
result. It will be more flexible. It will be fairer. It will meet our
savings targets. It will focus more effectively on our number one
priority which always has been getting Canadians back to work.
Jobs, economic growth, a strong and affordable safety net: these
are priorities every Canadian shares. They are priorities we are
resolutely committed to as a government. Employment insurance is
one part, an important part of the action plan Canada needs to
achieve those goals and to move with confidence into the next
century. I urge all members at the end of today to support this bill.
The fundamental changes in it are going to be good for Canadians
for years and years to come.
2729
(1100)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin by saying that today, May 14, 1996, the day Bill C-12 will be
passed, unless the government finally comes to its senses, will be
one of deep shame for the Liberal party.
This party helped give Canada a social security system, not the
best in the world, it must be said, no, because overall we are a long
way from the social measures generally available in Western
Europe, but in North America, our system was the envy of many.
Increasingly, this party is aligning its social measures with less
progressive measures in the United States.
Bill C-12, this deceptively named act respecting employment
insurance, is an attack on the unemployment insurance system so
appreciated by most Canadians and Quebecers, as we were
reminded by an Angus Reid poll at the very beginning of the new
Liberal reign, when it was setting out on what looked like a reform
of social programs, a reform to improve social programs. That was
before the first budget.
This Angus Reid poll said that 70 per cent of Canadians and
Quebecers, almost 80 per cent in the case of Quebec, wanted to
keep this unemployment insurance system, and at the same time
feared that the announced reforms, despite all the fine talk, were
going to hurt those in the greatest need. Canadians and Quebecers
were right.
Although it will not be pleasant, I would like to remind members
that, in his maiden speech, the Minister of Human Resources
Development said that what was needed was a particularly
Canadian formula so that, when the social program reform had
achieved its goals, Canadians would be proud to be Canadians. He
repeated this expression ad nauseam.
Well, what we can say this morning is that, far from being proud,
Canadians must be worried, deeply worried, except perhaps for
those who have a steady job, who are working over 35 hours a
week. But all the others, Canadians and Quebecers must be worried
and anxious to hear what form this new system will take.
It must not be forgotten that this bill, which is supposedly about
employment insurance, comes in addition to a so-called reform
from 1994, Bill C-17. That was a bill implementing the first
Liberal budget since their return to power. That budget, that bill,
slashed the unemployment insurance scheme by $2.4 billion
starting in 1995, of which $735 million were to be cut in Quebec,
and $630 million were to be cut, starting in 1995, in the Atlantic
provinces.
The effects of this new reform are in addition to those of the first
reform. Once again, the word reform loses its meaning.
``Counter-reform'' would be more appropriate, because in most
people's minds, a reform is something that improves a situation.
(1105)
In the two cases in question, the reform is no improvement. Far
from it, it brings cuts. It cuts into the only little bit of security some
people in Canada can count on, those who are not so fortunate as to
be among those who enjoy total security or who are rich enough to
be able to depend on investment profits and do not need to work.
For every one else, unemployment insurance represents a bridge,
rather a narrow one sometimes, and one that is not as long as it
might be, but a bridge nonetheless, between two jobs.
These cuts will total $4.4 billion, if we add up the $2.4 billion
and the additional $2 billion of this ``new'' reform. This will make
the Liberal Party of Canada look good the next time they seek a
new mandate. They will be able to boast to Canadians and to
Quebecers ``Look, we have cut UI benefits by $4.4 billion since
1995, and Quebec-I am using the department's figures here-will
lose $1.271 billion''. Keep in mind, now, that this is the
department's evaluation of the figures involved in the amendment.
By the way, no one but the department has any figures, so we have
to rely on them. According to the department's numbers, by the
time the plan matures in the year 2000, the Atlantic provinces will
be $806 million worse off than before, every year.
Adding up the two-this is interesting since the Atlantic
provinces and Quebec together account for about one third of
Canada's population-we get $2.1 billion of the $4.2 billion. And
if we look at the portion of the cuts affecting the Atlantic provinces
alone, $806 million out of $4.4 is quite a chunk.
These cuts in benefits will mean less money going to the high
unemployment areas. This means that one of the objectives when
the plan was created after the 1929 depression, which was to have
interregional adjustments, has more or less come down to nothing
now. In the case of Quebec, Quebecers will figure out what it
means, at some point. In this case of the Atlantic provinces, I trust
they will draw some political conclusions. In many cases, I think it
will be a considerable shock.
I speak as a Bloc Quebecois member, but on this issue, as on
many others we worked in opposition on behalf of all of the people
of Canada. What is unacceptable about this change is that
Canadians and Quebecers see this as a significant alteration to what
they consider the role of unemployment insurance to be.
Instead of discussing the disappearance of this interregional
adjustment-which academics are demanding, saying that there is
none in such and such a country because their constitution does not
allow it-the government has decided to forgo discussions, to hold
no debate whatsoever, just chopping it completely.
2730
Since this move on the part of the government was obviously
in the books, when I was in Toronto during the initial consultations
I asked representatives of unions whose membership were in high
pay brackets whether they were not fed up subsidizing workers
in the Atlantic provinces. They did not say: ``Yes, we in Ontario
are fed up with paying for the Atlantic provinces''. People in
Canada, and I think I understand, realize the need for support
among the regions. I repeat, this is what the Bloc Quebecois is
saying. This example, like others, illustrates that there were no
major debates on this reform.
(1110)
This reform, with even its name looking like some sort of
camouflage, means open season. Calling it employment insurance
camouflages it. Instead of bringing the unemployed, particularly
the unemployed in regions with high unemployment, closer to a
job, this reform will move them away from one.
As this is the first opportunity we have had the time to give a
decent speech in this House, I will use it to point out that the
official opposition was prevented from playing its role at each
stage. Here again, I can understand. The government doubtless did
not want Canadians to be informed. All the same, a survey in
Quebec indicates that the people have not been fooled by what is
going on. This will be the subject of my conclusion.
I wish to speak to all of Canada. I want to say that the first
reform hit the Atlantic provinces hard. The second one is going to
be even harder to swallow. I keep saying that the regions with high
unemployment will be the ones hit.
I would like to quote the tourism and economic development
minister of Prince Edward Island. The province has a population of
about 170,000 and is well placed to observe its labour market. So
what does the minister of economic development have to say? He
says, on the subject of financial repercussions: ``The previous stage
of the unemployment insurance reform, which surely was not on
the same scale as the present bill, has already had a significant
impact on our province. In 1995, with the rate of unemployment
such as it was, a person who qualified after 12 weeks' work
received benefits for 32 weeks, making a total of 44 weeks. There
were still, however, eight weeks where the person received no
income''.
The first demonstrations in the Atlantic provinces were not
against the new reform, but against the implementation of the
previous reform, which hit them hard. As a consequence of this
first so-called reform, people did not have enough weeks of
unemployment insurance to get through the year. They had to turn
to welfare, which is very complex, because, if you are on welfare,
sad to say, it is very hard to return to work.
What does this brief say? It predated the amendments, but if we
take off a few millions, a lot of what it says is still true. It says: ``In
Prince Edward Island, the net loss of unemployment insurance
benefits will thus reach $24 million in 2001-2002''. So, if we take
off the maximum, let us say $8 million-I am being very generous,
very conservative-there would be $16 million less.
The minister went on to say: ``The economy of Prince Edward
Island is, nevertheless productive. We are tops in Canada in job
creation and we cannot absorb such a loss''. In other words, for all
the regions that are not the top job creators in Canada, this reform
will be devastating in macro-economic terms. It will widen the gap
between the regions where people are relatively well off and the
regions where unemployment is high, despite the fact that jobs may
be created, but where there is less industry or business.
(1115)
I talked about the regions, I now want to talk about individuals.
Added to the previous reform-which leaves many seasonal
workers with too few benefit weeks, forcing them on welfare for
the rest of the year-cuts provided for by the present reform create
a desperate situation for some.
The workers who came last week from the Gaspé and Magdalen
Islands sounded desperate. They were talking about their region,
saying that they will no longer be able to keep young people. They
are the ones who are leaving and when young people leave, the
regions fall apart. The same is true in every region with a high
unemployment rate. When young people leave, fewer services are
provided. There is a shift in demographics and soon, only aging
people are left, villages and towns die. This is what people came
here to scream and cry about, saying that it did not make any sense.
When I hear one of my colleagues laughing I think that either he
has no heart, which I do not believe, or he has not studied the
impact of this bill. It saddens me because people are going to be hit
hard. It will affect many people. The impact will be felt by many
other than seasonal workers, in spite of the amendments and what
the government is claiming. The amendments speak volume about
the original bill.
It will affect all workers in the tourism sector, all those for whom
one hour of paid work means many hours of unpaid work. They are
legions in our society. I am thinking about all adult education
teachers, this is true in every region, and all those who, in cities,
towns, and villages, entertain, educate or instruct people who, for
one reason or another, need such training.
Usually, they are paid by the hour, without any firm contract and,
without any exception, they will find themselves in a very
precarious situation. Women will also be affected. The Fédération
des femmes said that, yes indeed, 5 per cent more women working
part time would be covered, but being covered means that they will
be paying, but as far as being entitled to benefits, that is a different
2731
story. On the other hand this bill will be very harmful for 25 per
cent of those who now work 15 to 34 hours a week.
And I have not yet mentioned artists, artisans and all those who
barely survive on government programs, as well as pilots and flight
attendants. There would not be time enough, 40 minutes would not
suffice to name all those who will be affected.
It is a radical transformation we are witnessing here and that
transformation is contrary to the intention which prevailed when
the unemployment insurance program was created. I would like to
quote part of the speech Prime Minister Bennett made, in 1935,
when he first tabled that bill. He said: ``To meet new needs, we will
have to modify our capitalist system-we were just coming out of
the great crash of 1929-and make it into a more useful instrument
for the people. You will be studying measures creating a global
plan which will reduce the present social and economic inequalities
and distribute the benefits of the capitalist system more equitably
among the various classes of our society and among the various
regions of the country''.
(1120)
Since the 1971 reform, we have witnessed a continuing
reduction of benefits. I must say that it started under the
Conservatives and the most serious change was cutting the system
off from the consolidated revenue fund. That was bad enough.
Researchers came before us and told us that an unemployment
insurance system has an important stabilizing effect and we realize
that when we look at others around the world. It has an economic
stabilizing effect benefiting society as a whole, and it also has a
redistributing effect. Over time maternity benefits and health
benefits were added to the system. They are now adding in this
so-called reform training benefits, which will no longer be paid
from the consolidated revenue fund, but by the unemployment
insurance fund. When we consider all of this, we wonder, we do not
understand why the government reduced the maximum insurable
earnings.
It is not difficult to understand. It means that from now on,
workers who make over $39,000 a year, will no longer contribute to
unemployment insurance after that limit. They will pay on the first
$39,000, but nothing after that. This is totally illogical. This is
exactly the reverse of what we are doing with income tax.
With income tax, the more you earn, the more you pay. For
unemployment insurance contributions, the more you earn, the less
you pay. Companies which are able to pay salaries of $39,000 or
more are the ones receiving this gift. A gift of some $500 million a
year is not inconsequential. Which employees and businesses will
pay for the equivalent of this gift? Employees who work from one
to 15 hours per week and small businesses.
It is not surprising small businesses are against these provisions.
They agree with the reduction of maximum benefits, and we can
understand their viewpoint, since a social viewpoint is something
else. But this reduction of maximum insurable earnings does not
make any sense.
Many researchers came to tell us as well that this did not make
any sense. It does not make sense because it reduces the pool of
contributors. It does not make sense either because, while the
government is making a huge gift to big businesses-a gift that
totally eliminates premiums when salaries are over $39,000-it
reduces by 0.05 per cent the premiums of contributors as a whole.
If we look at what this means in concrete terms, for a small
business, it will mean about $7 less per month for each worker if
his salary is $200, while the gift to big businesses is total
elimination of premiums. That goes against common sense, as is
the case for a major part of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Fifteen minutes.
Mrs. Lalonde: There is so much I could say about this bill.
Researchers came to tell us this is a leap in the dark, because if
you ask one economist to examine the effect of this measure, he
will tell you one thing, but if you ask another economist to examine
the effect of this measure, he will tell you something else. At least,
Mr. Audenrode of Laval University said clearly: ``It is not so much
any specific measure that concerns me but the extent and
complexity of the proposed reform. If one can easily imagine the
impact of a specific modification to one aspect of a given system, it
is almost impossible to imagine the consequences of a reform as
far-reaching as the one being proposed''.
(1125)
He went on to say: ``I am unable to give you even an indication
of what would be the impact of the proposed reform, and I honestly
think that no economist can do so''.
When I asked senior officials what they thought of that
statement, they told me: ``We in the department have an enormous
file but we, of course, built this proposed reform on an econometric
model''. That is the problem. What is the hurry? Why take the
chance of seriously hurting regions and people, when there is no
hurry? Why is there no hurry? Because the $5 billion surplus that is
forecast for the end of this year without the reform would be less if
the reform goes ahead. It would go down to $4.5 billion, so there is
no hurry.
2732
The Minister of Finance cannot say: ``Hurry, Hurry, Hurry. The
deficit is at stake''. That is not true. This year, the reform will
reduce the surplus by $1 billion. This figure comes from the
Department of Human Resources Development itself. I even took
the trouble of confirming it with the actuary, to make sure I was
reading it right.
On page 6.6 of the most recent summary of the unemployment
insurance account, it says that, as expected, revenues from current
contributions for 1996 amount to $19.801 billion. Note 2 adds the
following that since premiums are collected on the basis of the
maximum weekly insurable earnings-reduced without having
passed any legislation to that effect-the government currently
collects less money than what the act provides. Consequently,
expected premiums should reach $18.806 billion, or one billion
less.
So, this year, the reform will result in a $1 billion shortfall. Why
hurry to take such an enormous risk? As the researcher mentioned,
it is a leap in the dark.
He adds: ``All these financial estimates are made by applying the
new parameters to existing patterns''. However, as he points out,
these patterns will change. For example, I do not agree with the fact
that people who currently work up to 15 hours per week are not
covered by an unemployment insurance system. Yet, from now on,
these people will have to pay premiums, unless they earn less than
$2,000-and I will get back to this-but will not be entitled to
benefits.
What will restaurant owners do? It is true that a large proportion
of their peak hours staff works less than 15 hours. We all know how
things works in a restaurant. Albert the waiter gets a phone call:
``Come. Stay home. The restaurant is full. It is quiet''. When
restaurant owners will have to do all the related accounting, do you
think they will continue to hire students? No. This is why the
student federation asked for an exemption.
We have to realize that even though those who earn less than
$2,000 will get a refund for their premiums, this repayment will
only take place the following year, when they file their income tax
returns. Students can no longer get an exemption. Their tuition fees
are increasing, but they will be deprived of an amount equivalent to
the unemployment insurance premiums they will have paid. They
definitely do not need that.
(1130)
Behaviour will change. Some jobs will disappear. We can hope
that weekly wages will go up, but one very important thing is that it
will be at a cost. Why has the time not been taken? There is no rush.
Or are they in such a rush to reduce benefits from $445, the present
amount, to $413, which is what they will be when the new act
comes into force.
Are they in such a hurry that they must take the risk they are
taking? Let us not forget that the unemployment insurance system
is the best way to stabilize the economy. What is stabilizing about
it? The benefits, the premiums, play no small role, according to
Peter Duncan, associate professor, Department of Economics,
University of Toronto. It is an excellent stabilizer, better than
income tax, much better than income tax. The benefits have a
stabilizing effect. What does the government do? I repeat, it
reduces benefits by $4.4 billion over a period of five years.
Why is the government lowering the maximum insurable
earnings. Many researcher said they were worried about this
change. Is it because the government wants to leave the lucrative
market of workers earning over $39,000 to the private insurance
sector? is it because, as the deputy minister told us, of these $900
million paid by workers and businesses for those earning between
$39,000 and $42,400, a very large portion remains in the Fund?
The deputy minister had the nerve to say that those earning over
$39,000 were less likely to lose their job and that they would
withdraw only $200 million of the $900 million paid. It is good that
those who have higher and more stable earnings contribute to the
general economic and financial balance, while at the same time
paying their share for maternity leave, educational leave and so on.
This unemployment insurance plan is the only mechanism
carrying people over from one job to the next. With this bill, the
government is making it twice as hard for those who are already on
the labour market to qualify, and three times as hard for young
people, women, immigrants, the sick and anyone who is not
already on the labour market.
Why make access more difficult? Why divide the applicable
earnings by a fixed divider or by the number of weeks worked,
which can only have the effect-the effect sought by the
government, it said so itself-of reducing benefits? Why reduce
benefits? Why reduce the number of weeks? Why make access
more difficult when already less than 50 per cent of the
unemployed are covered by this plan?
Is it not obvious that this is messing up not only the stabilizing
effect it has on the economy as a whole, but also whatever little
protection enjoyed by those who are not rich or do not have the
armour-clad job security public service employees have? It is the
only protection they have; they have nothing else.
As you know, between 25 and 30 per cent of all Canadian
workers rely on the unemployment insurance system each and
every year. This bill will affect millions of people.
(1135)
Why is the government in such a hurry? Why did it gag the
opposition as it did? We did not get to debate the bill in second
reading. Six 10-minute speeches. We were gagged at committee
stage, and again at report stage. All the time we have for third
reading is one day and, on the government's side, since they are
2733
gagging us instead of having the decency to let us speak, they are
taking their sweet time. That is disgusting, because there is no rush.
Why are they in a hurry? There is something fishy, do you not
think? Why do you think they are in such a hurry to cut
contributions and benefits, when all those concerned, all the groups
at various levels are protesting and asking that they not go so fast,
but rather take the time to consult them and to develop a real
program? What is the rush? Why are they in such a hurry to cut $1
billion in contributions? Why are they in such a hurry to see
minister Martin reduce his deficit?
Whether the reform takes place or not, next year more will be
added to the $5 billion surplus already accumulated in the
unemployment insurance fund. This can certainly not explain the
government's haste.
We must however note that, having done everything it could, up
to and including using its parliamentary powers to the limit, the
official opposition did not succeed in making government listen.
It should be pointed out that there have been demonstrations like
we had not seen in a very long time. These protestors, in Quebec
and especially in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-considering
all the demonstrations, the 40,000 postcards we tabled, the
petitions, the number of people who have expressed their
opposition largely exceeds 100,000-succeeded in slightly
softening the blow, because what was totally disgraceful has been
slightly changed. However, the total package remains
unacceptable.
Throughout the day, my colleagues will focus on measures like
this one. Indeed, those with two jobs will be able to take all their
hours of work into account, but should be wary of voluntarily
leaving one of their two jobs because they would then lose all the
insurable weeks of work accumulated until then. This is a measure
that totally contradicts the spirit the government claims is behind
this reform.
What is most dangerous and difficult is hearing hon. members
opposite brag about this reform. What I understand, and what some
are happy about, is that they managed to modify certain measures
so that they are no longer totally disgraceful. They are quite happy
with that, although the total package remains unacceptable. They
could have carried out a real reform. They could have maintained
the maximum insurable earnings or increased them. They could
even have made a distinction between maximum benefits and
maximum insurable earnings, as is done in the tax system and in
other areas. It is not because people some will contribute more that
they will be entitled to receive larger benefits in various areas. But
they did not have the right to sabotage something Canadians and
Quebecers care about, their security, which they are willing to pay
for.
The poll results that appeared in this morning's Le Devoir are
extremely interesting, despite the trouble we had breaking through
the sound barrier. To the question: ``Who will benefit the most from
UI reform?'', 79 per cent of respondents answered ``the federal
government itself''. To the other question: ``In the case of Quebec
workers, would you like the UI program to be administered by the
Quebec government?'', 74.5 per cent answered yes.
(1140)
People now understand that a true reform is possible and that,
with this one, Quebec workers are being deprived of the
much-praised ``Canadian spirit'' of sharing the disadvantages and
consequences of unemployment.
Quebec workers, like their counterparts in Atlantic Canada,
understand that this reform will reduce interregional adjustments
and impede efforts to reduce the gap between the haves and the
have-nots. Quebecers value the system, as the poll showed, and I
think that if we put the same questions to Canadians, we will get
the same results: Canadians value the system. Quebecers value it
and they feel the best way to avoid its deterioration is to take it
over.
Personally, I regard as a failure the fact that members opposite
refused all discussion. They failed to save what deserved to be
saved in this country we want to keep as a partner.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as I was listening to the speeches of my hon. colleagues
from the government and the Bloc, I was struck by the chasm that
exists in our country. Essentially the Bloc looks at this legislation
as a welfare scheme or as a guaranteed annual income, but the
notion of employment or unemployment insurance is secondary to
income support.
The government, represented by the parliamentary secretary to
the minister, the member for Kenora-Rainy River, who, on
introduction of third reading of a bill of such import and
magnitude, was exceedingly brief in his comments. He managed to
say nothing in 12 or 13 minutes while the member representing the
Bloc was able to say it in 40 minutes.
This unemployment or employment insurance creature has been
flopping around in the body politic for years and years. It took its
early form, the revision of unemployment insurance, in the now
famous Forget report. The Forget report, as everyone realizes, is
collecting dust somewhere in the murky, musty archives of
Parliament. Forget said it would not be a bad idea if unemployment
insurance was just that. That was the idea behind employment
insurance in the first place.
2734
This new government decided that the cornerstone of its renewal
of social programs would address employment insurance. It would
do what it had to do and return unemployment insurance to its
lofty ideals of being employment insurance.
What do we have here? We have half a loaf. What we really have
is an abdication of leadership, an abdication of responsibility, an
abdication of the necessity on the part of people elected to
Parliament to speak honestly, to lead, to do what is right for the
country and for future generations.
What is this all about? I can best describe this by referring to the
most obvious change in this legislation. For years in Canada we
have had unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance was
supposedly insurance paid for by employees and employers to
protect those who were without jobs on a temporary basis while
they were looking for new jobs.
(1145)
What do we do? We change the name. Did we change anything
else? Perhaps. What is the cornerstone? `Poof', we change the
name from unemployment insurance to employment insurance.
This name change is to put the emphasis where it should be, on
employment, and `poof', magically all the problems are to
disappear. Guess what? They will not disappear. They will stay
right where they are, festering in the middle of the body politic in
Canada because we are not addressing them honestly. We are not
dealing with the real problems. All we are doing is skirting around
the politically correct edges.
Once again we have the opportunity to actually do something.
Once again we do not. First and foremost, the responsibility for
training, for unemployment insurance, is a provincial
responsibility, not a federal responsibility. It should rest closest to
the people. It should rest in the provinces.
What is the responsibility of the federal government? The
responsibility of the federal government is to look at our nation and
ensure that where employment opportunities exist in one part of the
country, it is possible for people to get there. We remove barriers
for the movement of people. Jobs do not go to the people, people go
to the jobs. Water does not run up hill, water runs down hill.
During the course of human history, when has it ever worked that
someone would reverse the natural dynamics of nature and have it
work in the long term? That is not the way it works.
Let me give an illustration. Over the past six or so years, 87 per
cent of the new jobs created in Canada were created in the two
western most provinces, British Columbia and Alberta. Yet those
two provinces have only 22 per cent of the population.
Ontario and Quebec combined in the same period created 14 per
cent of the new jobs, yet they have approximately 67 per cent of the
total population of the country.
Let us figure this out. If British Columbia and Alberta over the
past few years have created and accounted for 87 per cent of the
new jobs created in Canada, and generally speaking Alberta and
B.C. are not areas of high unemployment and therefore do not get
the benefit and their citizens have to work longer in order to
qualify, what is it about the current system enhancing a situation in
which the provinces with the lowest rate of employment, the
maritimes, continue to suffer?
Are we creating dependence? It seems the evidence is very clear.
It has been clear since the 1970s, since some muddled thinking that
somehow we can evolve through a situation of the equality of
circumstance. The bottom line is we have the equality of
opportunity. Circumstance is earned. It is regrettable but true that if
someone lives in a part of the country that does not have an
employment base and has not had an employment base, it is very
likely it will not have an employment base.
If someone wants better for their children, it is evident the
children or the family will have to make whatever adjustments to
their lives are necessary in order to see that better future. That is the
way it has been on earth since the beginning of time.
(1150)
How does one suppose we came to Canada in the first place?
Does anyone believe my ancestors came from Ireland, Scotland or
wherever because things were good? Of course not. They came to
Canada for a better opportunity for themselves and their children.
Why does anyone think people moved from one part of the country
to another? It was for the opportunity for themselves and their
children.
While we try to create a situation in which water will flow up hill
and we see from evidence that it does not flow up hill, we see that
by creating dependence all it does is foster the need for more
independence, why should we be surprised when we keep coming
back to these same problems time after time?
In his opening remarks the member for Kenora-Rainy River
referred to the introduction of this act, changes to unemployment
insurance, as part of the social program envelope. That is the
problem. Employment insurance is not a social program.
Employment insurance is no more a social program or should be no
more a social program than automobile insurance is a social
program; insurance is insurance.
Employment insurance should be exactly that, employment
insurance. The premiums should reflect the risk. The insurance
paid should reflect the amount of money paid in and the period of
2735
time over which that money has been paid in. It should have some
bearing somewhere on reality.
If we are not using the unemployment insurance system for
anything other than unemployment, how do we go about getting
money to those Canadians who must have it? If that means we will
have a guaranteed annual income, that we will call it welfare and
that we have to do whatever we have to do but deal honestly and do
it, that is how this debate should be framed and that is what we
should be talking about.
However, to put together a program called unemployment
insurance which is paying out, as members from the Bloc have
pointed out, this year alone about $5 billion more than is being
taken in into general revenues, that is nothing more than a tax. That
is a top line payroll tax that goes right into the federal treasury
which is a job killer of the first magnitude.
Why do I say it is a job killer of the first magnitude? It is because
in my past and real life I am an entrepreneur. I have had to live with
licence fee increases for the cost of being in business.
Unemployment insurance has absolutely diddly squat to do with
the profitability of a business. We are not paying these taxes based
on how profitable we are. We are paying these taxes based on how
many people we employ.
In a certain circumstance where a business is barely hanging on,
like that proverbial cod fish on the Grand Banks, by its fingernails,
as many small businesses are doing on daily, monthly basis, when
the cost of staying in business goes up because the government
imposes yet another tax that has nothing whatsoever to do with
profitability, what does an employer do?
(1155)
Employers look at the books and say this will end up costing us
$30,000 a year in payroll taxes. For them to get $30,000 a year they
will have to increase their sales. If they make a 5 per cent or a10 per cent profit on their bottom line, that means they will have to
increase their revenue by 10 times or 20 times to accommodate the
increased taxes. In many cases that does not work out to a 1 per
cent increase in gross sales but to a dramatic increase in gross sales
in order to get enough profit to trickle down to the bottom line in
order to pay yet another tax.
What do they do? They do not simply get up in the morning and
say ``I see my costs have gone up and so I will raise my prices''.
The trouble is they cannot raise their prices. Most businesses are
not suffering from a lack of competition. There is no price
elasticity in the vast majority of businesses.
What happens? The only thing that can possibly happen. If their
costs have increased by $30,000 they will have to reduce their
expenses by $30,000. Can they reduce their rent? No. Can they
reduce all the other fixed costs? No. What is the variable?
Employees. Another full time job is lost. They could have more
part time workers. They are paying the payroll taxes but instead of
having a 40 hour work week, everybody will get paid on an hourly
basis for the hours they actually work. It is a vicious circle. There
will be more part time employment.
That this is not as obvious as the nose on the face of the
government is a reflection that the vast majority in this place have
never signed a paycheque. They do not have a clue as to how our
economy works or why it works. That is what keeps getting us into
this mess time after time. To take $5 billion a year out of the
economy on a payroll tax so the government can look better on its
deficit projections is wrong. It is wrong for the country. It creates a
vicious circle. There will be less employment, not more.
How does the current unemployment system work? Will this
change anything? Many employees in the system do not look at
being on unemployment insurance as a temporary transition
measure. It is not considered wrong to use unemployment
insurance as a transition method to go from one job to another. If a
person does not like their job they will go on pogey until they get a
new job.
Employers use the system to lay people off. It is easier to say to
someone ``we will lay you off. I do not want to fire you and have a
confrontation. We will get busier again in the summer. Maybe we
will hire you again and maybe we will not''.
Unemployment insurance today is misused by employers and
employees. People working on a full time basis in a job that does
not pay significant income, which encompasses virtually all of the
people in the service sector in our country, may find themselves in
a catch-22 situation. They may be earning around $15,000 a year
and paying unemployment insurance to subsidize those who work
on a seasonal basis and may earn $30,000 or $40,000 a year.
(1200)
If someone is earning on a seasonal basis twice as much as
someone working on a full time basis, is it appropriate for the
lower paid person to be subsidizing the incomes of those higher
paid people? It does not seem right to me. As a matter of fact, it
seems kind of dumb to me.
If unemployment insurance were put on the basis that had been
envisioned, it would be insurance paid by the employee and a tax
on employers. If the premiums reflected the use of the program,
that is, the number of times people dipped in and came out of the
program and how much they took out of it, it would be the kind of
program it was intended to be.
Another concern has been raised by the changes in the bill. How
do Canadians who need to get into the employment base get
training? Where does the money come from? As it stands, one
cannot access programs delivered by UI unless one has an
attachment to the labour force. What about all the people who do
not
2736
have attachment to the labour force? How do they go about
qualifying for these programs?
We have to look at our responsibilities as a nation and figure out
how we can best provide entrepreneurs and businesses with a
population well educated and highly trained in a diverse range of
skills. How best can this be done in harmony with the provinces?
How can we address the needs of training, upgrading and the
provision of skills to those Canadians most in need?
I speak now specifically of persons with disabilities. They are
totally left outside the loop on this. How can they be provided with
the tools which will allow them to be trained and retrained in the
workforce leading into the 21st century and what will be the nature
of the work?
We will have to decide whether we are going to address issues
honestly. As the nature of work changes, the skill level required to
be able to participate in a meaningful way and to make a good
income is going to require consistent change, training and
retraining. A good number of workers who through no fault of their
own, or through misguided promises by people in political office,
will find themselves on the outside looking in.
As we look to the nature of work there will be fewer and fewer
people making more and more money. The middle class will
continue to erode and there will be a polarization, which is already
taking place today, between the haves and the have-nots in our
society. It is because of the changing nature of work.
(1205)
If we accept this premise to be true-there are those who would
say that it is not true-then we will have to wrap ourselves around
the notion that it is our responsibility to consider ways to ensure a
minimum level of income for all Canadians. This would ensure
dignity and provide a foundation so the immediately affected
generation and future generations would not get caught in the spiral
of ever-increasing dependency, of intergenerational dependency on
others for their self-respect or their sense of well-being or their
daily bread.
We must have a country in which our interdependence is built on
a foundation of independence. A foundation of independence
cannot be established in a country that fosters the notion of the
equality of circumstance.
Our responsibility is to ensure that people have opportunity by
providing education and training. It is up to the individual to make
use of that education and the training. If individuals are not
prepared or are incapable of doing that, then we would not have the
equality of circumstance. The thinking of the sixties, no matter
how utopian the ideal is, cannot be delivered. It is not honest to
suggest that it can be delivered because it cannot. To my
knowledge, never in the history of the modern world has any
regime been able to deliver on that promise.
I would like to reflect on the importance of this bill and how it
made its way through the parliamentary system and on the effect of
closure.
Closure may have a more insidious potential in the body politic
than just getting legislation through the House or just preventing
members from having the opportunity to get on their feet and say a
few words about it. It is my opinion that items such as this bill or
anything which comes through the ministry that is responsible for
this bill, which accounts for the vast proportion of all the
discretionary spending on the social side of the envelope, is by far
the most important side.
Last week we dealt with Bill C-33 concerning sexual orientation.
It was explosive. It was a sad day for many people on both sides of
the House. It went through in very short order and now it is over
and done with.
(1210)
However, the legislation we are talking about today really speaks
to the kind of society we will have in a pluralistic sense. With this
bill and others that come through HRD, we talking about how we
can fashion a society that rewards entrepreneurship and initiative,
but at the same time looks after those who are less able to look after
themselves. That is the measure of a society. The worth of a society
is measured by how it looks after the weakest, not the strongest.
As these debates take place we must be cautious of what we are
doing. The foundations put down today are the ones that will allow
the economy to grow and prosper. It can be done, in my opinion, by
ensuring that nothing robs individual Canadians of the
responsibility, the ability or the desire to provide for themselves,
their children and their future. As a society we should recognize
our responsibility to the common good to look after those who need
help and make the distinction between wants and needs. We look
after those in need. Those in want must look after themselves.
Mr. Nault: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like to let
the House know that throughout the rest of the day on third reading
of this bill, members on the government side will be sharing their
time equally, 10 and 5.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-12, the
legislation to bring into being Canada's new employment insurance
system.
Of the many improvements brought about by Bill C-12, the most
important is its impact on Canada's young people. Youth is a
priority concern for the government's job and growth agenda and
Bill C-12 neatly reflects that concern.
The employment insurance legislation not only provides more
effective treatment for young workers in terms of benefits, but also
provides positive, active measures to help young people get and
2737
keep good jobs. For young people a great problem with the
current UI system is that it often fails to recognize their actual
working effort.
UI measures work in terms of weeks which is a very poor
measure of time spent on the job, particularly for part time workers
and multiple job holders.
Within the hours based system provided in Bill C-12, part time
workers earnings are insured and four out of ten part time workers
are under 25 years of age. Another inequity under UI has been the
employer's tendency to limit part time employment to less than15 hours per week per person in order to avoid having to pay UI
premiums. For many young people this has meant not only do they
get less work, but that their earnings are not insured.
Employment insurance eliminates this 15-hour trap. All hours
will now count toward eligibility. More young people who enter the
labour market after leaving school and who must rely on a number
of small jobs to earn a living will now have insurable work.
Further, an impact which particularly benefits young people is
the fact that employment insurance also reduces the risk of workers
developing a dependency on employment insurance. Far too many
young people come into the labour market and end up on UI
benefits before completing their education. Then they find
themselves in another sort of trap where they work long enough to
qualify for benefits then go without work for as long as the benefits
last.
(1215)
The new employment insurance system will discourage this
behaviour pattern. It will in fact encourage young people to
complete their education rather than dropping out to take short
term, often low paying work that does not lead to career
advancement.
Higher entrance requirements under employment insurance
encourage young people to develop a stronger attachment to the
labour market. We have heard loud protests from the opposition
about the concept of higher entrance requirements. Far from being
draconian, these very measures have been recommended to the
government by many many groups.
For example, two recent reports were quite specific. The report
of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
recommended longer qualifying periods to encourage young
workers to remain attached to the workforce longer and to improve
their career prospects. The working group on seasonal work and
unemployment insurance also recommended stiffer entrance
requirements for young people.
In the process of designing this legislation, the government
listened to the concerns of Canadians in all regions and all walks of
life in more than two years of consultations. Town hall meetings,
seminars and policy workshops were held. Phone lines were
opened and the Internet was put to work. Through these and other
channels including open line radio shows, Canadians told us what
they wanted. It was social security reform.
The minister invited the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development to further examine ways to improve the
legislation. More than 100 witnesses from across the country were
heard and nearly 150 briefs were received, analysed, digested and
studied very carefully by members of the committee. The purpose
once again was to listen carefully to Canadians' views on fine
tuning the employment insurance legislation to ensure that the
system is fair, to be sure that the system is balanced and reflects the
varying labour market conditions across the regions of Canada.
In this process the work incentive provisions of the bill have
been strengthened. Changes have been made to make the system
fairer to youth, fairer to women, fairer to the low income families
and fairer to workers in seasonal industries.
There are other ways in which Bill C-12 will benefit young
people. Contributions to EI for example will have minimal impact
on young people. For instance a student working 14 hours a week at
$7 per hour would pay less than $3 per week in premiums. The
hours will now be insured which will help meet entrance
requirements when entering the labour market full time. Premiums
will be refunded to about 625,000 young people, 49 per cent of all
of those who receive rebates. Of the total young people receiving
rebates, 400,000 will be full time students.
Again let us look at the benefit side. Total benefits paid out under
EI will be less and benefits paid out to young people by the year
2001-02 will decrease by 6 per cent. This is considerably less than
the forecast overall decrease of 9 per cent.
We should not forget that EI is a two pronged program: income
support for the unemployed coupled with employment benefits to
help people get back to work and to get productive work. Targeted
wage subsidies for example will help young people who qualify for
employment insurance benefits to get needed work experience to
qualify for more stable or permanent jobs.
The government has recognized the problems facing Canada's
youth and has set in motion a process leading to a national youth
strategy which will be announced this fall. The member for North
York has been appointed chairman of the ministerial task force on
youth which is now holding consultations to gather public input for
such a strategy.
(1220 )
The task force is now holding town hall type meetings across the
country hosted by local members of Parliament and senators. Such
a meeting is to be held in my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan on
May 23. In this way we can participate directly, solicit the views of
our constituents and our young people and shape an effective
2738
strategy to permit youth to fulfil their vital role in our future asa nation.
Bill C-12 and the government's initiatives for young people aim
at giving young people hope, hope that they will be better equipped
to take their rightful and productive place in the future of our
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will have
the opportunity to rise several times today to ask a question or
make a comment.
There is something bothering me in what the hon. member just
said. Could he tell me how seasonal workers will benefit from the
so-called training tools that he raved about at the end of his speech
and that are supposed to be included in this bill?
There seems to be an inconsistency in the member's speech.
First, Quebec has always maintained that manpower training
should come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I cannot see
how the federal government could boast about promoting
manpower training. Second, I represent a region that relies heavily
on seasonal industries. It is not our fault if the water is frozen in the
wintertime and we cannot fish. The same logic applies if you plant
or cut trees in the bush.
These workers have noble occupations too. They do not need
additional training to do their work. Sure, they learn and improve
their skills every year, but this in itself will not extend their season.
The purpose of training is to increase the work period. How does
the bill before us, and on which we will vote this evening, benefit
people from these regions?
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interesting
question the hon. member raised. The areas of concern he
presented have been discussed time and time again. There is
nothing new as far as the answers are concerned.
We know that training is going to be the responsibility of the
provincial governments. We know that the federal government will
become a partner in any model the provincial governments
develop. They will get the full support of the federal government.
The federal government in this bill definitely recognizes the
responsibility of the provincial governments in programs for
retraining, for the development of new skills, for the development
of new avenues of hope with our young people and even our more
elderly people who are searching for new careers. There is
provision in the bill for the opportunity to create new models for
those in seasonal employment situations, whether it be a
supplement or whether the individual who is unemployed takes
another type of job and receives a lower income which will be
topped off with supplements.
There are avenues available for the creative mind. All we have to
do, and the bill permits us to do it, is sit down in partnership and
come up with solutions in which all Canadians in these different
situations will benefit.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
a short question for the hon. member. First, I remind him that there
are many people who are unemployed in this country, and many
more, perhaps twice as many, who are on welfare. In the answer he
just gave to my colleague, the member essentially said that the
federal government should continue to do what it is doing, namely
to dump its responsibilities onto the provinces and let them fend for
themselves.
The government wants the provinces to provide job
opportunities to the unemployed and welfare recipients, through
their programs. However, it reduces its transfers to the provinces
by $7 billion.
(1225)
Does the hon. member agree that the federal government should
constantly offload onto the provinces the problems that it cannot
solve?
[English]
Mr. Dromisky: Madam Speaker, it is no shock to me the kind of
question that is being raised. The member from the Bloc party is
advocating that all responsibilities should be passed on to the
Quebec provincial government. Then when we do give more
responsibilities to the provincial government we hear complaints
that we are abdicating our responsibility from the federal level. You
cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, before I get into my own comments, I want to
commend you on the many interventions you have made on this bill
on behalf of the people in Madawaska-Victoria. I did not want
that to go unstated.
Every time I get up to speak to this bill and talk about some
amendments we have proposed I seem to get distracted. I must
admit to being distracted again.
My colleague from Gaspé in putting a question to my colleague
from Thunder Bay asked what this bill does for seasonal workers.
Very specifically, the bill puts value on their work rather than on
their week. Someone who works more than 35 hours a week
benefits from this bill. Even the CLC, which has not been an ardent
supporter of this piece of legislation from the beginning,
acknowledged that.
I am sure the economy in the riding of my colleague is not
significantly different from that of the province of New Brunswick.
2739
I am prepared to acknowledge and have acknowledged weaknesses
in the bill where they exist. However, I would also expect that we
have to acknowledge the existing strengths in the bill.
I believe the member specifically asked whether the government
expected to extend the seasons. No. What we need to do is to
extend the value of work. People who work 70 hours in a week
because they work in a seasonal industry should get the benefit of
those 70 hours of work. Those hours of work are very common in
the kinds of industries in the communities we represent. With this
bill, a 70 hour work week, based on conventional applications of
UI, is worth two weeks. It is that simple.
In my own constituency generally the result will be that someone
will get in with one and one-half fewer weeks of work because the
value will be on hours and they will get as much as two weeks more
of benefit. I accept the fact that if someone has not been a part of
the labour force it is going to be tougher. However, we have to
recognize where the value is.
I have mentioned the value of the shift from weeks to hours. In
our case I believe that 85 per cent or 87 per cent of the labour force
in the province of New Brunswick works more than 35 hours a
week. That speaks to how many people will be advantaged by this.
Another benefit is the low income supplement. Very specifically,
if the family income is less than $26,000 the benefits that will go to
that family will increase by up to 13 per cent. For a single person
that will not happen and I accept that, but let us recognize the
strengths in the bill where they exist.
Finally, with the human resources investment fund, people who
have not had access to programs before will have access to
programs because there is a reach back. I am sure the member for
Gaspé knows exactly what I am referring to. In the past, people
who were not eligible for benefits were not eligible for the
program. Now if someone has been on UI for the past three years or
on sickness or maternity in the last five years they will be eligible
for employment benefits. That is a significant improvement in the
program.
(1230)
I would like to get back to some of the comments by the member
from Edmonton. He spoke of the need for an honest debate. He
very nicely positioned himself and his party in terms of this debate.
Basically he said if one cannot find work in Cape Breton or
northern New Brunswick or in Quebec, move. They should where
the work is.
I find that an unacceptable solution. We have a larger obligation
than that. I have a lot of respect for the member from Edmonton
and we share similar views on many things, but we do not share
similar views on that.
He spoke of the need for a national guaranteed income. I have
supported that concept for many years. What would he say to those
people who say a national guaranteed income will create
dependency? Basically they will throw his argument right back at
him on that question. I would not throw that argument back at him.
I agree with those concepts. I agree we have a larger collective
responsibility to each other.
The hon. member referred to the fact that very often people take
UI just because they do not like their job. It has been my experience
that it is not the case. People on UI would much sooner be
contributing premiums than drawing benefits. As an Atlantic
Canadian, because from time to time that argument is thrown back
at us, I take great exception with the suggestion that people for the
most part are on UI as a choice. I do not know of very many people
who would not prefer to pay premiums than draw benefits.
There was a reference by the member about water running up hill
and something to the effect that there is no point in trying to impose
our political will on the natural order of things which would see
Canadians move to those places where the jobs are and that is a
natural law and cannot be affected. I draw a different analogy.
Essentially what the member was saying was that people are on
their own. Basically we have equal opportunity. They can go to
school and they can do all of these things. Fundamentally when all
is said and done they make their own way in this world.
I see it as the same analogy as throwing a baby off a boat into the
ocean as a way of teaching them how to swim. I do not see it that
way. I accept the challenge of the member that we should have an
honest discussion about this. I am certainly prepared to do that, for
that is not the way I see a country proceeding in a civilized way.
There was a reference to the fact that some parts of the country
do not have the economic base. They do not have the jobs. They do
not have the same economic viability as other parts. The reference
was they never have, they do not and they never will. That is not the
case.
Our part of the country which right now benefits from these
programs at one time had one of the most booming economies in
the world. We joined Confederation. Early in Confederation our
part of Canada was very affluent, very successful and by being part
of the broader country and buying into national policies basically
changed our trading patterns from north-south to east-west to help
develop the country. Consequently we paid a price for that.
For anyone to suggest somehow we are inherently non-viable, I
have a great deal of trouble with that. It is very shortsighted. New
Brunswick right now is on a bit of a roll. It is recognized in Canada
for getting its act together. Its economy is starting to grow.
2740
(1235)
However, if the government moves too quickly on these
programs it will close down the economies of the region. That is
why I felt so strongly that we had to pursue the amendments we
were able to accomplish. We cannot close down the economies of
our regions by moving too quickly on these programs. That is the
reason for the amendments.
I thank those who have contributed to the honest debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was
listening to the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury,
who is true to form, since I got to know him in the human resources
development committee, and I know that he was sincere in what he
just talked about. He seemed even to move you, Madam Speaker,
because the points he made related to an area that you come from
too.
In spite of all that he had a somewhat easier task today since he
was speaking after a Reform Party member who was obviously
attacking the unemployment insurance system head on. He found
himself in a somewhat awkward position, almost in the opposition,
and I would say to my hon. colleague from
Fredericton-York-Sunbury that I think he would feel more at
ease with us on this side of the House than on the other side.
Things being what they are, however, he is still sitting opposite,
on the government side. I know he made some efforts, and he put
forward a particular amendment. I am giving him a chance to talk
about his amendment because we are in the House and, after all, are
here to inform people. I know beforehand what he will say. I know
that the three amendments he put forward for the Liberals do seem,
at first glance, to soften a little the blow of the $365 million cuts,
but nevertheless the budget goal remains the same: to find $2
billion.
In order to compensate for the $365 million forgone because of
his three amendments, the government will have to go after abusers
and repeaters even more relentlessly, and the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury knows it. Abusers are abusers, and
all members agree that abuse should not be tolerated. But repeaters,
according to the government, will be those who are on UI for five
consecutive 20-week periods. They will get a one percentage point
penalty each time.
People who will be affected are seasonal employees in the hon.
member's area and in the Acadian peninsula we visited last year.
People asked us not to do that. I remember it vividly. Both the
member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and I were deeply
moved by these representations.
Today is a sombre day, because this bill provides for $2 billion in
cuts, even after amendments to soften the blow. Benefits will be cut
because the basic principle is still there. The one-week waiting
period has been abolished, but the reduced earnings week principle
remains. That will encourage more people not to report those
reduced earnings. Obviously, this is a golden opportunity for
abusers.
I have a question for the hon. member. He stood for the
unemployment insurance plan, and he fought tooth and nail to have
the minister make his bill less drastic. The hon. member managed
to get a few amendments in to soften the bill's impact, but despite
these amendments, this bill will take millions of dollars out of the
economies of the maritimes and of eastern Quebec. Is the hon.
member comfortable with this bill, sitting as he does on the
government side?
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Madam Speaker, I
now sympathize with my friend from Edmonton when my friend
from Lévis suggested I should be on the other side. We are always
saying he should be on the other side. I have an understanding as to
how confusing that might be.
The shift from weeks to hours will be beneficial to our region.
With our amendments to fix some of the mechanical problems in
the bill I believe it will be good for our region.
(1240 )
I recognize we will be taking a net $1.2 billion out of the system.
I know the member is aware that there are many people who
regularly draw benefits. I am not talking about fraud or misuse. I
am talking about the fact that a program was put forward which
allowed people who could not make enough money in a year to live
on to supplement their income. That is what a part of the program is
about. There are people who draw on the system who cannot make
that argument. We may disagree on how many.
As the member knows, $800 million is going back into
employment programs which will affect the income levels of
people in the system. Therefore I believe we can take $1.2 billion
out of the system and not negatively affect the program.
I have been engaged in the debate to make sure it happens at the
top, not at the bottom. That is what the amendment is all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank you for recognizing me on such a sad day. This is for the
official opposition the last chance to rise in this House and speak
against a reform that will affect all Canadians and all Quebecers.
2741
A lot of things have happened in this House, including the
unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Some of the
members of government at that time are still here and are about
to deal a severe blow to regions like mine. This will hurt not only
my riding, but also all the workers who now have the chance to
work. They stand to lose their jobs and be hard hit, if their
businesses were to go through a rough patch or the economy were
to take a downturn.
It is with an aching heart that I rise today in this House to say
again, loud and clear, what my constituents from the Gaspé area
came here to say, last week, in front of Parliament. These people
took a 32- hour bus ride at their expense, because the round trip
takes 32 hours. They came here to ask very peacefully to meet with
the Prime Minister in order to express their grievances, because
nothing in this bill gives them hope for a brighter future after July
1, the day on which this infamous bill comes into force.
Where can we find the strength, maybe it is born of despair, to
ask the government to understand their point of view and to
postpone this bill, because I think this is the night we will be asked
to sentence regions like mine to death? So, I rise today in a
last-ditch effort.
I will review all of the issues, one by one. First of all, I want to
mention the title of this bill, which is misleading. They call it
employment insurance, but nothing in this bill guarantees that jobs
will be created. On the contrary, it is more like deficit insurance.
The people on the other side have started to admit that they hope to
get more money out of the unemployed and to be able to set aside
$5 billion at the expense of the jobless. It is outrageous, it is a
disgrace. Five billion dollars.
There was a joke we used to tell when I was a kid. ``If someone
steals some chips in a store, he is called a thief''. But if someone
steals $5 billion, what is he called? A politician? I am not proud to
be a part of Parliament on such a tragic day.
(1245)
I would also like to mention three new irritants that will strike
directly at people in the regions. I am talking about the eligibility
rule, the rate of benefits rule and the intensity rule.
What does the eligibility rule provide for? A minimum of910 hours of work. We talked about this throughout the debate, but
each time, we were subjected to time allocation, that is, in other
words, we were gagged. What does the 910 hours eligibility rule
mean when one works in the regions and according to the seasons?
It means twenty-six 35 hour weeks. To my knowledge, there are not
many seasonal jobs that make it possible to work that long.
And what of the rate of benefits rule? They try to make us
believe that the irritants are now fewer. Does putting a plaster on a
wooden leg reduce the pain? No, it does not. The bill, as
introduced in the House after prorogation, provided for the
dividing of consecutive work hours. This is not true any more. Now
the work hours will be divided by the higher of the following: with
the unemployment rate in our region, 14 weeks, or if one is lucky
enough to live in a region with a lower unemployment rate, a
greater number of weeks or the period worked. But what is the most
vicious, I would say, is that this will have to be within a 26 week
period. This bill, once passed, will compel people to concentrate
their hours of work.
What will the construction worker tell me, in February, when I
ask him to go over to my house to repair the door knob, while I am
in Ottawa? He will tell me that he would prefer to see my door knob
break in May because May is included in his 26 week period of
work, and because he would then have the opportunity to group
together his weeks and to concentrate his hours of work. This was
just another example. Fishermen and lumberjacks are not the only
ones who will be affected. This is an important point.
The intensity rule is another measure that strikes directly at those
who work in regions. In an effort to soften this intensity rule, i.e.
the 5 per cent penalty, a limit was established and it was decided
that those with family earnings that are less than $26,000 in total
will be exempted from this rule. But I will come back on this issue
later.
How can someone who earns $26,000 and has a family of four
believe that he will have a decent life? He will only survive.
Therefore, I think the intensity rule will once again hit hard those
regions that depend on seasonal work.
It is sad, but I would like to remind our viewers that the official
opposition, in spite of its goal to promote sovereignty, has tried by
all acceptable and recognized parliamentary means available to do
its job and represent the people, to support victims of the job
shortage. But, every time we tried, we were prevented from doing
so. Every time we tried, we were gagged.
I tried in vain to extend a helping hand, to say that we need to
build a partnership, that we need to build a relationship based on
trust because I think the government needs the public's trust to be
able to implement such changes. Unfortunately, the members
opposite did not understand.
It is appalling or, should I say, frustrating for a parliamentarian
like myself who has tried to use all available tools. However, I
would like everybody in this House to know that it is much more
appalling and frustrating for the victims of the job shortage, who
will see their benefits reduced as of July 1.
(1250)
I fear the public's reaction. I am scared. I am even afraid, since
we do develop relationships in this House, that some of our Liberal
colleagues will have a very hard time when they go back to their
ridings after the House adjourns for the summer. Each one of these
2742
members will have to face his or her constituents. I hope they will
remember what happened on May 14. I sure hope so.
In closing, I would like to tell the government that, if it wanted
money, why has it not decided to get it from those who have large
salaries? As mentioned by the member for Mercier a few moments
ago, the maximum is being brought down from $43,000 to $39,000.
I would like to add that, while we are doing our job, people are
waiting.
Why have MPs not been asked to contribute to the fund? Why
have senators, who, I think, do not work much sometimes, not been
asked? The government could have taken contributions from their
salaries to give that money back to people who do want to work and
who do not sleep on the job.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Ontario
puts a significant amount of money into the system. For every $1
working men and women in Ontario put in, we receive 76 cents
back.
In 1993 Quebecers received $1.29 for every $1 they put into the
system. Under the new EI system they will receive $1.32 for every
$1 they put in. Based on how shameful the member feels it is, can
he explain to me what is so disgusting that for every $1 Quebec
puts in it gets $1.32 out of the system? Is that not fair? Is that not
equitable? Is that not compassion?
That is an important question to ask because coming from
Ontario where we get only 76 cents for every $1 we put in, we think
we are being very fair. We are trying to make the system work for
other regions that are have not. I would certainly like to know the
response of the member when we look at the raw facts and the
numbers. From 1993 to 1996 the amount Quebec is receiving has
gone up, not down.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate
that on the last day, on a day I should perhaps call a national day of
mourning for the people of one region, someone has the nerve to
stand up in this House and provoke us by comparing people from
different regions and making distinctions between people from
Ontario, from Quebec and from New Brunswick. Does he mean
that there are second class citizens in Canada?
I can hardly control my anger, but my anger is nothing compared
to what awaits them if they dare visit some parts of Canada where
people believe that their occupation is a noble one. If those people
are told that they must compare their situation to what Ontario
got-Madam Speaker, how is it that when the Department of
Industry allocates its research and development funds it is always
the same who receive the lion's share?
And they say that they paid to much in unemployment insurance.
This is shocking and appalling. There are words that I do not want
to use because I want to follow rules and because I want to be here
to vote against the bill.
Speaking about comparisons, we can say that we were had last
Thursday. The Minister of Fisheries chose to publish his new fee
schedule exactly at the time the Quebec government was bringing
down its budget. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did
say: ``Yes, it is true that in Quebec you are going to pay a little
more for the navigation aids that the Coast Guard will offer''.
When time comes to do some Quebec-bashing, they do not
hesitate, but they deny it. They do it when the media's attention is
on something else in Quebec City. But when times comes to face
the facts, they prefer to hide.
(1255)
How can we make them understand? I wanted in good faith to
work here. I wanted to make them understand, but, on the last day,
they want to make a comparison. If they want to compare apples,
let then let us compare apples, but when we are speaking of money
and remuneration like that, I wish they would put everything on the
table. This is not the case presently. They are making comparisons
about people who want to work but who, since there are no jobs,
need that economic stabilizer that unemployment insurance is.
I will conclude with the following point. Can you cut firewood in
downtown Toronto? Can you fish lobster and other species in
downtown Toronto? No. Tell us if we are not welcome there, and if
that is the case, so long, folks.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, from
here on, all those speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois will
limit their speeches to 10 minutes.
Following on my colleague, the member for Gaspé, I would also
like to add the voices of the constituents of
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to this debate. It is true that today is a
sad day for all Canadians and Quebecers. It is also sad for the
regions.
This is the last time we will be able to express our views about
this plan to reform unemployment insurance. I am therefore
speaking from the heart, but I do not expect to be any more
successful than my colleagues, who worked tremendously hard on
the human resources development committee, in getting the
government to budge. I realize that our cries are falling on deaf
ears.
2743
I must simply say to you that there is no need to rush at this
time. We could-and I implore the parliamentary secretary-we
could take the time to review the whole issue of unemployment
insurance.
For my region, it will mean approximately $25 million less in
the economy annually. And yet, we still have the highest rate of
unemployment in Canada, and have had for years. I must tell you
that this reform is unfair towards a region such as mine.
This is not what we need in the region. We do not need a blow
like this. What we need is help finding a solution. People from my
region are proud people who are not afraid to work. We want to find
a solution.
This reform is a direct hit on students, women, and seasonal
workers. And yet, they made their opinions known, they were
consulted, they even sent petitions here. What became of these
consultations? All across Canada, these consultations were just a
sham. No attention was paid to them, and why not? Because the
reform was based on preconceived ideas, on false principles.
They said to themselves ``Now then, we are going to reform the
system, for too many people are taking unfair advantage. There are
people who are cheating the system. We find it hard to understand,
there are jobs out there but nobody to take them''. Instead of
looking at this situation, the decision was taken to try to get at
everybody, yet it is not true that everyone is out to cheat the system.
(1300)
Moreover, at no time in the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, and even less so publicly, has the
government laid its impact studies on the reform out on the table.
They have been incapable of telling us what the effects of the
reform would be on students, on young people. There has been
nothing to show what the effect will be on seasonal workers.
It is only when the thing comes into effect that we will see that
perhaps somebody has goofed, that this might not have been the
way to go, but by then it will be too late. Far too many people will
have had to pay, and to pay through the nose, for this unjust reform.
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have said that, yes, reform
was needed, a review was needed, but the review needed to be fair
and honest and to allow everyone to benefit from it. That is why my
colleagues in the Bloc have moved amendments, amendments
which I am not even sure have been looked at properly.
I sat through six hours of the committee's meetings, and from
what I saw, the folks across the way paid no attention to what my
colleagues were saying. The apparent attitude was ``No problem,
we will just wait and see how it turns out. We have a plan, and that
is the way we will go''.
I think that they are on the wrong track, for this reform does
nothing more than to encourage people to hold down more than one
job, and the jobs involved are mainly precarious ones. This reform
will also bring pressure to bear on wages, not upward pressure, but
downward. This gives you an idea of what can happen.
Under the old system, seasonal workers, for example, had to try
to accumulate the required number of weeks in order to become
eligible. Under the new system, they will have to negotiate a
number of hours of work with their employer in order to reach the
required minimum. You can imagine easily what will happen in
small industries, in small and medium size firms where there are no
unions. This will cause serious problems between employers and
employees. This will have a negative impact on the reform as a
whole.
This piling on of salaries will inevitably lead to the creation of
``McJobs'' all over the place. They will say to someone: ``I offer
you ten hours of work this week, but do not come in next week.
Then the week after that you will again work ten hours''. This
vicious circle will prevent many people from becoming eligible.
The result will be that people will hold simultaneously an
increasing number of jobs. One ``McJob'' here, one ``McJob''
there, a better one in order to accumulate a sufficient number of
hours. This situation will lead to family unrest, since there will be a
social impact, because of irregular work schedules for instance.
This new work pattern or work schedules will force people and
families to adjust. Children and the mother are often the ones who
have to bear the consequences of such changes.
Since you are telling me that my time is almost up, I will
conclude by saying that this is a sad day, considering that we are
going to vote on this bill tonight.
I would like to tell you about three workers from back home who
recently explained their situation to a reporter.
(1305)
These people said, and I will be very brief: ``Instead of taking it
out on the unemployed, the government could come up with much
more effective decisions. It could take the surplus from the
unemployment insurance fund and try to create jobs, provide better
training and so on, by creating legislation prohibiting overtime for
example. Workers at Alcan have shown the federal government
that, with less overtime, jobs can be created. In this case, the
government must get involved, because the system has to get
started.
The workers at Alcan did it. More than 200 jobs were created,
and that is not counting indirect jobs. Moonlighting as well must be
monitored. The federal government missed the boat in failing to
keep its promise to create jobs.
2744
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on third reading debate of Bill C-12, the
employment insurance act.
I feel most privileged to have worked on the human resources
development committee examining the bill. I enjoyed the thrust of
debate with members opposite as we strove to improve the bill for
the benefit of all Canadians. I sincerely believe the bill and the
process undertaken speak well for democracy.
In my experience as a farm leader I appeared before many
parliamentary committees and in my experience as a
parliamentarian I have never seen such substantial changes made to
a bill in the interest of the people from whom we have heard.
Improving the bill to address the concerns of people is what this
process was all about. It has been a very long process.
The green book on social security reform was tabled a little over
two years ago. When that paper came down I held a couple of
public meetings. People were very concerned about the direction
that might be taken by human resources development in terms of
social security review. A committee went all across the country
with members from all parties in attendance. The committee heard
over 600 presentations. It heard a lot of concerns about the two tier
system and where we might be going on UI. It came back with what
I think was a wonderful report, on which part of this legislation is
based.
A seasonal industry task force was set up. Its report mentioned
how important seasonal industries are, that seasonal industries do
not work only during one season but create economies
downstream. They create full time jobs in industries other than
their own in terms of the products and services they need within the
seasonal industries. Seasonal industries are made up of full time
workers who are highly skilled and much needed in those seasonal
industries. The government took that to heart and took those issues
into account in terms of the preparation of the final stages of Bill
C-12.
When Bill C-12 was introduced I held public meetings in my
riding, as did many of my colleagues. We expressed as members of
the government our concerns internally and publicly on the bill. We
said publicly that there was a problem in terms of some areas as
they impacted on the seasonal industries, and we moved to correct
those changes.
We also recognized some very good points in the original bill. It
is an hour based system. It gets rid of the 15 hour job trap. The part
II benefits include $800 million for reinvestment in such programs
as wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment
assistance, job creation partnerships, skill loans and grants. Those
are important points.
(1310)
I have made it clear from the very beginning that scrapping the
bill was not an option. We are dealing with the realities of the turn
of the century. We need improvements to the bill and we will try to
achieve them. We must work as members of Parliament toward
improvements. The former minister and the current minister agreed
and showed an openness for change.
We heard concerns. One was from Jacinta Deveau:
At a time when corporations are making record profits and yet still laying
people off, now is not the time to start increasing qualifying times or decreasing
benefits particularly for those people who must resort to applying for benefits,
must do so for longer periods of time and in greater numbers; add this to the
competition for fewer and fewer numbers of jobs sought only not by those
people caught in the corporate downsizing and adjustment but those in seasonal
and non-full time job occupations and you have a recipe for disaster in the
Atlantic region generally and P.E.I. in particular.
We did not bury our heads in the sand when we heard that
concern. Government members moved to correct that concern. We
corrected it in several ways. That concern we corrected by fixing
the gap and improving the divisor. We are certain the employment
measures will move some distance to improving the job situation.
We did not take the position to scrap the bill. We listened and
moved to make improvements. That is very different from what I
have heard from members opposite.
The hon. member for Mercier, the critic for the Bloc, talked
about the lack of debate. On the night of the filibuster those of us
sitting on the government side wanted to debate the substantive
issues to see if there were other areas of improvement. Is the hon.
member asking us to do away with the employment measures
which will help people to get jobs? Is the hon. member asking that
we scrap the benefits for low income families? Is the hon. member
asking us to go back to a system which had within it a 15 hour job
trap that trapped mainly women in part time jobs? This bill
improves that situation. Members opposite should recognize that.
I will list some of the other improvements we have been able to
accomplish through this debate. Members on the government side
have fixed the gap, the dead weeks. We have managed by making
amendments to the legislation to take out of the calculation base
those weeks that would have been considered as zero earnings. We
have fixed that gap to the benefit of seasonal workers and of
workers generally.
We have changed the divisor to make it more uniform across the
country. It will be the regional rate plus a divisor of two. That does
two things. It sets some stability and it ensures for business that
there is an incentive out there for people to find work instead of
simply going on UI.
2745
We have fixed the intensity rule to a great extent. We have
ensured the intensity rule does not apply to low income families
with dependants. There will be a method of receiving an intensity
rule credit for those who work while on unemployment.
This is in part based on the concerns raised by some of the
people who have been demonstrating. In order to ensure that these
good amendments that Liberal members have made are secure into
the future, the power of a future minister to change the divisor by
regulation has been deleted from the bill. In the future changes will
be made in the House and not by the executive.
(1315)
I am pleased with what has been accomplished. I will admit that
one good amendment was moved by members opposite. We
supported and it was incorporated in the bill. It goes to show what
can be done if the opposition is more co-operative instead of saying
``scrap the bill''. We really do not want filibusters. We have made
great strides forward.
The minister said that the bill is not perfect, that there are some
areas of concern. However, as a government we do listen and we
make changes to meet the needs of people.
In closing, I would like to quote Alice Nakamura. I think she is
right on target:
You have proven wrong all those who told me this reform effort was a waste
of time. Bill C-12 tackles the serious problems with our present UI program,
making use of the best available research about how our labour markets and
social programs function. And it is a bill that pays careful attention to the real
life problems of transition. It strikes a careful balance between the desperation
of people who cannot find enough work and have depended on the income from
UI benefits and the desperation of economic analysts who recognize the threat
which trends in our present UI program pose for our economy and the future
employment prospects for Canadians.
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, the member
for Malpeque may have tried to console me a little bit by reminding
me that the Liberal majority had approved an amendment
introduced by the members of the Bloc. As the author of this
amendment, I only want to point out that this amendment was
about adding the two words community agencies, omitted by the
Liberal majority, as entitled to federal grants in order to create jobs.
I only wanted to ensure that they would not forget this important
aspect.
Despite this modest amendment, the only one they deigned to
accept out of some fifteen that were moved, one fact remains. Since
the member mentions it, I want to remind him that the Liberal
majority introduced 42 amendments in Committee. Those
amendments have been approved, of course, since they have a
majority. Those 42 amendments were introduced in committee-I
remember-by various Liberal members, sometimes by the
parliamentary secretary. When questioned on the substance of
these amendments, I must say that, most of the time, in 75 per cent
of the cases, it was public servants who answered. Why? Because
these amendments were obviously written by public servants. What
type of amendments were they? Technical amendments to reinforce
clauses of the bill, whether some members like it or not,
aimed-forgive my language-at catching more people
red-handed and at reinforcing penalties against those who abuse the
unemployment insurance system, but this is not said.
They say that they have improved the bill. Granted, but they do
not say that the objective was to eliminate such abuses. The three
amendments improve the system, but the three amendments
presented to the House could only be moved by the minister.
Everybody in the House knows it, but it is something we have to
say for the record because people outside the House do not know
this. We, in the opposition, have been criticized for failing to
propose any amendment. We were told that we were criticizing the
bill but had no amendment to propose. There is a parliamentary
rule that says very clearly that as soon as an amendment involves
changes of a financial nature, it amendment must be moved by a
minister of the crown.
This is why the opposition could not move such an amendment.
(1320)
You will understand that, otherwise, we would have proposed
quite a few amendments to eliminate the negative impact of the $2
billion in cuts which come on top of the $5 billion in cuts made as a
result of the previous federal budget and Bill C-17. I wanted to
make this comment.
Now, for my question. In her speech, to which the member for
Malpeque listened, the member for Mercier reminded the House of
a statement, to my knowledge the only statement, by the economic
development minister of his own province, Prince Edward Island,
who said how bad it was going to be for the economy of Prince
Edward Island, which is a top performer in the area of job creation.
I would say that in Prince Edward Island, apart for government
services, jobs are only seasonal.
There is no farming in winter. He pointed that out. Fishing too is
only in the summer. And as far as tourism is concerned, people who
like PEI come mainly in the summer. Does the member agree with
the statement made by the economic development minister of his
own province, who said that this bill was bad? Also, does he agree
with the government's figures according to which, from now on,
Prince Edward Island, with a population of only 170,000, will lose
$11 million every year?
2746
[English]
Mr. Easter: Madam Speaker, the member is just about
filibustering. The amendments that we accepted concerning
community organization were important. We saw them as such.
They are two very important words.
We did listen to the discussion of Bloc members opposite on the
gap and we fixed it.
I want to get to the point-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate. The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, the government has made jobs and growth a
priority. That is the underlying theme behind the reforms of the
new employment insurance system. Coupled with this theme is the
need to create a fairer and more balanced system.
The people of Guelph-Wellington support the government's
endeavours to encourage a greater effort to help find Canadians
work and to achieve a system that is more affordable and easier to
administer. They know that deficit reduction cannot be successful
if it is accomplished solely on the backs of the unemployed. They
also recognize the inefficiencies of the old system.
Reforms to employment insurance are a part of the government's
efforts to restructure the federal government. This is a unique time
in our nation's history. The federal government is responding to
communities like Guelph-Wellington that have told us to make
the system fairer and more balanced.
Let us look at the highlights of this legislation. Changes have
been made to make the system fairer to youth, to women, to low
income families and to workers in seasonal industries. Tough
measures have been brought in to crack down on fraud and most
important, work initiatives have been strengthened.
I am not happy with the level of unemployment in Canada. Just a
few moments ago I was talking to a colleague from Quebec who is
also not happy with those levels.
My own community's unemployment rate is approximately 8 per
cent. I find that unacceptable. I know that people in
Guelph-Wellington want to work. They want to provide for
themselves and their families. From the outset I have encouraged
the government to go beyond simply offering basic income support
for people in my community who unexpectedly find themselves out
of work. Unemployed Canadians must be given a better chance to
get back into the job market.
This legislation addresses the fact that not every worker in
Canada has uninterrupted weeks of work to qualify for maximum
benefits. In this regard I have worked closely with construction
workers. The building trades, by the very nature of their positions,
work hard. The harder they work the faster they put themselves out
of work. They have asked for changes to remove disincentives and
changes to reward people for their work. They know that the
previous system encouraged fraud and promoted the underground
economy. Simply put, by encouraging people to work we can help
drive the underground economy above ground. That is good news.
It will encourage further government revenues and ensure that the
workers are paid the wages that they deserve.
(1325)
This legislation also makes the system fairer to youth, to women
and to low income families. We have moved to counting hours of
work instead of weeks, a direction supported by the building trades.
In my discussions with constituents it was clear that whether a
person worked 15 hours a week or 50 hours, both were treated the
same under UI. We needed to address the reality that Canadians no
longer work a 9 to 5 day, Monday to Friday.
Many of my constituents are holding down several jobs with
different employers or work on contracts for periods of time. The
one measure of work that means the same to everyone is the hour.
The hour is the very same. The hours based system better reflects
the new economy. It will insure a growing segment of Canada's
workforce that currently has no protection whatsoever. With this
important addition, 500,000 part time workers will have their work
insured for the very first time, a move that will benefit woman and
youth in particular. I hope that my Bloc friends will agree with that
move.
It means that women working part time or earning a living at
several jobs will now qualify for maternity benefits for the first
time, a move that will strengthen the value of family and work.
This provision alone recognizes the importance of the household
and the Canadian family.
The legislation also includes a family income supplement for
families with children earning less than $26,000. Certainly this is
good news for families in Guelph-Wellington and across Canada.
I appreciated the special significance of the seasonal industry.
Under the hours based system 45,000 workers, who today cannot
qualify for unemployment insurance, will now qualify to receive
benefits. I am pleased to quote the building construction trades
represented by the Canadian office of the AFL-CIO: ``We
suggested a UI program where every hour worked and every dollar
earned counted. The government has listened''.
No discussion of employment insurance can be complete
without paying some attention to the issue of fraud. Regrettably
there are those who take advantage of our system. The vast
majority of Canadians that collect unemployment insurance are
doing so because they need some assistance while looking for
work. They do not want to be unemployed and they are anxious to
return to work. They understand the dignity of work to which the
Prime Minister so often refers.
2747
This legislation sends a strong message that fraud will not be
tolerated. This applies to both individuals and employers.
Companies that knowingly defraud the system will face stiffer
financial penalties. If the company cannot pay the price its
corporate directors will be held accountable for the loss. These
ideas are new and they are necessary.
I continue to raise concerns brought to my attention by
individuals, business people and unions. I am pleased that the
minister has recognized a need to monitor these changes. The
government will measure the impact of these reforms on Canadians
workers, businesses and communities. The minister has
acknowledged the need to see how Canadians are adjusting.
Quality control efforts will mean that the employment insurance
commission will make an annual report to the minister through its
examination of how Canadian workers, communities and the
economy are making the adjustment. I urge them to pay careful
attention to the underground economy. We must continue to ensure
that what we do does not encourage its growth.
The government has listened and we will continue to listen to
make a system that is fair and balanced, fair for users, fair for
taxpayers and fair for business. Through these changes we have
been responsive to the balanced approach of jobs and growth and
deficit reduction. Unemployment affects all of us, everyone.
(1330 )
We must continue to pay close attention to our core values as
Canadians. These include fairness, balance and the dignity of work.
Bill C-12 deserves our support.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, our Liberal
colleague showed us the true objective of this bill. It is called the
employment insurance bill, but as you have seen, there was an
underlying concern to all her comments; the purpose of the new
measures is to fight against abusers or pseudo-abusers.
The new Minister of Human Resources Development, when he
first appeared before the committee, indicated that he wanted to
ease the rules, but when he appeared the second time, told us about
an extraordinary discovery he had made. He said there were
approximately 120,000 cases of fraud in Canada. In fact, there are
116,603. He was asked if that was an increase. No, it represents a
decrease because there were 131,081 cases of fraud in 1991-92.
I will be brief, Madam Speaker. Figures show that the last bill
allowed the government to recover $272 million and they hope to
recover an additional amount of $345 million with this new bill.
But, out of those $272 million, figures submitted by the
parliamentary secretary himself show that only $93 million
resulted from real fraud. Three quarters of the remaining $179
million were due to errors made by the unemployment insurance
commission. These were errors.
So instead of passing legislation that is an insurance plan
designed at fighting fraud, the government should have drafted
legislation to prevent errors, which sometimes cause serious
trouble, because the commission can go back five years.
Does the member agree that we should take more time and draft
this bill in such a way that it will help public servants prevent
errors, which most of the time are made in good faith simply
because the legislation is not clear? Does she think we will improve
the bill with last minute amendments? There were 42 in committee
one evening. What does she think about correcting mistakes before
we attack the pseudo-abusers, the pseudo-defrauders?
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, I want to address a couple
of things the hon. member spoke about.
One is the time it has taken the government to look at this bill. It
has been close to three years now, since the beginning of the
election. It is tremendous to recognize. I see the parliamentary
secretary to the human resources minister. It is a tribute to him and
every colleague who has spent the hours day and night looking at
this bill to make sure that we addressed a lot of the concerns.
As I mentioned in my speech, the building and construction
trades are happy that we have looked at the hour measurement of
time. That is what they asked for. They said that the government
has listened. That is very important.
Also, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this piece of
legislation will allow Quebec for every dollar it puts in to get $1.32
out. It does not take a mathematics genius to figure out that putting
$1 in and getting $1.32 back for people who need this program is
significant and important. To vote against a bill that does such a
thing is a travesty.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am not
here to filibuster like my friend opposite.
I was going to raise a point of order and suggest that if he wanted
to speak again we would let him. Some of us could ask questions of
him rather than having him talk for five minutes instead of asking
members questions.
However, I want to ask my colleague a question. The Bloc again
has attacked the whole issue of the hours based system, which as
the member has mentioned is supported by almost everyone who
understands the system. I suggest that the Bloc does not understand
the importance of going to an hourly system.
2748
(1335)
The reason there is support is that there are 90,000 individuals
who do not get UI today who under the new system which will
consider claims on an hourly basis will be able to collect EI for the
first time. Half of those workers are seasonal employees. I want to
focus on the other half, part time workers. It hurts me to think the
Bloc is not supporting this.
There are 45,000 part time and multiple job workers. For the first
time they will be able to collect EI under this new system. Why
would the member think that any party, whether it is a party that
wants to break up Canada, which spends more time trying to break
up Canada than worrying about workers in its own province, would
be opposed to something that is good for 27 per cent of the
population who are part time workers?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to
understand how any party, namely the Bloc, could vote against a
bill that would increase the eligibility for part time and seasonal
workers, that would help women, that would go to an hours bank
and that unions and construction trades have asked for. They have
asked for this piece of legislation. It is inconceivable.
I hope Quebecers are watching this debate. Quebecers are going
to gain so much from this. For every dollar that is put in, they will
gain $1.32. This is very important. I thank my colleague for
drawing attention to these points.
We have to help women. We have to help part time workers. We
have to look at this hour bank system.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12.
It is amusing to hear the back and forth between the Bloc and
Liberal members as they talk about the changes to unemployment
insurance. It is particularly amusing to hear Bloc members
complain about how much they will lose. I would ask them to
consider how much they would lose if and when they decide to
leave the country completely. It would certainly be a lot more than
they could afford to give themselves considering the kind of
financial shape they would be in on their own.
I will offer some constructive criticism of Bill C-12. People
across the country are very concerned about the whole issue of
employment, without a doubt. There is no question it is one of the
most important issues in the country today. The government spoke
about it during the election campaign when it promised to create
jobs, jobs, jobs. It is a commitment Canadians are waiting for it to
fulfil.
One of the main concerns we have with this legislation is that it
goes in the wrong direction. Granted, it does not go as far as the
previous legislation went in the wrong direction, but it is still going
in the wrong direction. We have a concern about that.
We say that we should not treat unemployment insurance as a
type of social program. Unfortunately, the current legislation does
exactly that. We say that it is bad for the country. We say it is bad
for employment prospects for people. We say it is bad because it
does not give people the type of hope they need and deserve. We
are very concerned about that.
It is time to change the complete direction of unemployment
insurance, which I will discuss in more detail in a moment. I will
talk about why we want to go to a different plan by looking at the
history of unemployment insurance in this country.
Going back to 1971-72, that is when regionally extended
benefits first came into being. I would argue it is not sheer
coincidence that at the time those changes came in, unemployment
began to creep up and up. Until about 1971 or at least the late
sixties, Canada had about the same unemployment rate as the
United States. It was very low, in the range of between 3 per cent
and 5 per cent. Shortly after those benefits were introduced, those
two unemployment rates began to diverge. The Canadian rate went
much higher while the American rate stayed about the same.
As the finance department has borne out, my point is that quite
obviously when there are rich benefits which essentially reward
people for remaining idle, we should not be surprised if people
respond to those incentives by becoming idle. Do not be surprised
if they do not run out and look for a job. Do not be surprised if they
stay somewhere where there is no work. For me that is absolutely
sensible. I am not at all surprised it happens.
(1340)
I do not think we should be surprised when we bring in timid
measures, such as we have today, that it will not really have an
appreciable effect on unemployment. In fact, I do not think this
legislation is going to create jobs at all. I would argue that this
legislation will kill jobs.
One of the concerns we have with this legislation is that
premiums will have to be paid by part time workers. People who
work less than 15 hours per week will be paying premiums, as will
employers.
Consider that one of the biggest job killers in the country today,
which the finance minister has said over an over again, is payroll
taxes. There are going to be payroll taxes for the very people who
are feeling the pinch the most, those trying to get into the
workforce. Young Canadians and very often women who work part
time are the ones who are going to have their jobs threatened
because the government is insisting on bringing in premiums for
part time workers.
The finance minister has said repeatedly: ``That is a job killer,
that is a job killer, that is a job killer''. Of course it is going to kill
jobs. Absolutely.
Mr. Milliken: When did he say that?
2749
Mr. Solberg: Hon. members across the way are asking when
the minister said that. The minister has said it many times in this
House. When the hon. member was a parliamentary secretary and
sat closer to the minister he probably heard those things but now
that he sits so far away perhaps it just does not get down that far.
The fact is that payroll taxes kill jobs and hon. members across
the way know it. Unfortunately, they are ignoring their own advice
and are bringing in payroll taxes on people who are the most
vulnerable in the job market today: youth and women who work
part time. This bill is going to be a job killer.
I want to draw attention to a television program that was on CTV
a couple of weeks ago. The program spoke about the difference
between the unemployment insurance systems in Canada and the
United States. It considered two very comparable economies, those
of New Brunswick and Maine. In both cases we are talking about
economies with lots of seasonal work. In both places there is work
in forestry during one period, work in fishing during another
period, some construction work and maybe some type of handyman
labour and those sorts of things. However, throughout the year
there is not a lot of full time employment.
It was very interesting that in exploring the differences between
these two economies it was found that in New Brunswick there was
a very high level of unemployment. However, in Maine which had
almost the identical economy there was a very low level of
unemployment.
The reporter quizzed government officials and employers about
the unemployment insurance systems. It was found that Canada's
unemployment insurance system is much richer and provides much
better benefits than the U.S. system. The result is that New
Brunswick now has what I can only call structural unemployment
as do certainly many other places in the country. In the United
States, Maine has far less than half the unemployment rate for an
almost identical economy.
When the reporter asked some of the workers in Maine what the
difference was, they pointed out that not only did they have very
few benefits as compared to Canada, but the system was more
experience rated. For instance, if employers laid people off they
would pay higher premiums next time around. What happened is
the employers kept people on even in their down periods because
they knew that if they did not, they would pay higher premiums.
This is not exactly a great revelation. It makes perfect sense to me
but somehow that logic has escaped the government.
(1345 )
It showed an example of a large department store in Maine
where traditionally people would have been laid off in slow
periods, but in this case they were painting, doing work around the
store that as clerks they would not normally do because the
employer did not want to pay the higher premiums. The point
being the current system rewards employers who lay off people.
That is ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense.
Again I make the argument that although these reforms make the
current system mildly better in so far as they do not provide a great
a reward for laying people off, they still go in the wrong direction.
It is time to separate the unemployment insurance system from
the idea of a social welfare scheme. We need a true insurance
system. That is the way we must go. If we did that we would not
have nearly the problems we have today. If that were done we
would have a system that would reward employers for keeping
people on the job and a system which would reward employees for
staying on the job even when it sometimes looks like it may be
more profitable to collect from a social program.
In this case if we had true insurance people would know that
incentive has been removed and it would no longer be more
profitable for them to go on to a government system. We very much
disagree with the direction this legislation is taking.
Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, pointed out the
current system had created a generation which has become
dependent on unemployment insurance. The situation in
Newfoundland is interesting and in another sense it is tragic
because there is a generation of people who have come to rely on
unemployment. I hope it is instructive for people in this place who
are trying to design new systems that will lead to more
employment.
The premier of that province acknowledged the system does not
work. When we look at Newfoundland today and we see all those
people who are on unemployment, has it not become obvious that
no matter how good a hair dresser is in Newfoundland, no matter
how much training they get, they simply will not get a job if there
are no jobs available?
The finance committee heard from a person from the Gaspé
region where there is 33 per cent unemployment, a social tragedy in
the Gaspé region. Has it not become obvious the current system
does not work when there are levels of unemployment that high? Is
it not obvious that when people are kept in one place because of a
system perhaps they are being denied opportunity, denying them
the hope they deserve as Canadian citizens? That is absolutely
ridiculous.
Clearly the solution is not in how we attempted to solve the
problems of the past. That caused the problems. The solution is
something different. It is time to move forward and get away from
this system and go to a true insurance system.
In the 1930s many people in Alberta had to leave the land. There
are special areas in the province where people had to abandon their
farms because there was simply no way they could grow anything.
2750
They left because it did not make sense to stay anymore. They
went where the jobs were. That makes absolute sense to me.
However, the current system acts against that natural impulse.
People naturally are drawn to where there are jobs. If we pay them
to stay where they are, do not be surprised if they respond to that
incentive. That is what this legislation does. It give them incentive
to remain where they are. I do not blame the people for taking it. I
blame governments for offering it in the first place. That is
ridiculous.
We have that problem in my part of the country as well. Perhaps
it is not as pronounced as it is in some parts of Atlantic Canada or
Quebec, but we have the same problem.
(1350)
The point is, no matter where the incentive is offered, people are
people and they will respond to that incentive. Let us not continue
to hold people back. Let us not continue to stifle their potential. Let
us create an employment insurance program that is truly an
insurance program, that is experience rated, that rewards people for
continuing to be employed, that provides a disincentive for people
to give up their jobs.
It is the responsibility of the government to create an
environment for employment. One of the things the government
decidedly has not done is create an environment for employment. It
is little known but it is a fact that since this government came to
power it has brought in revenue measures and tax increases
amounting to over $10.5 billion. That is an amazing amount of
money to take out of people's pockets. That kills jobs. That kills all
kinds of opportunities for Canadians. That cannot continue.
Hon. members opposite are concerned about this. They should
be. It is killing jobs. The hon. member opposite is obviously
concerned about $10.5 billion coming out of the pockets of his
constituents and Canadians generally.
The finance minister said payroll taxes kill jobs. I will expand on
that. All taxes kill jobs. The more money taken from the taxpayers,
the less they have to save. Those savings would ultimately go to
creating new opportunities in the form of new business. The less
money they have, the less money they have to spend on goods and
services. Therefore there are not as many jobs for people in those
industries. The hon. member opposite is complaining that his
government is raising taxes. I do not blame him.
The finance minister the other day said ``we did not raise any
taxes in the last budget''. If we stick to the letter of the law he was
right. He raised some after it. He raised all kinds of revenue
through various measures which amounted to billions of dollars.
The new GST changes will exact approximately $1 billion from
people in the form of a new tax or the removal of the input credit on
used goods, something that constitutes $60 billion to $80 billion a
year in the economy. That will take money out of people's pockets.
That kills jobs.
There are all kinds of things the government can do to stop
killing jobs and to start creating jobs. It has to stop raising taxes. It
has to start moving toward a balanced budget, and not at a snail's
pace. It has to announce a date. All the provinces have either
balanced their budgets or at least have a plan to balance their
budgets. The federal government has not even announced a date. It
has not even acknowledged there is a problem.
If people judge the strength of the finance minister and the
government by their ability to wrestle down the deficit, these guys
come in dead last. They are weak kneed. They cannot meet the
challenges.
We say to people to get on the government. Tell it that it has to
balance its budget. Tell it that it has to start dealing with the deficit
and debt.
One of the things that has to happen when the budget is finally
balanced is that the government will have to start lowering taxes.
Ontario is lowering taxes. Alberta is lowering taxes. Saskatchewan
and Manitoba are lowering taxes. All the provinces are lowering
taxes. They are creating jobs. What is the federal government
doing? It is killing jobs. It is raising taxes. It is destroying
opportunity.
The bill is only the tip of iceberg. Not only is the bill a bad piece
of legislation, we say the government has not done the other things
which need to be done to create jobs.
We say to the government that its challenge is not to tinker with
Bill C-12, its challenge is not to tinker with unemployment
insurance, its challenge is to fix it. Quit fooling around and create
an employment system which will actually provide incentive for
people to go out and get jobs instead of killing incentive. The
government's challenge is to balance the budget and to lower taxes.
That is what Canadians want and that is what they deserve.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member was complaining about tax increases during previous
federal budgets. He is right. We have eliminated some tax breaks
and subsides to business.
(1355 )
We responded to demands from Canadians for more fairness in
the tax system and more balance. One in particular is generating a
lot of revenue. The hon. member may remember that Canadians
were quite incensed that at a time of a depressed economy, at a time
of dropping employment the banks were recording record
multi-million dollar profits. He may recall one of the tax increases
of which he is complaining was a surtax on those very bank profits.
2751
Perhaps the member will remember as well the difficulties small
businesses have been complaining about in their dealings with
banks and service charges which consumers are complaining
about. He may wish to tell Canadians whether the Reform Party
does or does not support the surtax on multi-million dollar bank
profits.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
The member raised the issue of surtaxes on banks and in the same
breath spoke of service charges.
I wonder if the hon. member can tell me if she thinks the surtax
raised service charges for small businesses or lowered them. Did
the proceeds from that surtax get passed on to Canadian taxpayers
or did they simply go to fund ever rising interest payments on the
debt?
In both cases the consumer got nailed. Those surtaxes came back
to people in the form of higher service charges, higher interest
rates. That is how the banks made up the difference. Because the
federal government has been so slow to pay down its debt and
allows anything that comes in in the form of revenue to simply be
spent right away, we are paying more because it has waited so long
to deal with the debt and the deficit problem.
The Speaker: There are a couple of minutes left and the hon.
member can take another question after question period. It being
about 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
2751
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to rise today and speak about a very gifted athlete
who hails from Haliburton County. Lesley Tashlin will be
representing Canada, as she has qualified in the 100 metre hurdle
track and field event for the Olympic Games in Atlanta.
At a recent outdoor meet in the United States Lesley beat the
qualifying standard time and earned a place on the Canadian team
for the summer Olympics. She was clocked at a personal best of
13.04, beating the standard by one-tenth of a second, which in track
and field is a large amount of time, and she is close to the world
record of just under 13 seconds.
Lesley is currently training at Louisiana State University and is
gearing up for the games.
On behalf of the riding of Victoria-Haliburton and the rest of
Canada, I wish Lesley great success at the games. We are all
pulling for you. Good luck.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to condemn the negative effects the unemployment insurance
reform will have on women and young people.
Statistics show it is women and young people who represent
almost two thirds of part time workers. Therefore, they will be hard
hit by the series of new measures.
Here are some examples: the eligibility criteria are tougher, the
benefits are reduced, the maximum benefit period is reduced, the
claimant must contribute starting from the first hour, frequent users
are penalized, the eligibility criteria for maternity benefits are
tougher, and the list could go on and on.
This reform demonstrates only one thing: the government's
blindness, which shows through in its desire to cut, slash and
destroy social programs. Making the unemploymed shoulder the
burden of the deficit alone is repugnant, and unfortunately, that is
what the proposed unemployment insurance reform will do.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, grandparents are often the forgotten ones on the divorce
battlefield, and the important relationship children have with their
grandparents often gets ignored.
Bill C-245, an act to amend the Divorce Act, seeks to help
grandparents establish a right to ask for access to their
grandchildren.
Today I will be appearing before the justice committee as a
witness once more presenting my arguments in favour of
grandchildren and grandparents. I am hoping members of the
justice committee will do what the House already did with my bill
at second reading and pass it unanimously.
Witnesses appearing on this bill in the last session testified to its
constitutionality, the fact the bill was needed and the fact it would
not add extra litigation in the courts. Its effect would ensure all
matters concerning the children are dealt with at the same time.
Government members say they support family values. This
afternoon in the justice committee they will have the opportunity to
demonstrate their support.
2752
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour for me to rise today to acknowledge the important work of
the Elizabeth Fry Societies as they celebrate Elizabeth Fry week
from May 6 to 12.
The theme of their fourth national week is ``Alternatives to
Incarceration''. The society and its 21 member societies hope to
enhance public awareness and education about the circumstances
of women involved in the criminal justice system.
The societies have a history of dedicated work in all of our
communities. Their member agencies offer services and programs
to help women who have come into or who are at risk of coming
into conflict with the law.
The societies support principles that all Canadians should
reflect: that every individual is equal before and under the law and
has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination; that
every individual has the right to legal counsel, due process and
natural justice protection; that women have the right to access
equal opportunities and programs in the justice system and the
right to justice without fear of prejudice or gender discrimination.
Colleagues, join me in supporting the important work of the
Elizabeth Fry Societies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to point out the extraordinary contribution
made by a great man of international renown, Dr. Gustave Gingras,
who passed away last week.
A native of Montreal, Dr. Gingras founded the Institut de
réadaptation de Montréal in 1949 and acted as its director general
until 1977. Because of his reputation, people from all over the
globe sought his advice. His expertise in planning rehabilitation
policies was greatly appreciated.
He was awarded many prizes, including the Order of Canada, the
Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, the
Canadian Centennial Medal, the Silver Medal International, the
B'nai Brith Humanitarian Award and the Medal of Merit of South
Vietnam. In 1982, he became a Queen's Honourable Physician.
Among other works, he wrote Combats pour la survie and
cowrote Human Rights for the Physically Handicapped and Aged.
The nation has just lost an eminent citizen. To his wife and to all
his family, I wish to express my most sincere condolences.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Len Cardozo, a fellow
Torontonian who unexpectedly passed away last week following
injuries sustained in a car accident.
Since his immigration to Canada from Pakistan in 1974, Len was
active in many community groups and organizations in our city.
Important, was a leader in the Goan community in Toronto during
the past two decades, working to advance the integration of the
15,000 Christian immigrant community from India and Pakistan.
Len was a good neighbour, being active locally as a president of
the Pelmo Park Community Association, a founding member of the
St. Francis Xavier Credit Union, working on community relations
with Humber Memorial Hospital, and president of the Canorient
Christian Association helping new immigrants and seniors in
Toronto.
Len's passion was politics both federally and provincially, but
his pride was working to encourage many Torontonians to attend
the unity rally in Montreal last October, a high point of his political
involvement.
Len and his commitment to his community will be missed. He is
survived by his wife Melba, four children and four grandchildren.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hardest thing I have ever done was stand before Allen and Debbie
Wayne with their family and friends yesterday to say good-bye to
their son Allen.
Allen was a young man loved by all. The pain in his parents'
eyes was evidence of that.
Another nameless young offender who stole a car crushed
Allen's car last August and in the process shattered many other
lives. For eight months Allen clung desperately to life. He lost.
The young offender who had previously been prohibited from
driving this time murdered an innocent young man.
I resent what inept governments stand for and at times I wonder
why I got into politics, but Allen, Debbie and Allen Sr. gave me the
courage to stay and fight for justice. That fight goes on.
You lost the fight of your life, Allen, but your courage and your
memory live on in others. Thank you, Allen.
2753
(1405)
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people in my riding of
Cambridge and Canadians across Ontario are once again being
gouged at the pumps as gasoline prices rise with the spring
temperatures.
To many Canadians the issue is clear. Oil companies are being
allowed to charge whatever price they see fit for a litre of gasoline.
I will wait with interest to see what happens as the first long
weekend of spring arrives. No doubt there will be a noticeable and
coincidental rise in gasoline prices. There always is.
At what point will the government stand up against the major oil
and gas companies and do what is right to protect Canadians from
these unjustifiable price increases?
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast who are
sick and tired of oil companies holding them for ransom with their
exorbitantly high gas prices, I take this opportunity to commend
the Minister of Industry for following the lead taken by numerous
NDP MPs and the New Democratic government in B.C. in calling
for an inquiry into high gas prices.
Two weeks ago NDP MPs from across the west called for a gas
boycott as a way to end the high prices. Yesterday Glen Clark, the
New NDP premier of B.C., established a commission of inquiry
into gas prices. Premier Romanow also has supported this action
against oil companies.
If the minister is really committed to this inquiry, to this issue,
give the Bureau of Competition real teeth in tackling the issue by
setting up an energy price review commission which would act as a
permanent watchdog.
We are pleased the minister is finally catching up with our lead.
We could say better late than never, but we will not.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been involved in mining and mineral
development for over 150 years. One of the first placer gold finds
in Canada took place near the Chaudière River in the Eastern
Townships, and although this find would now be regarded as minor,
it led to the production of thousands of ounces of gold between
1862 and 1886.
Quebec is not only the second largest mineral producer in
Canada, but it has also spent the most on mining since 1992.
All this work was not done in vain. Development of the gold
mine in Louvicourt started last year, and several other mines will
open in the future. The Grevet zinc and copper mine will open in
June 1996, the Troilus gold mine early next year, and the Raglan
nickel and copper mine in 1998.
Between 1995 and 1998, $1 billion will be invested in mining in
Quebec. Thanks to these new mines, the mining industry will
remain a major contributor to the economy of Quebec and Canada.
Mining Week-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member's
time has expired.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
government introduced its proposed unemployment insurance
reform, seasonal workers have continuously demonstrated their
opposition to this reform, which is unfair to this class of workers
who are employed only at certain times of the year.
Fishery workers, forestry workers, construction workers,
tourism workers and many others have been holding
demonstrations, making speeches and collecting money to fight in
their own way against this reform that will leave them penniless.
For them, the unemployment insurance reform is just the
opposite of a magic solution to unemployment. While UI benefits
provides economic stabilization to these workers, the proposed
reform will free the government of its responsibility toward those
whose livelihood is tied to a regional and seasonal economy.
The government is sending the people in the regions a plain and
simple message: ``It is your problem, not ours''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Newfoundland has requested an amendment to the
Constitution which would remove the protection of minority
religious education rights. In my view such a constitutional
amendment would constitute a dangerous political precedent that
potentially could be used by other provinces bent on the destruction
of denominational education.
2754
Also, if such an amendment to the Constitution is passed other
minority rights, including language or aboriginal rights, could be
threatened.
A strong argument can be made that public hearings should be
held before Parliament deals with the request from Newfoundland.
Hearings would ensure a full and fair opportunity for all interested
parties to speak to this important matter.
Whatever problems exist within the school system of
Newfoundland should be resolved co-operatively by the people of
Newfoundland and their leaders.
However, an attack on minority rights anywhere in Canada is an
unacceptable threat to minority rights everywhere in Canada.
(1410 )
I call on the government to think very carefully before it acts on
this vital issue. Any vote on this matter in the House should be a
free vote.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
note the results of a survey released this morning, which was
carried out by the firm SONDAGEM for
Le Devoir.
This survey shows how much opposition the unemployment
insurance reform project has stirred up in Quebec. According to 79
per cent of respondents, the reform will mainly benefit the federal
government. Worse yet, 91.2 per cent have not been fooled by this
reform, which they clearly see as serving only to help the federal
government to reduce public spending.
Moreover, in the same survey, three respondents out of four
expressed the wish to see the Government of Quebec administer the
unemployment insurance plan. This survey confirms what
everybody knows already: the reform is not being made in the
public interest but rather in an attempt to bring the federal deficit
down. The public will never forget how fiercely the Liberal
government went at the unemployed with its reform.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
respond to recent anti-Reform rants from both the Conservative
and Liberal leaders.
Has the Tory member forgotten that the late Tory MP Dan
McKenzie returned from a trip to South Africa preaching the merits
of Apartheid and spouted off that blacks were intellectually inferior
to whites in school? Surely that is not the Tory position.
Has he forgotten that in 1991 Tory MP Jack Shields shouted
``shut up, sambo'' to NDP MP Howard McCurdy, the only black in
the House at the time? Is that Tory policy? Mr. Shields was not
even stripped of his post. Certainly the silence was deafening from
the Tory leader. And what of Bill Kempling and Don Blenkarn?
Have the Liberals forgotten their own Prime Minister who said
he appreciated the black members of his caucus because they smile
a lot? Is that blatant racial stereotyping Liberal Party policy?
Where were the cries of outrage when that was uttered? Imagine if
a Reformer had said that.
Every political party has times when its membership makes ill
considered remarks. The test of a party's true character lies-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint John.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the new
tender call for moving military employees, their families and other
government employees has proven to have many problems.
CN along with its subcontractor, Corporate Moving Systems,
won 40 per cent of the tender. As we all knew at the time, Corporate
Moving Systems did not have any infrastructure and could not
move anything, not even a telephone. Mr. Baird had no
infrastructure to carry out the requirements and neither did CN.
Now CN's deal with CMS has fallen apart. All the other people
who received a portion of that contract had to give a list to the
department which would prove they could do the work that had to
be done.
Will the minister of that department cancel that contract with CN
and put it out to tender? Where is the $1 million bid bond CN put
up? Did the government get that? Will the minister make changes
for the next tender call when it comes to moving the military and its
families?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Prime Minister sent an important message to the 1,500 people
who came to hear him, in Montreal.
The Government of Canada will take the opportunity provided
by the upcoming first ministers' meeting to fulfil a major
commitment made in its last speech from the throne and confirm
the federal government's withdrawal from several areas that come
under provincial jurisdiction.
2755
Without going into specifics, the Prime Minister said that the
federal government will first withdraw from the following sectors:
mining, forestry, municipal affairs, ports and airports, as well as
manpower training.
The Prime Minister said it in Montreal yesterday; our
government will fulfil its commitments towards the provinces, and
Quebec in particular. We can only hope that the PQ government in
Quebec will accept our offer to become more involved in the
process.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is particularly appropriate to rise
during mining week in Canada to congratulate Canada Talc on the
100th anniversary of its eastern Ontario operation near Madoc in
my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
(1415 )
As in other mining communities across the country, the Canada
Talc mine has not only provided an important economic activity
but has been responsible for creating well paying jobs for
generations of people in Madoc.
This operation represents the long term success mining
companies can enjoy by investing in Canada. Through our
amendments to the resource tax allowance the government has
demonstrated its commitment to facilitating the continued success
of mining in Canada.
On behalf of the House, I salute the Canada Talc operation,
which reaches back to the closing decade of the past century and to
the beginnings of mining in Ontario. I wish Canada Talc continued
success in providing high technology, environmentally sustainable
development in my riding well into the next millennium.
Being a part time prospector myself, I take this opportunity
during mining week in Canada to congratulate prospectors and
miners across the nation.
_____________________________________________
2755
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, of course.
By changing its strategy and joining forces with Guy Bertrand in
taking a hard line against Quebec, the federal government is setting
itself up for a confrontation not only with Quebec separatists, but
also with federalists, because it is clearly aligning itself with the
advocates of plan B, that is the plan to take a hard line with Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the federal
government's decision to get involved in the Bertrand case to
establish the supremacy of law over democracy is tantamount to
requiring Quebec to get the permission of all the provinces of
Canada in order to act on a majority vote in a referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government meets its obligations. On behalf of the
government, the Minister of Justice is defending the constitutional
rights of all Canadians.
The debate is currently before the courts and they will make the
appropriate decisions. We will advise following these decisions.
As Mr. Bouchard said on Monday, there is no way a government
could not be involved in a case like this one. When I offered him to
ask the Attorney General of Canada to stay out it if Quebec did
likewise, they decided to introduce a motion providing specifically
that, at some point, the Constitution of Canada would not apply to
the people of Canada. It is the duty of the government to protect
Canada's Constitution.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by associating
with Guy Bertrand, whose intention it is to subordinate the
democratic decision of Quebecers to the approval of all the
provinces, he is recreating the climate of confrontation he so
skilfully created in 1982?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said. It is the duty of the
government to protect the Canadian Constitution and the vested
rights of people of all parts of the country.
As regards the referendum, we have taken part in referendums.
We are talking about Quebec's Referendum Act. I have always
said, and I have said so in the House of Commons a number of
times: some people believe the country can be broken up by a
single vote in a referendum. The CSN's constitution requires a two
thirds majority to change something in it. The same is true for the
FTQ, and apparently the constitution of the Parti Quebecois as
well.
We say that the laws of Canada must be respected, that there will
be no unilateral declaration of independence and that international
law, too, must be respected.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister, who was ultimately responsible for
the constitutional mess of 1982, aware that his strategy of isolating
Quebec from the rest of Canada is not leading anywhere but to a
constitutional crisis even more serious than the one we have been
in since the imposition, 15 years ago, of a Constitution that no one
in Quebec has signed?
2756
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois referred repeatedly to democracy.
There have been two referendums where the people of Quebec have
decided to remain in Canada. This is what we are asking
for-respect of democracy.
They do not want Quebec to be isolated, and this is my greatest
wish. I want the premier of Quebec to respect the opinion of
Quebecers who voted no in the referendum and who, moreover, in
survey after survey say they would like the Government of Canada
and the Government of Quebec to sit down together and find a
solution. This is what we are trying to do.
At the first ministers' conference in June, the federal
government will be prepared to make many of the changes sought
for years. When I propose change, the Bloc Quebecois does not
want change. They are not honest enough to say that their only
concern is separation. Obviously, I will always be against
separation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if we follow the Prime Minister's logic, Quebec ought to
ask all the provinces in Canada for permission to determine its own
future. Just imagine. The refusal of a single province,
Newfoundland for example, could block the will of the majority of
Quebecers.
My question is as simple as can be. Is the Prime Minister aware
that, with his new provocative constitutional strategy, he is seeking
to encroach on Quebecers' right to decide their future for
themselves, their fundamental right?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have no objections to hearing what Quebecers want.
We have had two referendums. We have been involved in them, I
personally in both. But there is one reality: both times the people of
Quebec came out in favour of remaining in Canada.
But, like the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois refuses to
acknowledge this expression of Quebecers' will. They do not want
to accept the choice of the people. Saying they are not pleased with
the outcome, they want to start all over.
This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or
four out of seven. The will of the people must be respected and the
will of the people is that they want us to have a renewed federalism,
and this we are prepared to do. It is our hope that the Bloc
Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, will be prepared to help us
renew Canadian federation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, all of Quebec, federalists and sovereignists alike, is hit
head on by the government's plan B, its hard line of confrontation
with the Government of Quebec.
How can the Prime Minister claim that, for him, the 1982
Constitution-one that was never signed by Quebec,
remember-can take priority over democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, if you want to talk about the supremacy of
democracy, start by respecting democracy after two Quebec
referendums.
Instead of using a straight question, there was a so-called
winning question, yet even with that they lost. That is the
democratic reality. What the people of Quebec want, like
Canadians at this time, is for us to work together to renew the
Canadian Constitution.
I have referred to this in my speech. We will be making
considerable changes, and I trust the Bloc Quebecois will at least
be objective enough to look at our proposals. Of course they will
never be satisfied, since they want separation, but that is not what
Quebecers want.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been almost seven months since the Quebec
referendum and the government still has not presented us with a
national unity plan.
Special cabinet committees have been struck. There is a new
minister. The Prime Minister has made vague pronouncements
about the future, but still no substantive plan.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said he will be putting serious
offers for constructive change in the federation on the table at the
forthcoming first ministers' conference.
What exactly are those serious offers of constructive change that
the Prime Minister will be putting before the premiers in June?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the third party has only to read the speech
from the throne where we said very clearly that we want to
withdraw the federal government from manpower training. We
have talked about other sectors where we should withdraw.
Also, we have said that we have to work to make sure that the
economic union in Canada functions better. We have talked about a
national securities commission to simplify the movement of capital
within Canada and the entry of capital from abroad. We have
proposed other initiatives, in food inspection for example.
2757
We want to have a package that will make Canada function
better; it is too bad that I will have to send a copy of the speech
from the throne to the leader of the third party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if he thinks that food inspection is going to unite the
country, the Prime Minister is living on another planet.
If one picks through the various announcements that come from
the government, there are about five things in things in this
supposed package. There are the proposals for administrative
disentanglement. There are some token decentralization proposals.
There is the veto proposal, the distinct society proposal and limited
curtailment of federal spending powers.
If that is all there is, then the Prime Minister has misread the
fundamental desire for substantial change in the rest of the country,
just as he misread the desire for change within Quebec prior to the
referendum.
Can the Prime Minister not offer Canadians and the provincial
premiers something more substantive for revitalizing the
federation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I gave a long list. I mentioned the spending powers of the
federal government.
We have quite a project and a plan when I compare it with the
plan of the Reform Party. Probably the desire of the Reform Party
is to be left with no Canada. For me, I want a government in Ottawa
that can operate for the benefit of all Canadians and give enough
autonomy for the provinces to make sure that they serve their
citizens in the way they should.
I have a long list. I have discussed it with the premiers. I hope
that everybody will look at this list seriously. If everything is
rejected before negotiations start, we will go nowhere. It is why the
Reform Party is really going nowhere these days.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the Prime Minister says to the premiers in June what he
has just said to this House, if that is all he has to say about
revitalizing the federation, he should call off the conference
because it will be counterproductive.
I ask the Prime Minister again: Can he produce a substantive
national unity plan prior to the June meetings with the premiers and
if he can, will he table it and present it in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a plan. The plan will be presented to the premiers
in June. The plan is an extremely important one.
I remember all the people in the previous encounter. It makes me
laugh when the leader of the third party gets up. He voted against
the Charlottetown plan. Today he gets up and complains because
senators are not elected. He rejected that. He could not understand
that if you want to do everything at the same time you go nowhere.
For us, we will do what can be done today, tomorrow, or next
year. Canada will be changed. Rather than having only speeches
and conferences as we have had for the last 10 years, there is going
to be action in June.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We learn today that apparently at least five soldiers from the
Canadian Armed Forces not only witnessed the torture of a Somali
youth who was beaten to death, but did not come to his assistance
or even try to stop the massacre. Worse yet, we learn that after
these events, these soldiers apparently even obtained promotions.
How can the defence minister justify the fact that these soldiers,
who did not even have the decency to try to stop the torture and
assassination of a Somali youth, received promotions in the
Canadian Armed Forces?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member should know that under the National Defence Act that was
passed by Parliament in 1952, all the power over promotions, up to
and including the rank of colonel, was delegated by order in
council to the chief of the defence staff, not the minister.
This minister, as other ministers, does not interfere in the
promotion process in the armed forces.
I understand that a number of promotions were held in abeyance
while various legal proceedings were taking place. Subsequently,
some of these promotions have been allowed to proceed while
others are still in abeyance, which is in accordance with normal
procedure.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
not asking the minister to tell me about the normal promotion
procedure in the armed forces, nor am I asking him to hide behind
normal procedures in an affair as out of the ordinary as Somalia. I
ask the minister what sort of message he thinks he is sending to the
public, with all the events surrounding this unfortunate inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding
behind any rules. I am obeying the law. The hon. member should
2758
understand that. There is a law that governs the activities of the
Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite explicit. Any minister, any
member of Parliament and any Canadian citizen must obey the law.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Sun's Christie Blatchford recently wrote for the benefit of the
Liberal government: ``Integrity is like virginity. Once lost you
cannot get it back again''. Clearly the government lost both a long
time ago.
When the Prime Minister said in the last election that he would
fulfil every promise he made during the election, did he mean only
those he could not weasel out of with billion dollar payoffs? Where
is the government's integrity now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we keep our promises. I will give the member an example.
His party is always telling us that we should have free votes in the
House of Commons.
When there was a free vote last week members of his party were
all forced to vote the way their leader wanted them to vote. These
are members of a party that said it would be a new type of
Parliament for them. They were so civilized that their leader was in
the last row at the beginning. He has now moved to the first row
and they throw books on the floor.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very encouraging that the Prime Minister is proud of having one
free vote in two and a half years. Maybe we are getting somewhere.
It states in the red book: ``The erosion of confidence seems to
have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain
elected politicians''. That would be Sheila Copps who is now
campaigning in the bye bye election and the Prime Minister who is
obviously in denial.
Since the entire world knows the GST promise has been blown to
high heaven, why is the Prime Minister arrogantly denying that he
bamboozled Canadians and reneged on his solemn election
promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should just go to his office and read page 22
of the red book. He will see that we are doing what we said we
would do. It is very clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Operation Propaganda continues at the Department of Canadian
Heritage. Today, it is young people they want to indoctrinate as part
of Operation ``National Unity''. One of the questions on the form to
be filled out by young people interested in the Young Canada
Works Program asks them to write a 250-word essay on what
Canada means to them.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize that this
question is aimed at selecting young people on the basis of their
political views?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the last federal budget clearly shows, we made a
decision to promote employment among young people. We
doubled the budget for young people this summer. That is the
intention of this government and that is why we have specific
programs to help our young people find jobs this summer.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we have nothing against encouraging young people. However,
since that question infringes on the most basic of individual rights,
the freedom of speech, will the minister withdraw this
questionnaire from circulation and order that all the responses
received so far be destroyed?
(1435)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, who says we are curtailing the freedom of expression
in this country? Since when? Young people in Canada and Quebec
are totally free to express their views, and we want things to stay
that way.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA contracts over
$100,000 require ministerial approval. CIDA's bidding process,
approved by Treasury Board, requires that there be no regional
partiality in contracting. However, 71 per cent of the dollar value of
the top 20 service contracts signed in 1995 are going to entities in
Quebec.
Can it be shown in the face of these numbers that CIDA is giving
fair consideration to companies outside Quebec, or did regional
distribution requirements acquire flexibility because of the 1995
referendum?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister for International Cooperation is not here, I
can assure the hon. member that the work of CIDA is subject to
exactly the same rules as all government agencies, that is, to ensure
proper tendering, proper bidding and evaluating on merit.
2759
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA makes
contributions to universities, countries and international
institutions. With all the deserving organizations in Canada and
abroad it is a bit surprising that two Quebec universities received
the two top bilateral contributions in 1995, with a combined value
of over $42 million. That is a lot of pork.
Is CIDA still an international development agency or has it
become a regional development agency to buy Liberal votes in
Quebec?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the major objectives of the international
development program is to extend the opportunity for young
people in this country to travel and to bring foreign students here so
they can get the kind of experience we offer in Canadian
universities.
One of the first priorities we have in that program is to work with
the francophonie, which includes some of the poorest countries in
the world, where we have a direct connection because of the
longstanding cultural and linguistic interests. It is for that reason a
real emphasis is placed on trying to help the development of those
poorer francophone countries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, page
24 of the red book states, and I quote: ``A Liberal government will
renegotiate both the FTA and NAFTA to obtain: a subsidies code;
an anti-dumping code; a more effective dispute resolution
mechanism-''
More than two and a half years into his mandate and in spite of
the fact that the deadline for coming to an agreement with the
Americans was December 31 of last year, how does the Prime
Minister explain that no tangible progress has been made on this
issue, when what is at stake is so important?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has been pursuing with vigour the
matter of trade remedies with our partners in the NAFTA. That was
the basis on which the NAFTA agreement was signed and we have
honoured the agreement to pursue these matters.
A report will be coming shortly from the trade remedies group.
Progress is being made, but there is still a lot more work to be done
in achieving our goals within the NAFTA. We will continue to
work toward those goals of removing trade remedy law
applications so that we can have a true free trade system.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): The industries are
still waiting, Mr. Speaker. Since the U.S. keeps harassing our
industries, and the steel industry in particular, to settle the dispute
over trade remedies relating to countervailing and antidumping
duties, is the minister contemplating taking an
industry-by-industry approach any time soon?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly are pursuing the question of the
steel industry to try to bring about an end to the anti-dumping
measures that are applied, as we do in any other case in which there
are trade irritants.
It is worth noting that the greatest trade relationship of any two
countries in the world is between Canada and the United States.
There is $1 billion a day exchanged between our two countries,
which means a lot of jobs and a lot of economic growth in this
country. Ninety-five per cent of that trade is hassle free with no
problems at all. A very small percentage still needs attention and it
is getting the attention of this government.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
For weeks a young Canadian has been on a hunger strike in the
United States to protest the move by U.S. customs to impound a
shipment of computers en route to Cuba from Canada. What action
has the minister taken to help this young Canadian and make sure
these computers, which have been sent for humanitarian purposes,
make their way to Cuba?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I reported to the House a few weeks ago, we have been
in direct contact with the young Canadian who is on that hunger
strike.
Our officials have been negotiating daily with U.S. officials to
secure the release of the computers. I am happy to inform the
House that we now have the agreement of the U.S. authorities to
release the computers. They will be sent to Mexico. Mr. Rohatyn is
going to San Diego to take receipt of those computers.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the officials of our
department and of the U.S. state department who have co-operated
in resolving this very serious problem.
2760
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, more
fallout from the meltdown at the Edmonton women's prison.
Inmate Tamara Papin, now at a provincial jail because she
escaped custody from the Edmonton women's prison, was charged
yesterday with the murder of Denise Fayant, another inmate.
The philosophy of operating a prison for violent offenders like a
comfort cottage is nothing short of stupid. Fayant's death was
brutal and unnecessary. Will the minister admit that the core
philosophy behind the women's prison is a total failure? Will he
shut it down, yes or no?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incident referred to by
the member is before the courts. It would be imprudent for me to
comment on it.
I will comment on the more general issue of security in the
Edmonton institution. The incident is under review. All incidents,
whether they are of violence or security aspects, are under total
review. We are waiting for the report and recommendations from
the committee. We will ensure that all those recommendations
which have been reviewed will be in place.
In addition, over $400,000 in improvements has been approved,
which was announced several weeks ago. Those improvements will
take almost two months to put forth. We will ensure that before any
inmates are returned to the institution, the full security review is
complete.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
somebody died in that prison, a fact which this government cannot
get through its head. There is something wrong in that prison.
Corrections Canada built the prison for women so that female
inmates would receive special treatment on the basis of their
gender. Warden Jan Fox believes that no female criminals are
dangerous and that women commit crimes only because they
themselves are victims.
Given the fact that Corrections Canada has allowed Warden Fox
to jeopardize public safety through her gender experiment, will the
solicitor general fire her now, or do we have to wait for someone
else to die?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious
temptation by members of the Reform Party with this fiasco or the
incidents which have occurred to give up on the institution.
We believe that this model of incarceration still represents the
best approach in addressing a very special need that women have.
This need has been identified both by the task force in 1989 and by
the recent Arbour commission.
It would be prudent for us to learn from the incidents and make
sure we put into the procedure the proper elements which would
forbid and prevent any more security breaches in other institutions.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Last week, we learned that criminal charges had been laid
against an IRB board member, in Montreal. We also learned that
this person was not suspended, on the pretext that this was a private
matter.
Given the duties of an IRB board member, how can the minister
justify that this person was not suspended until the court renders its
decision on the case?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a
quasi-judicial tribunal. The chairperson of this board has complete
authority over the board's human resources.
To my knowledge, this case is of a private nature and is not
related to the professional responsibilities of the individual. Based
on the information I have, this individual is currently not at work.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in effect, he
is on vacation. Serious criminal charges have been laid against this
board member and they include making death threats against a
work colleague.
Does the minister realize that, by not taking action, she
jeopardizes the board's credibility, since the chairperson
stubbornly refuses to suspend a member facing criminal charges?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not jeopardizing anything and I wish the member
for Bourassa would be more cautious in his statements. In Canada,
a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The hon.
member should wait until the case is heard by the court before
passing judgment.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government is abandoning the people of Yarmouth and
2761
southwest Nova Scotia. Their economy depends on the Bluenose
ferry to move goods from Nova Scotia to markets on the American
east coast. The government plans to cut the service during the
winter. People are concerned about the future, but workers and
private companies do not have enough information to know how to
respond.
Will the transportation minister agree to a wide ranging study on
privatizing the year round Bluenose ferry service and will he
promise to make the study public so we can all know the facts?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member went to the maritimes and came back a
convinced believer in transportation subsidies which I am
delighted to hear.
Let me point out that we currently subsidize the line he is talking
about for more than $5 million a year. We are trying to reduce our
subsidies for transportation. We are trying and succeeding. We
have discovered that by reducing the service for the six winter
months when only 8 per cent of the traffic of that service takes
place, we can save $1.5 million.
It is a tough decision but the government is willing to make
tough decisions based on principle. Reform's taxpayers budget
talked about eliminating these subsidies to transportation yet the
hon. member and his friends immediately go off and suggest that
we increase subsidies. That is a very contradictory position.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe
when the minister gets back to his office he could have his staff
explain the difference between subsidized and privatized.
The people of Nova Scotia are asking for $100,000 of
infrastructure money for a privatization study. A privatization
study. They know full well the Liberals squandered millions and
millions of dollars on boccie courts and Saddle Domes. They also
know that the government was responsible for a general's going
away party which cost a quarter of a million dollars.
Will the minister authorize a privatization study at a cost of
$100,000? Yes or no?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member presented a letter to me, and I
understand to every member of the press gallery, dealing with this
issue.
I can say to him that we made public in the summer of 1995 the
full financial decision making of Marine Atlantic with respect to
this route. This included all the financial reports, all expenses,
revenues and subsidies for the years 1992 to expected 1998. I will
certainly provide the member with the information that was
provided last summer which he apparently does not have.
(1450)
With respect to the $100,000 he has referred to, another
particular study on this route, the request is currently being studied
and a decision on that will be made in due course. When the study
is completed we will make the results available to the hon. member
and every other member of this House.
We are facing tough decisions in Atlantic Canada. It is not
helped by the members from the Reform Party who believed in
subsidizing roads when it came to the byelection in Labrador and
now apparently-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a momentous event begins today in Vancouver. Canadian
women will begin a national march. They will be marching across
the country and arriving in Ottawa on June 14.
Who is listening? Can I ask the Secretary of State for the Status
of Women to please inform this House of what message these
women will be bringing to Ottawa?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for the Status
of Women, I am very pleased that women are marching across the
country for bread and roses, jobs and justice.
When we went to Beijing last year we brought many of the
objectives these women are marching for. We agreed in Beijing that
there is a role for non-governmental organizations and women's
groups to work with government to bring gender issues to the fore.
That is why I am very pleased these women are using their role as
NGOs to bring forward issues that will promote the equality of
women across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Yesterday, over 1,100 people gathered in Tracadie and in the
Gaspé Peninsula to condemn the current plan for the snow crab
fishery. This plan shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the effects
on employment of crew members and plant workers in this
industry. In fact, one quarter of them will lose their jobs and three
quarters will lose four weeks of work.
2762
Since the crab fishery is being boycotted in the gulf sector, zone
12, is the minister aware of the urgency of the situation and the
human drama affecting crew members and plant workers in these
regions?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the division of the plan was for 16,100 tonnes; 77.5
per cent went to those large midshore crabbers who are behind the
strike to which the hon. member refers and 22.5 per cent went to
the small inshore fishermen. The difficulty is that the midshore
crabbers are not happy with 77.5 per cent. They want 100 per cent.
If there are insensitivities in this plan and if there are any
injustices to plant workers, it is not by this House, it is not by the
plan. It is by those midshore crabbers who want 100 per cent of the
quota and do not want to share with the small boat fishermen.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that
the snow crab plan is missing its target, and one of the main
consequences is a further drop in already low incomes. That is what
the minister needs to understand.
Can the minister make a formal commitment in this House to
respond in the affirmative, as soon as possible, to a request from
these workers, who would like to meet with him?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is holding the plant workers up is the greed of
those people who want 100 per cent of the quota.
If anybody is missing the point, it is the hon. member. He does
not understand that there are 16,100 tonnes of crab at a time when
fishermen in Atlantic Canada would die to catch something. He
should pay attention to the real issue which is that there is a
resource to be caught. There are fishermen who want to catch this
resource and I will make sure it is caught by those who wish to
catch it.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Alberta's minister of agriculture has just announced a proposal to
buy farmers' grain for a dollar a load and to sell it back to them in
the United States for a dollar a load, all this to get around the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. This would earn an extra $2,500
a truckload for cash strapped farmers struggling to cope with
increased costs of planting.
Alberta farmers decided in a plebiscite that they wanted the
freedom to market their wheat and barley as they choose. Will the
minister act immediately to honour farmers' wishes or will he
continue to rob farmers of the $2,500 a load, money so desperately
needed for spring planting?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman
would want to join with me in applauding the fact that over the last
18 months we have seen a steady increase in grain prices around
the world. These grain price increases are accruing to the benefit of
our farmers in Canada.
With respect to the marketing system, the hon. gentleman knows
full well that a process has been under way in Canada for many
months, beginning last year, continuing through the winter and
coming to fruition in June. It is through the auspices of the western
grain marketing panel. It will allow all farmers who have different
perspectives on grain marketing to bring those perspectives
forward and to have them debated and discussed in a logical and
orderly manner.
I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to pre-empt the
opinions of farmers who have contributed to this process. I would
remind him, quite contrary to his precipitous advice, that 130,000
farm families depend upon the viable marketing system for their
product.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the
minister should be known as the minister of procrastination.
Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. They have
decided by plebiscite. The minister's refusal to act is costing
farmers about $2,500 a truckload when they so desperately need
the money for planting.
When will the minister stop working against farmers and act on
their democratically determined wishes?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting
contradiction in what the hon. gentleman is suggesting.
The member is obviously an opponent of the Canadian Wheat
Board. He is obviously requesting this government to take a course
of action that would diminish the Canadian Wheat Board.
Interestingly enough, in conjunction with our red book in 1993, we
indicated support for the Canadian Wheat Board. If we were to do
what the hon. member is suggesting, we would be violating one of
our election campaign commitments. It is interesting that
Reformers seem to be prepared to invite us to do that when in
another context and in such a sanctimonious way they invite us to
adhere to the red book promises. Will they make up their minds?
2763
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The government's policy has driven the unemployment rate up
and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has told us why: interest
rate policies have kept the economy in a low growth vice to the
point where we are on the verge of a catastrophic deflation.
In opposition the Liberal Party condemned the job killing
policies of former Bank of Canada Governor John Crow. Is it not
time the finance minister ate some crow, admitted that he has been
supporting the same job killing policies and instructed the Bank of
Canada to work for sustainable economic growth, not against an
imaginary inflation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the time the citations the member sets forth were made, we were in
opposition and Canadian interest rates were substantially higher
than the interest rates in the United States.
Today as a result of the actions of this government, Canadian
short term interest rates are substantially below U.S. interest rates.
They are almost 400 bases points or four percentage points below
those of a year ago.
Also, employment is on the increase as a result of the actions of
this government. Unemployment has dropped down from 11.5 per
cent to 9.4 per cent. In the last four months the country has created
over 160,000 new jobs. That is a fundamental difference between
today and then.
(1500)
There is one other difference-
Some hon. members: More.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
This week having been proclaimed national mining week, the
keep mining in Canada lobby has produced a provocative 12 point
plan for mining in our country.
Will the government be acting on this 12 point plan and what
will it being doing to further promote mining in Canada?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 12 point plan is
substantially consistent with the government's current objectives
and responsibilities.
The government is acting in areas of federal jurisdiction to
strengthen Canada's mining industry. Canada remains one of the
best places in the world for mineral investment. We estimate that
49 mines may open over the next two years.
In addition, I am very pleased with the industry's involvement in
Canada's second annual mining week currently taking place. It is
through partnerships like this that we raise the awareness of mining
to Canadians everywhere in the country.
The Speaker: I have a question of privilege from the member
for Halifax.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with some
regret that I bring to your attention that following the answer given
by the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status
of Women with regard to the women's march, the hon. member for
Saint John replied to some comments made from this side: ``They
are all crazy women. You are all crazy women''.
The Speaker: Colleague, being at this end your Speaker did not
hear the comments. If such comments were made, and I hope they
were not, I point out that sometimes in the course of exchanges
these things happen. I hope it did not happen but because you
named an hon. member, and I do not want to get into any debate
here, the hon. is here and if she wishes to clarify this I will permit
her to do so.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, what I was
trying to say to the hon. member from Halifax is that the Liberals
should not be promoting women walking across Canada. The
Liberals should be available to talk to them and perhaps they could
give them a vehicle to drive them.
The Speaker: I would like to close this point of privilege right
here.
_____________________________________________
2763
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12,
an act employment insurance in Canada, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on one of
the most important pieces of legislation on the agenda of the
government.
2764
The government in its commitment to Canada said new
employment insurance legislation would be law by July 1 of this
year. I begin my remarks by encouraging hon. members to give
swift passage to the bill so that Canadians can begin to quickly
benefit from a more fair and balanced regime, one that removes
the inequities that have characterized the current unemployment
insurance system.
The new proposed EI system follows more than two years of
consultation with Canadians in all walks of life. I held four town
hall meetings in the fall of 1994 to get the input of people in my
riding. Because of this public input, the new employment insurance
bill will help unemployed Canadians get jobs. It will strengthen
work initiatives, ensure fairer treatment for all workers and help
workers adjust to our changing economic climate by investing in
back to work benefits. It will save Canadian taxpayers $1.2 billion
by the year 2001.
I will concentrate now on the benefits to a large group in my
riding, the part time workers and multiple job holders. As amended
by the standing committee, the new system is simpler, more
modern and fairer. At the centre of the new approach is the method
of qualifying for EI based on hours of work rather than weeks. A
week is a very clumsy measure of a person's work. Using it to
calculate unemployment insurance credits is neither accurate nor
adequate.
For the current unemployment insurance purposes, a week is a
week whether it contains 15 hours or 70 hours. This fails to
accommodate the reality of today's labour market where more and
more people are working part time and holding more than one part
time job.
In the current system a person needs 15 hours of work in any one
week to qualify for UI. Less than that and the person is out of luck.
Over time this has led to a situation in which some employees hire
a person for less than 15 hours a week in order to avoid UI
premiums.
I have heard from many constituents in my riding who have
suffered due to this barrier. A worker with less than 15 hours per
week, even working year round, could not qualify for UI. Neither
could a person holding two or three small jobs which may well be
the hour equivalent to a full time job.
For example, someone holding down three part time jobs
requiring 14 hours per week, totalling 42 hours, does not qualify
for UI benefits. On the other hand, a person with a single 42 hour a
week job does qualify. This is double jeopardy for part time
workers and holders of multiple jobs. They have difficulty getting
more hours of work because of the 15 hour ceiling imposed by
employers. What they do get does not qualify them for UI benefits.
By counting hours per week, the new employment insurance act
brings forward these inequities and treats them on a fair and
equitable basis. EI also provides better rules for setting the level of
benefits for part time workers. Current UI benefits are based on
total earning weeks prior to job loss. The new EI system will use
average earnings over a fixed period before job loss. The period
will vary with the unemployment rate in each region. Benefits will
be based on the average weekly earnings figure, with the result that
all earnings in the fixed period will count toward benefits. That is a
fair system.
(1510)
With amendments introduced as a result of the standing
committee review, the gaps in income will be taken into account
through an improved method of looking back 26 weeks prior to the
claim. Furthermore, regional differences in employment conditions
will be taken into account by a new divisor that is two weeks more
than the minimum entrance requirement for the region.
These measures link benefits more directly to earnings than the
current UI system. They provide greater incentive for workers to
seek additional work.
Bill C-12 benefits part time workers and multiple job holders in
several fundamental ways. The higher a worker's earnings in the 26
week period prior to unemployment, up to an annual ceiling, the
higher the benefit regardless of the work pattern. Total earnings in
that 26 week period prior to unemployment from all jobs, including
part time jobs of less than 15 hours per week, are included. Extra
work during the fixed earnings period, even at lower wages, will
add to average earnings and therefore benefits.
The effect of all of this is that under EI 2.4 million people who
are now part time workers will have their earnings insured,
compared with the current 1.9 million. No less than 500,000
additional part time workers will have their work insured for the
first time. Some of these workers will have to pay premiums for the
first time as well. It is estimated that 76 per cent, some 380,000,
will have their premiums refunded.
As a group, fewer part time workers will pay premiums: 1.7
million under EI compared with 1.9 million under the old UI.
About 300,000 part time workers now paying premiums who earn
less than $2,000 per year will have their premiums refunded. That
is significant. For the remaining 1.6 million part time workers who
now pay premiums under the UI system there will be a reduction
from $3 to $2.95 for every hundred dollars of insurable earnings. In
all, part time workers as a group will pay a total of about $6 million
less in premiums than they do today.
Bill C-12 provides an employment insurance system that
matches current economic realities in Canada. Employment
insurance will continue to provide income support for 2.4 million
2765
unemployed Canadians. Employment insurance matches the
varying labour market conditions across the country. Employment
insurance treats all workers fairly and realistically measures their
work in calculating benefits. Employment insurance encourages
workers to add to their hours and incomes and discourages
dependency on income support.
The new system's active employment measures will contribute
to getting the unemployed back to work and will contribute to job
creation and growth. Employment insurance requirements will be
much simpler for employers to administer.
Having contributed for 32 years to this program, I know it needs
to be changed. The members of our party and I are prepared to
support this legislation. We must move quickly to assist the
taxpayers of Canada so that $1.2 billion will be saved by the year
2001. Members have every reason to pass the bill into law without
delay.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the
hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain was in Prince Edward
Island with the committee studying youth last weekend. We were
most fortunate to have him with us. When he was there he was also
talking to quite a number of islanders. Could he tell us the
islanders' views on the new EI legislation? I will give the member
a little background. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Lévis
left a mistaken impression of what the minister of economic
development for P.E.I said at committee.
(1515)
I quote for the benefit of both the hon. members for
Souris-Moose Mountain and Lévis what the minister of economic
development for P.E.I. said: ``We were never afraid from a Prince
Edward Island perspective to change the existing system. We have
gone through that a number of times''.
He went on to say: ``I do hope you have some influence on
government members who sit on the committee as well, because I
think it is very important that you take the opportunity to hear from
some people within the seasonal industry''.
He concluded by saying: ``We in Prince Edward Island certainly
support the government's move to address the situation you
identified. You have the support of the Government of Prince
Edward Island and, I would assume, of all the political parties in
Prince Edward Island''.
Based on the hon. member's assessment, does he believe that the
people at the meeting in Prince Edward Island view the changes
made as being very positive and forward looking, contrary to what
the member for Lévis tried to indicate earlier?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon.
member for Malpeque.
Let me assure the member that the people on the island and
across eastern Canada support the initiatives put forward. If anyone
understands the problem, certainly it would be the people on the
island.
They are prepared to change and they are looking for the
leadership that the government, through the minister and the
committee, can provide. They understand that change is inevitable
and that change will accommodate those people who have been left
out the system through some of the inequities of the past. If a
person works 15 hours a week, those 15 hours should be recognized
as a contribution.
I thank the member for raising this question. From time to time
there are errors in quotations that are read. I am happy that the the
minister of economic development for P.E.I. came before the
committee to clarify the issue. Workers are able to see the positive
initiatives and recognize that those people with less than 15 hours
of week can accumulate those hours. They will recognize that
through EI benefits they will be treated fairly by the system.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be very
brief. By inviting his colleague to corroborate his comments, the
hon. member for Malpeque tried to correct an impression. Even
though I do not have the blues in front of me at this time, I
remember full well the answer he gave to one of my questions. I
asked him what he meant by talking to other Liberal members to
convince them to ease up a little because, as he said, the changes
were a little too fast.
I will ask the hon. member a very simple question to give him an
opportunity to answer. Does he, who represents a riding in Prince
Edward Island, agree that his fellow citizens are losing $11
million?
[English]
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I understood the first part of the
question.
When we are going through with the changes to this bill, in
summary for all Canadians whether they are from the riding of the
hon. member or from Prince Edward Island, I think he will find that
the legislation will deal fairly with all those people who had been
left out of the system.
Will there be enough money for everybody? Yes, there will. Just
the idea of reducing the payment feature from $3 to $2.95 is
significant. Women who had been left out of the system because
they had to work at a number of small jobs are now going to
become part of the process. I believe the government is to be
commended. I am sure the legislation will receive support across
Canada.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-12 is not just about modernizing an outdated unemployment
insurance system. It is about jobs. It is about creating new
opportunities and a climate for job creation. It is about helping
2766
unemployed Canadians find jobs. It is about breaking through the
status quo, helping young people, women, displaced workers
across the country get back to work quickly and back in control of
their lives. It is about the government's number one priority:
investing in Canadians.
(1520)
In the last four months, employment jumped by 91,000 jobs, the
largest quarterly growth in two years. Since November 1993, more
than half a million jobs, 596,000, have been created in the country.
Our job strategy is working. Employment insurance is a key part of
this strategy. The cornerstone of employment insurance is set out in
part II of Bill C-12, the new employment benefits.
We are making active pro-employment measures an integral part
of the insurance program. We are saying that employment
insurance should not just be about passive income support for the
unemployed. It should help break down the barriers that keep the
unemployed from working. It should help to make sure that people
who lose their jobs get the help they need as they try to adjust and
adapt to a fast changing economy. It should make sure that as our
economy grows and changes, people get the type of assistance they
need to adjust.
Employment insurance will do this by focusing on what works,
the things that really make a difference for people looking for
work; by working together, building bridges between different
levels of government, business, communities and service
organizations; by clarifying the federal government's role in the
labour market and creating new flexible arrangements with the
provinces and territories to harmonize the delivery of the proposed
employment benefits with provincial programs.
Let us look at how these points are addressed in Bill C-12. The
bill defines in the clearest and simplest way possible the objective
of active employment benefits: helping people find and keep
employment.
Employment benefits are focused on results and they will be
managed by results. Only one rule really matters: getting people
back to work. This rule is enshrined right in the legislation in
section 57(1)(f). We are simplifying the maze of federal
employment programs into a much simpler, more flexible set of
tools that have been tried, tested and proven to get results.
For example, wage subsidies work. They encourage employers
to hire an individual who is likely to face long term unemployment
or barriers to employment. Under past programs people who
received these subsidies were able to get an average of 16 more
weeks of work, increase average annual earnings by close to
$5,000, eliminate almost four weeks of social assistance, and all
this at a cost of just $3,000 per participant.
Targeted earnings supplements work. They help make work for
unemployed workers who need help getting re-established in a job.
Self-assistance employment works to help unemployed people
create their own work and in the process create work for others as
well.
Our experience to date shows that these new entrepreneurs earn
$142 a week more than non-participants, claim 92 per cent less UI
than comparable workers and are 30 per cent less likely to use
social assistance. On average, each participant who starts up a new
business for themselves also creates another job for someone else.
Job creation partnerships work. Under this benefit, unemployed
workers are encouraged to earn income while developing new
skills and acquiring valuable work experience. This type of
employment benefit not only improves an individual's future job
prospects but helps to develop and diversify local economies.
We also know that skills work. The best ticket to a job for any
Canadian is having the skills required for today's economy. Where
provinces agree, a fifth employment benefit, skill loans and grants,
will be offered, allowing unemployed workers to pursue skills
training. These grants and loans will be focused on individual
choice and responsibility rather than government directed training.
We also recognize that training and education are provincial
responsibilities. Therefore, skill loans and grants will only be
implemented in a province with the agreement of that province. In
fact, one of the strengths of Bill C-12 is that it clarifies, more than
ever before, federal and provincial responsibilities in this area. It
commits the federal government to working in concert with
provinces to help workers find jobs.
(1525)
The federal government through formal agreements with
provinces will ensure that the needs of the unemployed are
addressed and that the employment measures allow them to return
quickly to the workforce. This is an unprecedented gesture of
openness and flexibility that proves federalism is a dynamic,
evolving system that can change to meet the needs of real people.
Ultimately Bill C-12 is about building bridges, breaking down
the old barriers that stopped us from working together in the past,
and breaking down the barriers which keep Canadians from
working. Results are what really matter to Canadians, no matter
what level of government delivers the employment benefits and
measures. Flexibility, accountability, co-operation and partnerships
are the key to getting results.
Employment insurance allows new partnerships to develop and
evolve for the future. It will lead to more effective labour market
programs, better matched to local labour market realities. It will
focus all resources and energies on the real challenge at hand;
helping Canadians find and keep employment.
2767
We will be investing some $800 million of the savings we will
achieve with this legislation into active employment benefits. With
the current $1.9 billion already budgeted for employment services,
this means a total of $2.7 billion to actively help unemployed
people get back to work.
That investment will pay off by helping up to 400,000 Canadians
each year and creating more than 100,000 new jobs. In addition a
$300 million transitional jobs fund will create thousands more jobs
in high unemployment areas. Those are the kinds of results we
need. That is what employment insurance should be all about,
helping people who lose their jobs get back to work as quickly as
possible.
This is a top priority for the government and for all Canadians
across this country. Working Canadians want more than rigid,
bureaucratic programs and an outdated UI program designed to
preserve the status quo. Canadians want jobs. They want a system
that gets results, an employment insurance system for the 21st
century. They need a modern, active, effective employment
insurance system defined in this legislation and I recommend this
bill to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to
make a 20 minute speech, but I am told that we are now limited to
10 minutes, so I will outline 10 ideas. The first one that comes to
mind is self-evident. For me, today is an ill-fated day, a sad day,
because it is the third and last reading of Bill C-12 on
unemployment insurance reform.
It is sad because this reform brings with it $2 billion in cuts, in
addition to the $5 billion in cuts prescribed by the first federal
budget and Bill C-17 on unemployment insurance, let us not forget.
These cuts are in addition to the others. Let us not forget either
the 3 million people who, at one time or another in the past year,
qualified for UI benefits. Everyone will be hit by cuts of at least 10
per cent.
But it is also sad for democracy, because if there is an important
bill now under consideration, it is this one, which affects 3 million
people. If there is an important bill that has been introduced by this
government in the course of this Parliament, it is this one.
What did the government do with its most important bill? It tried
to cover up by setting an agenda throwing as little light as possible
on this bill.
(1530)
I sat on the human resources development committee. We talked
about a comprehensive social program reform which included an
unemployment insurance reform component. We toured the
country and 80 per cent of the people told us they were against this
reform. We tabled our report in February 1995 and waited a very
long time, until after the referendum. Seven or eight months went
by before this bill was finally introduced in the House of Commons
on December 1.
Why December 1? Because it was Christmastime. They were
hoping that the bill would go through unnoticed, but it did not.
Demonstrations were held all over the place, particularly in the
Atlantic provinces and Quebec. But reaction to the proposed
reform was not as strong in some regions, for instance the Quebec
City and Chaudière-Appalaches region. At first glance, the news
does not seem to have cause much of a stir in that region.
But that is because a gag order was imposed on us, as the
government repeatedly tried to prevent us from speaking up,
starting at the first reading stage. Then second reading was skipped
altogether and the bill underwent prestudy in committee, where
limitations were put on the scope of the committee's work. Only
twice since Confederation has a gag order being put on a committee
and its work curtailed.
At report stage, the House was again gagged and now, at third
reading, debate is limited to just one day. But the day was carefully
chosen to coincide with juicier political events, or at least so they
seem. First, there was Bill C-33, a bill on discrimination against
homosexuals. That is an important issue, I agree. What do they do?
They make this debate coincide with all the debates in Quebec and
elsewhere around Mr. Bertrand's case, intended to draw media
attention to an important issue indeed, namely the Canadian
Constitution and the law Mr. Bertrand wishes to have invoked to
prevent Quebec from achieving sovereignty. The bill before us is
important, but set against this political backdrop, it is
overshadowed.
I mentioned petitions. Some can be entertained by the House
while other are not in order. Yesterday, I was in Beauce, a quiet
region boasting the largest concentration of small and medium size
businesses in Quebec, with more than 500 businesses, and I was
handed a petition signed by 2,142 citizens circulated by a coalition
for social fairness. Unfortunately, they forgot to specify to whom
the petition was being addressed, by saying: ``We pray that the
House of Commons will withdraw the bill''. They were opposed to
the bill, but they forgot the words ``House of Commons''.
Therefore, the petition is out of order, but I pledged to give it to
whom it may concern, so, at the end of my speech, I will deliver it
to the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development,
because this is very important.
This morning, I tabled a petition signed by MIL Davie workers,
who were hit very hard. As you know, MIL Davie is the largest
private company in the Quebec City region. I looked at the impact
the bill would have on these workers. Assuming that, this year, the
unemployment rate and the number of jobless remain the same as
in the last five years, the impact will amount to $884,280. This is
2768
just for these workers. However, after five years, because of the
recurrent effect, the shortfall for these workers from the Lévis
region, who have to feed their family and buy goods and groceries,
will be close to $1.4 million. People seem to forget this.
Last year, 59,000 people received unemployment insurance
benefits in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region.
These benefits totalled $586,064,393. This is a lot of money. Using
the percentage set by the government itself for the purpose of the
reform, that is 10 per cent when fully implemented, it means a
shortfall of $58 million, almost $60 million, for the Quebec City
region. This will have an impact on corner store owners, but also on
automobile dealers.
(1535)
It will have an impact on everyone, not just the families affected.
For the province as a whole, the total economic impact of this
reform when fully implemented will be an annual shortfall of $534
million, or a 10 per cent reduction.
When Liberal members rise in this House, I systematically ask
them if they realize that this annual shortfall will amount to $105
million in Newfoundland, $116 million in Prince Edward Island,
$63 million in Nova Scotia, $72 million in New Brunswick. In
Quebec, as I said, the shortfall will be $534 million per year, in
addition to some $700 million lost through Bill C-17. In other
words, the Liberal government will deprive Quebecers of an annual
amount of $1.2 billion in the coming years. The annual shortfall
will be $380 million in Ontario, $31 million in Manitoba, $26
million in Saskatchewan, $93 million in Alberta, as for British
Columbia-I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat, a region of
Alberta close to B.C.-it will be $240 million.
So, based on the government's own figures, we are talking about
a total of $1.56 billion. Observers say that, on the contrary, it is
over $2 billion.
There is also an impact on industries, some of which are more
affected than others. In forestry, 14 per cent less; in agriculture, 12
per cent less; in manufacturing, 9 per cent less; in construction, 9
per cent less; in transportation, 8 per cent less; in the hotel industry,
8 per cent less; in mining, 7 per cent less; in government services,
because of cutbacks, 7 per cent less; in real estate, 6 per cent less;
in business, 6 per cent less; in finance, etc., 5 per cent less, and so
on. No sector will benefit from the reform.
What is scandalous about this is that members across the way got
themselves elected under the leadership of the present Prime
Minister, the very one who wrote a letter on March 26, 1993
denouncing as scandalous the bill the Conservatives wanted to
pass. He objected, he found it unjust. I say to him, that this bill he
presented before the House is also unjust, regressive and poverty
creating.
And if they think that it is only the Bloc Quebecois that is against
this bill, the results of a survey appeared in Le Devoir today,
indicating Quebecers' views on the issue. The article is entitled:
``75 per cent of Quebecers for patriation of unemployment
insurance''. But they are against the effects of the measures
announced.
The Bloc Quebec is here to represent the interests of Quebec and
also, as the official opposition, of all Canadians. And we feel we
have people's support.
The member for Mercier gave the Minister of Human Resources
Development 40,000 protest postcards from people throughout
Quebec. We do not feel alone. The newspaper says that the member
for Mercier found a closed door. The minister was not there, just as
he was not there last week for people who had travelled 14 hours by
bus to meet with him here in Ottawa. No minister wanted to meet
with them. No minister, not even the Prime Minister, wanted to
meet with them.
All this is to tell you in the few minutes I have that Quebec, and
not just Quebec, but people from the maritimes, as well as 80 per
cent of people who submitted briefs were against UI reform.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
to begin with, I have a comment on what the hon. member across
the floor has just said.
I would like to comment on employment insurance and women.
The bill before the House this afternoon is one which eliminates the
15 hour-week gimmick. In order to avoid having to contribute to
unemployment insurance, certain employers keep their part time
employees under 15 hours a week.
The new system, based on hours worked, will eliminate that
invisible limit. In the new system as well, employers will have
fewer reasons to limit their part time workers' hours, because all
hours worked will be insurable under the system.
(1540)
It must be remembered also that women make up the bulk of
such workers, 69 per cent in fact. When it comes to women and
employment insurance, we wanted to extend the protection offered
to all part time workers. It must also be kept in mind that of the
270,000 women working part time in Canada, only 204,000 will be
entitled to a refund of their contributions.
It is also worth mentioning that many women in this country
hold down more than one job. They do so simply because they are
not eligible for employment insurance, since they work fewer than
15 hours a week.
Another important point is that the monies paid out in
employment insurance support measures will assist more than
180,000 women here in this country to find work.
My question is as follows. The hon. member opposite has made a
comment about this bill being regressive in nature, and about its
2769
creating joblessness. Does he not recognize that this bill represents
a certain equity toward women?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The member's timing is
perfect. I know that, in a speech she will be making soon, the hon.
member for Québec will have the opportunity to give him this
information. It is true that the majority of unsure part time
jobs-70 per cent-are held by women, but some are also held by
young people. What should be remembered is that, in theory, they
will be able to qualify, but in practice, exactly the opposite will
happen.
I will explain to the member who usually understands things
pretty well. This is what will happen. It is true that some employers
did as the hon. member said, but there will be a change of
behaviour on their part. Before, they did not pay premiums for
employees who worked 15 hours or less. Now that they will have to
pay premiums, what will happen? They will prefer making
permanent employees work overtime instead of paying premiums.
It must be remembered that the bill is a bit like Robin Hood in
reverse. This bill lowers the ceiling of insurable earnings from
$42,380 to $39,000, so that employers will be inclined to ask those
employees to work overtime and there will be less work for part
time employees. This is the opposite of what was intended.
As for the statistics, according to projections made by a number
of experts in the field, 25 per cent of women working part time for
more than 15 hours per week will be dropped from the system
because the number of hours is being raised. In order to qualify, a
person in my region would now have to work 17 hours and a half
per week for 26 weeks. Before, the number of hours required was
much less.
People are being eliminated. At least 25 per cent of people are
going to be dropped from the system. Only an additional 5 per cent
will be covered. The difference then is minus 20 per cent. This are
real figures, these are the department's figures. These are not
made-up figures, they are not juggled up. These are the figures
from the department.
If this bill is so good, how is it that, last Sunday, the Fédération
des femmes du Québec, said-after a thorough study-that it was
discriminating against women and young people? They even
wondered if they should not go to court to condemn the
discriminatory nature of this legislation, given that the two groups
most affected by these changes are the women and young people.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although
I was born in the Saguenay region, I am the member for Québec. I
am happy to be able to express my views on this bill again today. I
can say that I am happy to be able to express my views on this bill,
but I am not so happy about what this government is getting ready
to vote on.
Let me tell you why I am not so happy about this bill. This bill
will penalize a great many people in my riding. I am thinking, for
example, of the artists, the women and the people in my riding who
are currently unemployed. Some of the people in my riding live
below the poverty line; in some parts of my riding, 50 per cent of
the population live below the poverty line.
(1545)
So I can say that artists and seasonal workers in my riding,
including those working in the tourist industry, will be penalized by
this bill.
I am also thinking of the young people and women in my riding.
I know that there are many single mothers and young people in my
riding who are currently unemployed.
This bill also creates overlap and duplication, despite the fine
promises in the throne speech. As recently as yesterday, Mr.
Chrétien, the Prime Minister said that he might take steps to end
federal encroachment in areas of provincial jurisdiction. More fine
promises. They made a commitment in the throne speech, but they
do not even have the courage to do so in a bill like the one now
under consideration.
I am not happy either about the criteria being tightened. Yet, the
government is able to keep $5 billion in the UI fund, even though it
no longer pays a single penny into it.
I think this is a bad bill that will penalize a lot of people. It does
not take into consideration the labour market reality, the economic
situation and the fact that jobs are precarious. This bill also
completely disregards the Quebec people's desire to repatriate
manpower training.
According to a SONDAGEM survey just released 75 per cent of
the people want Quebec to administer the unemployment insurance
program. Seventy per cent were of the opinion that occupational
training should also come under provincial jurisdiction. That is not
coming from us, but from the people, who happen to think like us.
This government does not respect the wishes of Quebecers.
Mr. Nault: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Neither do you, my hon. friend
opposite. But when you speak, I listen to what you have to say.
This is a bad bill because it will make the number of welfare
recipients swell in Quebec and perhaps in Canada as well. This bill
does not take this reality into account. In fact, the President of the
Treasury Board boasted that, when the Quebec government brought
its budget down, the federal government would be able to say that
2770
only the Canadian government can provide the required social
safety net.
That is what makes me say that the number of welfare recipients
in Quebec will swell as a result of this bill. Who will bear the brunt
of this? The provinces of course, and Quebec in particular.
Especially since cuts have been made in the Canada social transfer
as well. Some may have forgotten, but I will repeat it for the benefit
of those listening to what I have to say, cuts to the Canada social
transfer will also reduce funding for welfare.
This is a bad bill because it will drive people down poverty lane
even faster than before. It is a punitive bill, penalizing the
unemployed. They are being made to pay for the fact that jobs are
precarious. I will tell you why in a moment.
What a shame that I do not have more than ten minutes to speak
on this bill, because many people will be penalized by a great many
aspects of this bill.
At the same time, the bill gives presents to certain people:
employers and those employees who hold a job and earn more than
$39,000. These employees will no longer have to pay premiums,
which would otherwise amount to $900 million. What impact will
this measure have? Employees earning $39,000 will work overtime
because no employer will want to hire part time or occasional
employees for whom they would have to pay employer
contributions to the UI fund. This is therefore a bad bill.
(1550)
I am going to tell you why it is a bad bill. It is bad because 77 per
cent of women have part time jobs and 31 per cent of these jobs are
held by women working fewer than 15 hours. We know that, with
this bill, those working fewer than 15 hours will have to pay
premiums, but will not be able to qualify.
It is a well known fact that one way of governing is to go after
the public for more money. It is therefore a bad bill because women
earn $25,000 and less. It is a bad bill because they will double their
hours of work and those working part time will not be able to
qualify.
When women who have children or leave the labour market for a
prolonged period want to return on a part time basis, they still have
to put in much more time and will still not be able to qualify.
Although the Secretary of State for the Status of Women has told
us that this is an equitable and inclusive bill, the tightening of
criteria leads us to expect the contrary. Fewer people will qualify,
and they will receive much less money and many fewer weeks of
benefits.
A UN rapporteur said that violence is a social problem rooted in
the inequality between the sexes. I bring this to your attention
today because I know that the government has boasted that it has a
strategic plan on equality between the sexes and that this plan will
be implemented in all departments. I think that they have got off to
a bad start. The Minister of Human Resources Development is
passing a bill that will run counter to the economic interests of
women.
I also wanted to point out that artists in my riding will suffer. In a
letter addressed to this same Minister of Human Resources
Development, the Conseil de la culture de Québec said that it was a
bad bill because artists' work is seasonal and this will aggravate
their economic conditions. There will therefore be an important
loss of income for dancers, given the contractual and seasonal
nature of their work.
Why? For three reasons: eligibility is based on the number of
hours worked; the length of the benefit period is linked to the
weeks immediately preceding the last week worked; and an
intensity rule has been added. We know that when women and
seasonal workers, including artists and people working in the
tourist industry, apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance,
because of the precarious nature of their employment, they will
lose 1 per cent a year over five years.
If this is a good bill, why did 40,000 people sign a petition
condemning it? Why did the Fédération des femmes du Québec and
other groups representing women in Canada condemn this bill?
Why did 75 per cent of those who submitted briefs to the
committee with suggestions for this minister and the people who
are going to pass this bill today say they were against it?
It is a pity, and I hope that this government will pay the price one
day.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with
interest that the hon. member for Quebec does not mention in her
remarks that part II of the bill lays out very clearly the five major
employment tools that will be used with the consent of the
provinces, in this case the province of Quebec.
(1555 )
I want to ask her a very specific question relating to seasonal
workers and part time workers. The member has said over and over
again that part time workers are worse off.
Under this bill, some 18,000 people in Quebec who fall outside
the old UI system will now be eligible for unemployment insurance
under this system. For the first time in the history of this program
these people will qualify because they are part timers. They are
women, students and low income Canadians. If a person is working
part time, they are not making a whole lot of money. These folks
are eligible.
2771
Why does the member continue to say that this bill excludes
people under the system when the facts show that 18,000
Quebecers will benefit, going to the hourly based system from the
week system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague,
who is preparing to vote in favour of this bad bill, has not got a very
accurate handle on the reality of part time work. Let me take the
example of someone who holds down two part time jobs in order to
qualify and then finds this is no longer possible, because the hours
do not suit, or because, if a woman, her household duties do not
allow.
Mr. Nault: That's the best you can do?
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): You asked me a question and I am
going to answer, but listen. I will speak up a bit. These people will
not be able to qualify because they will have dropped one of their
two jobs. That is the McJob syndrome. It is quite obvious that the
hon. member has a full time job.
Let me tell you that a number of people in Quebec and, I am
happy to say, elsewhere in Canada have objected to this bill,
specifically as it relates to part time workers. It is obvious that the
hon. member has not had to live with such working conditions on a
daily basis, and his contempt and lack of understanding are equally
obvious.
When 75 per cent of people have come out against this bill, I
think some of them must be right. Therefore-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is
up.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, begging your
pardon, but my colleague from Québec has not had her ten minutes,
for I stopped at ten minutes to the hour. Moreover, and I do not
know if you will accept this argument, she was constantly heckled
by the parliamentary secretary, who showed his contempt for the
unemployed, the victims of unemployment.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time was already
several minutes past the limit. If the House is unanimous in
extending her time, that can be done, but it is the unfortunate duty
of the Speaker to cut people off from time to time. I have not done
the calculation, but I believe enough time has been allowed for
asking and responding to the question.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is proving to be about how the different parties in the
House see the future.
It shows this government is putting even more tools in place to
help Canadians get the jobs of today's economy as part of its
commitment to a productive jobs strategy.
It shows we have found an appropriate middle course in this key
labour market area between the unrealistic claims of the official
opposition, and the narrow policies of the third party.
It shows this government is committed to a respect for, and
partnerships with, other governments that will work far better than
the old top-down solutions. We are determined to work with others
to do more to put unemployed people back to work.
(1600)
In my comments in this debate, I want to focus on what these
factors mean in Quebec. There are two main issues: training and
employment benefits and measures. I will address both.
The federal government understands that its strategy to foster
economic growth and job creation depends on having a highly
skilled, mobile and adaptable workforce. Employment insurance
provides, through partnership with provinces and the private sector,
a range of active employment measures to help unemployed
Canadians find and keep work.
We want them to have access to effective re-employment
measures-ones that get people jobs quickly. Ones that reduce
future demands on income benefits under employment insurance.
The goal is to provide practical, proven measures that will help
Canadians get back to work quickly, and keep working. The old
system is not good enough in today's economy. Quebec shares
these interests. On November 27, 1995, the Prime Minister stated
our intention with complete clarity.
Let me remind the House of his words when he spoke about
employment insurance. ``The Government of Canada will propose
an approach that respects provincial jurisdiction and
responsibilities in the fields of education and labour market
training. Accordingly, the government of Canada will withdraw
from labour market training, apprenticeship programs,
co-operative education programs and workplace based training. It
will no longer purchase training courses, either directly or
indirectly, from provincial establishments, either public or
private''.
Our government repeated this commitment in the throne speech
of February 27. It promised once more that it would gradually
withdraw from this sector within three years, so that there will be a
smooth transition for all those involved. I fact, we will bring that
process to a conclusion much sooner if this is what the provinces
want.
This was not a hollow commitment. It is backed up by the
approach to active employment benefits in Bill C-12. To hear some
hon. members talk, one would think they still do not know this.
One would think they had not read the bill. Let me help them.
2772
For example, this bill expressly limits the federal capacity to
implement the skills loans and grants employment benefits to
those provinces in which that government agrees. If Quebec says
no, then there would be no such activity for employment insurance
clients in Quebec.
Part II of Bill C-12 also commits the government of Canada to
work in concert with Quebec and other provincial governments on
the design, implementation and evaluation of employment
measures for employment insurance clients. Those measures
include wage subsidies, earnings supplements, self employment
assistance and job creation partnerships. We want to develop
flexible new arrangements for the delivery of employment
benefits.
That flexibility extends to the use of provincial programs to
assist employment insurance clients. What does this mean? Quite
simply, it means that the Quebec government could deliver any or
all of these employment benefits to employment insurance clients.
It could do so through its own existing programs, with support from
the federal government, as long as those programs meet the
objectives set out in part II of this bill and are broadly similar to the
measures outlined in the legislation.
Federal guidelines will be followed in the deveopment and
implementation of the employment measures: harmonization of
programs to prevent overlap and duplication, programs that reduce
dependency on income benefits, and emphasis on personal
responsibility, co-operation and partnership, flexibility to allow
local decision-making, and a framework for evaluating results.
The key, of course, is results, that is getting Canadians back to
work quickly.
(1605)
We believe that our approach based on partnership with
provinces will ensure that every dollar spent, is spent in a way that
is linked to local labour market priorities. We believe it will ensure
value for the money we spend to help our clients improve their
employability.
In Quebec, as elsewhere, we are determined to translate these
commitments and objectives into results. This government is doing
so by negotiating a series of labour market agreements with
provincial governments. These arrangements could vary from
province to province to meet local circumstances and needs.
We are putting turf wars behind us-and concentrating on
getting Canadians back to work. And, let us be very clear about
this, the federal government has responsibilities. It cannot ignore
them.
It has a responsibility to the millions of workers and employers
accross Canada who fund the employment insurance program and
who share the risks of unemployment in a way that works for
Quebecers' advantage.
It has a responsibility to manage this program in the best
interests of the Canadian economy and a labour market with
national elements and needs. It has a responsibility to this House to
be able to track and provide it the information it needs on activities
under this act.
It has a responsibility to ensure that every dollar that is
earmarked for the employment benefits of employment insurance
clients is used for precisely that purpose and used effectively.
In general, the conditions that I have mentioned are simply ones
that recognize that EI contributors from across this country are
entitled to expect results and to get their money's worth.
New agreements would ensure more effective help for the
unemployed, reduce overlap and duplication and promote
coherence and harmonization in federal and provincial programs.
Let me quote Mr. Ghislain Dufour on this issue: ``In this regard,
our federation of employers welcomes the reform proposals to
harmonize federal and provincial programs and to allow provinces
to make administrative arrangements with the federal government
in order to administer these programs fully''.
Mr. Dufour recognizes this is a good opportunity for both levels
of government. Part II respects the legitimate constitutional
jurisdictions of each government, and is fair and reasonable.
The door is open to an agreement that can move both
governments closer to our shared goal of better employment
opportunities for people in Quebec. Bill C-12 will put that process
fully in motion. I urge the members of the official opposition to
support this opportunity.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest and
surprise, especially since, this morning, the daily Le Devoir
published the results of a poll on Quebecers' opinion of the
unemployment insurance reform.
Let us look at a few results. The first is that 75 per cent of
Quebecers support moving the unemployment insurance program
to Quebec. Those opposing the reform account for 59.8 per cent;
those in favour, 27.5 per cent. Some 79 per cent of Quebecers
believe the reform will benefit the government first. The reduction
in benefits to the unemployed is opposed by 72.3 per cent of
people, and the reduction in the benefits entitlement period is
opposed by 66 per cent.
2773
How can the member ask the opposition to support the
government's motion, when it is very obvious that it goes totally
against the grain of all the people of Quebec? There is a clear
majority. Furthermore, 73 per cent of people have heard about the
reform.
We cannot assume today that this is the opinion of professional
agitators. We cannot assume either that we are talking about
experts in negotiations or union people. This is the public opinion
of Quebecers in general, who are concerned about this issue, who
have analyzed the reform, who have looked into the possible
effects of the reform, who have seen that the reform will penalize
seasonal workers and who are totally opposed to it.
(1610)
Had the same poll been taken in the maritime provinces, I think
that the Liberal members who are all set to vote for this bill would
see the major impact it will have on the results of the next election.
All the members from the maritimes who got elected on a platform
of ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' and who, today, will vote in favour of this bill
will come up against the same kind of disapproval on the part of
their voters as the one clearly identified in the poll taken in Quebec.
That being so, I would like the hon. member to tell us why we
should implement a reform that will only have adverse
consequences, resulting in drastic changes to regional economies,
when no buffers have been put in place. There are no measures
designed to boost the economy and to diversify regional
economies. It is a bit like this guy who drove an old car that burned
much more oil than it should have and decided to stop adding oil in
the motor instead of having the motor fixed. This is exactly what
will happen to regional economies with this bill.
I would like the hon. member to tell us what good he feels will
come from this reform that all Quebecers have rejected?
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. He may surprised to learn that I am among the 75 per cent
of Quebecers asking that responsibility over manpower training be
handed over to Quebec. I am proud to be one of them and proud as
well of this employment bill. That is why I urge opposition
members to vote for this bill.
Regarding manpower training, that is exactly what the federal
government intends to do within the next three years, as indicated
in part II of Bill C-12. If the Quebec government wants these
powers to be repatriated even faster, I submit that it should enter
into negotiations with the Government of Canada, and I am sure
that we will agree to negotiate and that these negotiations will
certainly be carried out in good faith.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there has been consultation and consensus among the
parties for the following motion. I move:
That, when the House adjourns on Wednesday, June 5, 1996 it shall stand
adjourned until Monday, June 10, 1996;
That, on Monday, June 3, 1996 and Tuesday, June 4, 1996 the House shall
continue to sit until 9.30 p.m. for the purpose of considering Government
Orders, and that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up at
9:30 p.m.;
That, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 shall be deemed to be the day on which a
motion may be proposed pursuant to Standing Order 27;
That, on Tuesday, June 11, 1996 the House shall not meet at 10 a.m., but shall
meet 2:00 p.m. and Routine Proceedings shall take place following oral
questions;
That, on the morning of June 11, 1996 the president of the United States of
Mexico may address a meeting of the members of the Senate and of the House of
Commons in the Chamber of the House of Commons;
That, such address and all customary introductory and related remarks shall
be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and
form part of the records of this House, and;
That the media recording and transmission of the said proceedings be
authorized according to House of Commons guidelines.
(Motion agreed to)
_____________________________________________
2773
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That in relation to its study of circumpolar co-operation, eight (8) members
of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be
authorized to travel to Whitehorse, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, Cambridge Bay,
Yellowknife, Edmonton and Calgary from May 26 to 31, 1996; and that seven
(7) members plus one associate member of the committee be authorized to
travel to Kuujjuaq, Iqaluit, Cape Dorset, Resolute, Montreal and Quebec City
from May 27 to 31, 1996 for the purpose of conducting meetings and site visits
and that the necessary staff of the Commons and Library of Parliament do
accompany the committee.
(1615)
(Motion agreed to.)
>
2774
2774
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12,
an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to speak on third reading of this important legislation. I
begin by congratulating both the current and former ministers of
human resources development and their parliamentary secretaries
for bringing this legislation forth and for steering it through the
House.
I congratulate the officials in the Department of Human
Resources Development for preparing such detailed impact
analysis and explanations of these measures. I also commend the
members of the parliamentary committee which reviewed the
legislation as well as those who participated in the social security
review the committee carried out in 1994 for their sustained hard
work in developing these reforms.
[Translation]
As far as opposition members are concerned, I would like to
acknowledge the contribution of Bloc Quebecois members,
especially the hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for Lévis
and the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. While
they opposed this bill, they played their role as opposition members
with diligence and professionalism, thereby contributing to the
enhancement of the reforms in question.
[English]
I want to mention as well the exceptional work of the members
from Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Etobicoke-Lakeshore,
Halifax West and Malpeque whose amendments to Bill C-12
dealing with the fixed divisor, the intensity rule and the problem of
discontinuous weeks have greatly improved the bill and the new
employment insurance system.
When the former minister of human resources development back
in January 1994 unveiled the government's intention to proceed
with a comprehensive review of Canada's social security system no
one expected it would be easy to achieve these reforms. It would
have been difficult at any time but all the more difficult when the
fiscal climate required that fewer, not more, resources were
available to put into the revamped social programs.
This made the choices more difficult but the need to get the
programs right and the need for reform all the more imperative,
especially in view of the dramatically changed situation that has
taken place in Canada since many of these reforms of the program
were put in place.
Central to the reform agenda was the need to modernize and
renew the unemployment insurance system. Since it was
introduced in 1940 as a system of short term protection against job
loss, UI has evolved to become the central pillar of Canada's social
security system and for many people in seasonal industries in
Canada a regular component of their family income.
Unfortunately there has also been growing evidence that UI has
become an obstacle to job creation. Not only has the level of
premiums needed to finance UI benefits been a drag on small
businesses' ability to create jobs, but the level of benefits have
created distortions in the economies of communities most in need
of job growth.
Observers have argued that UI has hindered mobility,
encouraged excessive patterns of short term jobs followed by UI at
the expense of more stable employment relationships and has
discouraged young people from acquiring the skills they need to
function effectively in the changing economy.
Yet while there has been much evidence provided to demonstrate
the UI program has inhibited job creation and has pointed to the
direction for reform, it is much harder to prove in advance that
altering the program will lead to the jobs the people dependent on
UI want. This has always been the dilemma facing UI reform.
Faced with this dilemma, the government's approach to reform has
been sound. The changes in Bill C-12 are designed first and
foremost to foster a more supportive climate for job creation.
The new employment insurance system recognizes there are
great variations in the ability of regions in Canada to create jobs.
Hence it does not try to impose a uniformed system on all
Canadians.
(1620)
Instead of generating savings by restricting access to the
program, as the government might have done, the EI system
broadens access to the program. Not only will more people be
covered under EI than under UI, they will have access to a range of
income and employment support available even beyond the
duration of their benefits. This is because of first hour coverage and
that hours replace weeks as the basis for determining eligibility for
EI benefits.
With an hourly based system, many part time workers who were
unable to qualify under the old system will be able to earn the right
to draw EI benefits. As well, it will be easier for seasonal workers
who often work long hours during a short period of time to qualify
for EI benefits.
It will not be possible to get the same level of benefits with the
minimum amount of work to qualify under EI as it has been under
UI. Maximum benefit levels will be lower under the new system.
However, the new system protects those on lower incomes who are
2775
unemployed through a number of measures, including the family
income supplement which will guarantee that individuals who are
unemployed can received up to 80 per cent of their earnings
replaced through the new system.
As well, the amendments to the initial employment insurance
legislation in committee have improved the fairness in this system.
For example, the amendments dealing with the fixed divisor and
the problem of discontinuous weeks now changes the method of
calculating the level of benefits in order to minimize the adverse
effects of the problem of discontinuous work in terms of the level
of benefits.
The amendments proposed to deal with the decline in benefits
under the intensity rule also minimized the impact of that aspect of
the program to those on higher incomes by protecting those who
fall under the family income threshold stipulated by the program.
The monitoring function, which is an essential feature of the
implementation of this legislation, will ensure the government
follows very carefully the progress of implementation of this
reform and also that we monitor carefully how the impact of these
changes will affect those Canadians, particularly those in high
unemployment areas. The central purpose of the legislation is to
foster a job creation climate, which is what we want to see as a
result of the implementation of these reforms.
Many Canadians, including those most closely associated with
this debate, are tired of reform. They want stability in these
programs. They want this talk of reform to stop. They want to get
on with their lives. They want to think of something else. They
hope that as this bill heads to the Senate we are nearing the
beginning of the end.
I share their fatigue but I do not believe we can stop yet. We still
have a lot more work to do when it comes to reshaping Canada's
social security system for the 21st century. We are not at the
beginning of the end, to quote Churchill, we are more like at the
end of the beginning.
The employment insurance system which Bill C-12 describes is
an important start toward creating a new system for the 21st
century. It has some very important features to it which represent a
significant improvement over the existing program, but I still
prefer to see it as an important start and not as the final word on this
program.
This may seem premature since Bill C-12 is not even passed yet.
However, in the time that remains I want to speak about the future
and what is next on this agenda.
No one doubts we are living in an era of profound social and
economic change and uncertainty. Peter Drucker calls it the age of
social transformation. The consequences of the information
revolution have penetrated every facet of our lives and in a few
short years have dramatically altered the pace and depth of change.
Nowhere is the upheaval more pronounced than in the world of
work.
Whether one is a qualified pessimist such as Jeremy Riffkin,
who predicts massive unemployment and growing income
inequality because of the displacement of workers due to this
profound change, or whether one is a qualified optimist such as
William Bridges, who sees opportunities for growth, creativity and
freedom in the new post-job economy, one thing seems clear about
the future. The requirements for success in the world of work as we
approach the 21st century are different than they have been for the
preceding one.
(1625 )
Individuals have to be flexible, willing to make lifelong learning
a fact of life, willing to accept a greater degree of instability and
uncertainty in terms of their jobs and be much more innovative and
entrepreneurial. These are the characteristics that make the
difference.
The employment insurance system must do more than simply
provide income protection against job loss. It must be a support to
individual Canadians.
Under the unemployment insurance system which was
developed in the 1940s the reality of the world of work was much
different. Unemployment insurance was meant to provide basic
short term support to individuals waiting for their temporary
unemployment to change, knowing their skills were essentially the
ones they would need for the rest of their lives.
The new world of work is much more complicated. The new
employment insurance system has to be designed to respond to the
growing changes taking place in Canada if it is to work with other
policies of the government to create a strong economy and to
support individuals in that economy.
Employment insurance represents an important advance in the
thinking of the support of the unemployed. Increasingly,
individuals need support to keep them moving through a series of
changing job situations. New skills, attitudes and flexibility need to
be acquired. These are the realities of the world in which we live,
realities we as a government must find a system which will enable
individuals to produce.
UI and now EI is a national program. It should remain a national
program. Reforming this pillar of Canada's social security system
should not be seen, as it has too often been, purely in defensive
terms, but as a fundamental positive exercise in nation building.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but his time has expired.
2776
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso for his good words for committee members. I
think that we did do some very serious work while conducting
hearings across Canada.
My first question for the hon. member is this: Are the results we
see today in this bill in line with what we heard at those hearings?
Does having an intensity rule that will reduce seasonal workers'
benefits among the wishes expressed during those consultations?
Did any of the people who testified say anything to that effect? Did
the committee on seasonal workers, which was set up by the
minister, not tell us that seasonal workers were in no way
responsible for the negative impact on their jobs, that it was not
their decision to be unemployed, that there were simply no jobs
available? I would like the hon. member to answer these questions.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
even though the bill does not necessarily reflect all the
recommendations heard by the parliamentary committee while
conducting hearings across Canada, I can say that the restructuring
of this program was a basic desire expressed by the witnesses we
heard.
Moreover, one of the things we heard-and this is a very
important contribution the committee made to this debate-is that,
in any UI reform, people would prefer that the government broaden
coverage and ensure that more people have access to the program,
rather than restrict access and increase benefits.
I must conclude, but there are many other lessons that we could
have taught the committee and to which I could refer to in
describing this bill, but I think the hon. member has a good idea of
what I mean.
(1630 )
[English]
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time
today with the member for-
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I am sorry, I thought the
member was getting up on questions and comments.
An hon. member: Debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Debate only. The two deputies could have
had more time in that case.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this minor procedural imbroglio allows me to put another
question to the hon. member. We are indeed making a major change
for the 21st century, a change that will affect the whole economy,
including the labour market.
Does the member feel that the changes made take into account
the new reality of temporary and precarious employment, of how
people will find work in the future? Unemployment insurance is
meant to provide an income between jobs.
Are there not many measures in the reform that divert from its
intended use the money in the UI fund? When workers and
employers pay unemployment insurance premiums, is it not
primarily to allow those who are between jobs to have an income to
maintain their lifestyle, to make it through a period of
unemployment? Under the reform, a lot of the money will be
allocated to programs that maintain duplication with existing
provincial initiatives, including in the manpower training sector.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker,
I will be brief. This is essentially the point I wanted to make. Given
the new reality, and we do not know it completely yet, in the
unemployment sector, an income support program for the
unemployed must do more. Such a program must of course provide
an income, but it must also help people move from one job to
another and constantly renew their skills, working capacity and
employability, so as to best meet future labour market
requirements.
Otherwise, our program will always be misdirected and it will be
increasingly at odds with the needs of Canadians. This is why we
have launched the process. We are starting with this reform. We
will continue to have to change it, to improve it, but we are starting
with a system that will be more flexible and that will better meet
the needs of the 21st century. This is why that reform is so
important.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River has
indicated that he wishes to share his time with a member of another
political party. Is there unanimous consent so he may do that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to share my time with the member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing, to give as many people as possible the opportunity to
participate in this important debate.
This debate is on the reform of the unemployment insurance
program, a reform that has been anticipated for some time by
Canadians. What Canadians want from an employment insurance
program is some certainty that the program will provide help for
those people who are unemployed through a time of crisis in their
lives for a short period of time until an adjustment can be made to
find a new job and make those adjustments.
Unfortunately, that is not what we have in this program. We do
not have equality. We have different terms for different parts of the
country. There are something like 62 different regions that all have
different criteria. Some people are upset about that. They are upset
that the same terms and conditions do not extend from one side of
the country to the other. They are also concerned about the
2777
dependency. I will talk about that in a moment. I believe they are
concerned about trying to reform the unemployment insurance plan
into a plan that conforms more to a true insurance plan in the
future.
(1635)
I want to speak about the regional inequities in this bill.
Everyone wants fairness. I believe it was the member from Kenora
who responded earlier when a Bloc member suggested that the
people of Quebec were not being treated fairly in this legislation. It
was astounding to hear the member from Kenora say: ``We are
being fair. We are giving $1.33 back for every $1 contributed by
people in Quebec''. That says a lot right there.
A dollar for a dollar. It seems that all parts of the country should
be treated equally and the same standards should apply to all.
One part of the country is doing quite well, a lot of new jobs are
being created. In the last six years 87 per cent of all new jobs
created in Canada were created in Alberta and B.C. At the same
time, through this bill we are trying to encourage people to stay at
home in parts of the country where there is a net job loss and a low
possibility of any jobs in the future. That flies directly in the face of
common sense.
My grandparents and my mother lived about 40 miles south of
here around 1912. They moved to Alberta, to new opportunity, to
new farmland that was available. People have been mobile in this
country for many years. It seems that is part of our Canadian
society. We move to where the new jobs are. People generally do
not want to collect unemployment insurance. They want
opportunities.
In the Canada Employment Centre in my riding there was a time
when we experienced about 4 per cent unemployment. As my
colleague from Medicine Hat explained, this means no
unemployment. It is only indicated because of the way we built this
institutional reform into our unemployment insurance in 1971
when the Government of Canada became involved.
Last year, at a time when there was essentially no unemployment
in my riding of Peace River, I met with a number of contractors.
They said that they were having trouble getting trades people, yet
the unemployment centre will not advertise Canada wide. We had a
lucrative situation.
There were plumbers, for example, in Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland who wanted jobs. They did not want to collect
unemployment insurance, but there were no jobs available in their
provinces. They were not even made aware of the opportunities in
other parts of the country. The Canada Employment Centre was
advertising in Edmonton and Calgary for the Grand Prairie area.
Both areas were running quite well; there were no unemployed
people. Therefore, they could not get experienced trades people. It
was an intolerable situation.
Alberta and British Columbia are experiencing strong growth
with many jobs being created. Out of the 443,000 jobs that have
been created in Canada in the last six years, 345,000 have been
created in Alberta and B.C. The largest four provinces in Canada
have created 101 per cent of Canada's jobs which means that the
rest of Canada has been losing jobs. We know where those areas
are. Yet the reforms proposed by the government still encourage
people to stay at home in those areas of net job loss to collect
unemployment insurance. It is shameful.
The country has been broken into 62 regions. In Nova Scotia
there are five regions with different unemployment criteria. That is
simply not acceptable. We need national standards that are agreed
to by all provinces.
I will take a moment to talk about dependency. That is an
unfortunate part of the unemployment insurance program,
especially since 1971. That is when the federal government
intervened. It used a regional fairness scheme to try to engage in
social engineering.
We are sending the wrong signals to Canadians. We are sending
the signal that dependency is okay. We now have up to second and
third generation families that have just graduated into this cycle of
collecting unemployment insurance. Yet at the same time, parts of
the country are crying out for workers.
(1640)
What incentives are being offered which create this dependency?
Twelve weeks to qualify in much of Atlantic Canada and in
Quebec. It is 18 weeks in the rest of the country. Is that fair? Should
a worker who is unemployed in my riding be treated differently
from somebody who is unemployed in Newfoundland or Quebec?
They should not. This creates that same dependency. People will
stay at home and collect unemployment insurance.
This is not a true insurance plan. We need a plan which is
administered by employees and employers. They would soon sort
out the people who are ripping off the system. Their premiums are
being used to finance people who are abusing the system.
Abuse is a very common factor in unemployment insurance.
Payroll taxes reflect this. Employers and employees have had to
pay higher amounts in the past several years which has resulted in a
slush fund that the government will be using to buffer the deficit.
Employees and employers are being asked to help pay down the
deficit. That is unfair.
Payroll taxes in Canada are very high. Up until about 1971 you
could take the unemployment figures from the United States and
Canada, plot them on a graph over many decades and see that they
were almost identical. In the bad times and in the good times the
chart would show that unemployment figures in the United States
and Canada were almost identical.
2778
What happened in 1971 when the federal government intervened
and became involved in the unemployment insurance fund? There
has been a consistent spread of about 4 points in the last 25 years
between Canada and the United States. Unemployment in Canada
is always higher. That is the result of the institutional
unemployment which has become part of the system because of
these generous benefits.
We need national standards. We need a plan which is run by
employees and employers. It could be done on a provincial basis
which would enable it to be responsive to local needs.
The other part of the bill which really bothers me is that over two
million part time workers will have to pay unemployment
insurance premiums. These people have a tough time making ends
meet to begin with. Often they are working at minimum wage. Now
we are asking them to pay an unemployment insurance levy as
well. I believe that will have the opposite effect. It will put many
people in the position where they will say: ``Why should I work? I
may as well sit home and collect unemployment insurance''.
We are moving in the wrong direction. What the people of
Canada want is real reform of the unemployment insurance system,
not something which is regionally based, not something which is
unfair. They want all Canadians to be treated equally. They want to
stop the abuse of the unemployment insurance system. They want
to be generous enough to say to those people who are unemployed:
``Yes, we are going to look after you through that time of your life
when you are unfortunate enough to be unemployed''.
Canadians are generous. That is why we pay our unemployment
insurance premiums. We do not pay our unemployment insurance
premiums so that individuals can live off the system from one year
to the next. It becomes an abuse program which does not do much
for our self-worth. I believe that most people need to work and to
feel they are contributing to society.
We are not stopping the cycle of dependency which was started
over 25 years ago. We are sending the wrong message to
Canadians. I am opposed to Bill C-12. I will be voting against it. If
we ever have the opportunity, we will make this a true insurance
program. I look forward to that opportunity.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I found my colleague's speech most interesting. Although
I am not in agreement with a number of his points, he has raised a
fundamental question.
(1645)
We are told that people must stay home and wait for work.
Should they not be mobile across Canada? To that, I reply that
people are not just economic beasts of burden. They are not just
consumers, they are human beings with families who have lived in
a region for several years, often several generations. They have the
right, in my view, because that was how Canada was developed in
the past, to economic development tools allowing them to develop
their region. There is no region in Canada where employment
cannot be developed, no region that cannot be helped to turn itself
around, develop and take pride in its development.
The approach suggested by Reform members is essentially to go
back to the situation that existed before 1935. In this connection, I
would like to quote Prime Minister Bennett, who said at that time:
``During the years of anguish you have just experienced-he is
speaking about the Great Depression-you have seen the great
weaknesses and abuses of the capitalist system. They have led to
unemployment and misery. In order to meet the new needs, we
must reshape the capitalist system so that it serves the people
better, and distribute the benefits more equitably among the various
classes and regions of the country''.
When governments decided to distribute the benefits, was it not
more with the idea of allowing a program that had shown its worth
to be a good economic regulator and to ensure that individuals
could develop in their own regions?
In closing, I would like to say that it is true that Quebec has long
received more unemployment insurance than it paid in premiums,
but that was linked to unemployment. Last year, in 1995-96, it was
not one and a third dollars for a dollar, but a dollar for a dollar that
was spent.
In the end, will the position that the hon. member is defending,
which is to take away from the unemployment insurance system
any role as regulator, not have a negative effect greater than the
possible benefits to Canada?
[English]
Mr. Penson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that comment. This
gentleman has identified an issue I want to explain.
I believe that when people are unemployed temporarily or on
welfare, it is incumbent upon the people of Canada to look after
them during a temporary time in their life and to make those
adjustments. What bothers me is when it becomes a way of life. I
do not think anybody wants that because it is not very good for the
people involved.
I want to address the regional issue. If an area is not doing very
well, we have to look at the reason. It is the job of the government
to create an environment for business in order for people to invest
in the economy and get it going. That has not taken place. For
example, if we were to ask small businesses why they are not
expanding they would tell us that the high cost of doing business
and the high payroll taxes are deterrents. The fact that the
2779
government is spending $10 billion more just on interest this year
than it did when I was elected in 1993 tells us something.
Atlantic Canada is a perfect example of why we have to move
forward. Prior to Confederation, Atlantic Canada had its main
business contacts in the New England states. It was a good
relationship, one which was north-south, a natural trading corridor.
After Confederation that was changed. More east-west flow was
encouraged. High tariffs encouraged more east-west flow of goods
and trading. That was detrimental to Atlantic Canada.
Under free trade we now have the opportunity to say to Atlantic
Canadians that we will open some doors for them in the future so
that they can become real partners in Canada. It is incumbent upon
the Government of Canada to remove impediments to trade and
allow areas like Atlantic Canada to fulfil their true potential. I
believe they have lots of potential.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before going on with the debate, it is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-railways; the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead-disability tax
credit; the hon. member for Davenport-health.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the member for Peace River
for sharing his time with me, particularly as we do not agree very
much with regard to this question. I will make three points with
regard to the changes to the unemployment insurance regulations.
(1650)
First, in quite an outrageous way the government is taking
according to its numbers $1.1 billion out of the fund. It is taking
that money from employers and employees. By other calculations
there will be as much as $4 billion taken out of the fund. It is not
the government's money; that money belongs to employees and
employers. They are the ones who contributed. The government
has no moral right to take that money from the fund.
Second, I would like to comment on the continued attack by the
federal government on the unemployed. One bank president this
past week indicated that the country's real rate of unemployment is
13 per cent. Changes to the UI bill continue the attack on the
unemployed rather than the attack on unemployment.
Had members on the government side been on the opposition
benches when the bill was put forward, as they were prior to 1993,
not only would they have spoken against it, they would have voted
against it. They would have been outraged at the contents of this
legislation.
Third, there are procedures in the bill, so-called active programs,
which are designed to provide unemployed Canadians with the
needed skills and opportunities to return to the workplace. The way
these programs are designed is almost perverse. Quite clearly no
attention was paid to the successful active programs which are
component parts of the UI programs in Europe, particularly in
northern Europe. If attention had been paid to those programs,
these active measures would have been designed entirely
differently. It is almost as if the intent is to make sure these active
programs do not work.
Earlier today I heard some talk about the consultations which
took place. It is really a sham to talk in terms of consultations. It is
all very well to have large meetings and for them to go on and on.
But if the government does not listen to what anybody says and in
particular does not listen to what the critics say, those are not true
consultations. That is what happened.
There is absolutely no doubt that the proposals put forward by
the government were originally proposed by the previous
Conservative government. They follow on step for step with those
policies. We know that in 1993 the government changed but the
bureaucrats and the policies did not change. There is a continuation
of the Conservative agenda.
These revisions mark the ninth time since 1975, the fourth time
in the 1990s, and the second time since 1993 that unemployment
insurance has been systematically attacked.
By the end of 1997-98 there will be a surplus of $9.4 billion in
the UI account. This is money which properly belongs to the 13
million workers who contributed to it, not to the government which
is taking it away to pay for its own fiscal mismanagement.
In 1971, 96 per cent of those who were unemployed were
covered by the unemployment insurance program. In 1990 it was
87 per cent. By 1995 under these rules it was only 52 per cent. By
January of this year it was 46 per cent. At the present time only 42
per cent of unemployed Canadians are covered by the
unemployment insurance provisions. By the time this process all
works through, less than 40 per cent of the unemployed will be
covered. We will be down to levels lower than some of the United
States. This is a continuation of the attack on the unemployed, not
on unemployment.
These changes will have devastating effects particularly in
Atlantic Canada, the north and high unemployment regions. It will
have devastating effects on low income families. It will push more
and more of those individuals and families below the poverty line.
2780
Let me quote the former Minister of Human Resources
Development when he talked about UI cuts by the previous
Conservative government which were far less severe than these:
``I totally disagree with these amendments. The kind of legislation
being brought in by this Minister of Employment and Immigration
makes Margaret Thatcher look like Mother Teresa by comparison.
All it does is simply put the squeeze on the people least able to
protect themselves''. Those words speak for themselves. It is no
wonder that Canadians have trouble recognizing any integrity in
government at this time.
(1655 )
The government says that unemployment insurance is a problem
for the following reasons. It says that it creates disincentives to
work and therefore constitutes a cause of rising unemployment. It
argues that unemployment insurance actually discourages the
search for work. It argues that the program fosters a dependency in
some regions and industries. It argues that the payroll tax that
finances UI has its own ``perverse effect on job creation which has
contributed to Canada's rising core rate of unemployment''.
The very studies the government ordered from experts in the
field to address unemployment insurance refuted every single one
of the criticisms the government had against unemployment
insurance. The studies presented by the government to support its
own claim made it clear that the great majority of unemployment is
involuntary and the result of a shortage of jobs and hours of work
relative to the demand of work. In other words, people do not
choose to be unemployed. Those who are unemployed should be
offended by a government which suggests that they might.
Quite plainly, the focus of the studies is that it is the lack of jobs
rather than the lack of incentives to take paid work which
constitutes Canada's high rate of unemployment. The studies also
point out that premiums are an appropriate way of funding
unemployment insurance. All the evidence suggests that the total
costs are borne by workers, not by employers and that it is not a
significant deterrent to work, as the Minister of Finance likes to say
it is.
The reasons for attacking unemployment insurance are refuted
by those who conducted the studies on behalf of the government to
presumably provide evidence for the need for the attack. It is a
continuation of the Mulroney agenda, the Mulroney cuts. I have
been here since 1989. This is the fifth time I have seen the same
agenda set out.
The main problem we are facing here and why this government
likes to attack, as its predecessors did, the unemployed rather than
unemployment is that there is no clear vision, no clear industrial
strategy, no clear economic strategy, no vision of where this
country could and should go. We all know the famous words of
Yogi Berra, if we don't know where we are going, we might end up
somewhere else. What is happening is Canadians are ending up
somewhere else without the job security they need.
In closing, there are two clear failings with regard to the
so-called active programs the government has put forward. One of
the things it likes to do and one of the things it should do is provide
information on available jobs across the country. It should also
provide for employers an indication of what skills unemployed
Canadians have so that there can be a more appropriate match of
skills and jobs.
The government should have looked at the system in Sweden. In
Sweden all employers are required to register every job which will
last for longer than 10 days with the appropriate government
department. Employees are also required to register with that
department. Ninety per cent of job vacancies in Sweden are
covered by the program. If one wants a job that is where one goes.
To not have any requirement on the part of employers means that
any attempt to bring employers and employees together will surely
fail. Why would we have a system like that? Why would the
government not have learned from a very successful system?
Germany is another example. Potential workers at risk of
unemployment are identified ahead of time so that some
preventative measures can be taken. Why do we not have that kind
of system in Canada?
In closing, we can have all the active programs we like, but if we
do not have a strategy and a vision for full employment, Canadians
will continue to be unemployed in unacceptably high numbers.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: We now move to questions and
comments. Since members of three parties wish to ask questions, I
would ask you to be very brief.
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, being new to the House I have not had the experience the
hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has had. I wonder if
he would confirm or interpret the comments he made for me.
(1700)
Are the Liberals now changing their philosophy compared with
the previous Parliament when they were in opposition? Is he saying
the Liberals and the Conservatives are really one animal? How
does he explain that?
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker,
this is a question many Canadians are asking.
Liberal-Tory, same old story. Members know that only too well.
It is clear we have a straight continuation from the government
before. Canadians recognize that. We are not solving the problem.
It continues to get worse.
2781
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, I
see that the Reform member has shared his time with an NDP
member coming from the same region.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether this points to a new
association between the Reform and the NDP around social
programs.
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker, I
doubt it.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the hon. member's presentation. The member from the Reform
Party, the hon. member from Saskatoon and I are all from western
Canada.
The Reform Party spoke about equity and fairness and pointed
out, rightly, job growth in western Canada. I would like to ask the
member from the NDP whether he agreed that weeks worked to be
eligible for unemployment insurance in Manitoba ought to be the
same as other areas in western Canada, for example, in Alberta.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker,
the real point is not the specific rules and regulations with regard to
the details of employment insurance. The real point is how do we
ensure that Canadians who are unemployed find work. We cannot
do that with a program such as we have here because it is not part of
an integrated program which puts jobs at the top of Canada's
priorities.
Only if we commit ourselves fully to a fuller employment
economy will we be able to do that. Then we do not have to ask the
question training for what. We do not have to ask what premiums
might be charged around the country because we can find ourselves
moving toward a real economy with job growth in it.
Saskatchewan, with the lowest unemployment of any province,
has a partnership approach to government, business communities,
everybody working together for the aim of creating jobs in the
economy. That is what this government should do.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the chance to speak to Bill C-12 and to comment on how the
changes being put forward will improve the climate for doing
business in Canada.
The simplified new approach to the calculation of premiums and
the streamlining of the reporting process this legislation puts
forward will substantially reduce the administrative costs and
paper burden associated with the old UI program.
This is especially important to small business. We have heard
often from the business community, especially from the small
business community, about the high cost of administering the old
system of UI, the so-called UI paper burden.
It is fair to say there has been a good deal of paperwork
associated with administering that antiquated plan. Under the
current UI scheme employers have to keep track of employee
earnings by week. They need to make sure, for example, the weekly
earnings, dollars earned, are above the weekly minimum set by UI
legislation.
If the earnings are too low, the employer must also check to see
whether the hours, the time worked, exceed the weekly minimum.
The employer must also check to see if employee earnings are
more than the weekly maximum.
Once all these tests are applied, the employer then must calculate
the premium payment for each employee and the corresponding
employer's premium payment. Does it sound confusing?
Obviously.
In some cases this complicated system has to be repeated
through each and every week for each and every worker. Imagine
the administrative complexities here, even for a small business, to
keep people on staff to do these very tedious jobs.
(1705)
The new system will do away with this complicated process.
Premium payments will be calculated beginning with the first
dollar earned and there will be no minimum hours or dollars to
qualify. It will be easier for the employee to understand as well.
As it is now, it is difficult for an employee to know if the
employer has made accurate premium calculations unless the
employee goes through the same complicated record keeping
exercise and keeps a cumulative personal record of UI premium
payments.
A system based on first dollar premium payments for those
making less than $2,000 to have their premiums refunded will be
simplified, straightforward and easy to keep track of. At the same
time as we are simplifying the process we are extending it so more
workers will be covered, and that means more businesses,
especially small business, will now be included in the plan.
Concerns have been raised about the potential impact of these
changes on the payroll costs of small business, particularly in the
service sector where many part time workers who had previously
been excluded from UI would now be eligible under the new
program. Here are some answers to the concerns.
Under the new plan about two-thirds of the small businesses
currently contributing to the UI program would pay less or the
same as before. If premium rates are reduced, as we hope they will
be when the first dollar coverage kicks in, that number would go up
so that about 77 per cent of the small firms would pay less or about
2782
the same as before. This would still leave 23 per cent that might be
subjected to an increase.
The aim of the legislation is to improve the system, not to raise
the payroll costs for small business. The bill includes a transitional
premium refund plan, a plan which will provide small businesses
that face premium increases of more than $500 in 1997 and 1998
with a refund. The maximum refund will be $5,000 per year. It is
estimated this will provide transitional relief to about 300,000
small businesses whose employees will now be participants in this
EI program.
Thus we believe the bill strikes a reasonable balance between
opening up the employment insurance system to the tens of
thousands of part time workers who will now face the 15 hours per
week constraint to developing the necessary earnings history to
qualify for benefits and adding incrementally now to the cost for
some employers.
We also believe the streamlining and reform of the old UI system
and the many cost savings and reductions and the paper burden that
will result will be very welcome in the business community.
These reforms will also produce significant administrative
efficiencies in cost savings for the Government of Canada. As
many as 2,000 employees of the Department of Human Resources
Development are now involved in handling the administration for
the existing record of employment forms. If the forms are
simplified and the reporting process streamlined there will be
substantial efficiencies to be gained from the simpler, easier to
administer system in government as well.
The second major area of opportunity the bill opens up relates to
enhancing the employability of workers through the employment
benefits in part II of the legislation and the act of employment
benefits in particular. From the perspective of the business
community this is an important part of the legislation, for it will
help to better integrate the needs of workers and employers in order
to create meaningful employment experiences.
These measures will reinforce the value of work. The
employment benefit measures are designed to strengthen the work
incentive and to help employers and workers alike adjust to
economic changes and take advantage of new opportunities.
For example, benefits in the form of wage subsidies will
encourage employers to hire people who need experience on the
job but who cannot make a full contribution to the enterprise
immediately. This will allow employees to bring new people on
board and let them grow into the job without being an undue
economic burden.
Targeted earning supplements will be available to top up wages
of eligible workers as an incentive for them to take paid
employment, even low paid employment, instead of insurance
payments. This will help address the concerns we have heard that
small business often finds itself competing with UI employees.
(1710)
It is important to note on that score alone that a recent survey in
Atlantic Canada found that 45 per cent of the employers in that
region voiced their concern that they were competing with the
Government of Canada insurance system and felt they could offer
jobs to Atlantic Canadians if there were changes made to the
underpinnings of the system.
The new legislation will allow us to continue to pursue job
creation partnership programs in co-operation with the provinces,
local communities and business organizations in order to create
jobs consistent with local economic development objectives. We
already have some good examples of highly effective job creation
projects with partners in the private sector. We know this approach
is needed and will work.
The new employment insurance plan will be good for business.
So do many of the business people we heard from. The Canadian
Federation of Independent Business indicated to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development that employers are
supportive of the overriding purpose of the bill to help encourage
unemployed Canadians to get meaningful employment. The
present UI system is more of a disincentive for people to get back
to work.
The Business Council of British Columbia sees Bill C-12 as a
more positive initiative. The president of the Quebec Chamber of
Commerce believes a streamlined program will be a more effective
program. The executive director of the Canadian Council for
Human Resources in the environmental industry has said the new
employment insurance strategy working with the national sectorial
council has the potential to help Canadians find and keep jobs.
That is what the government wants to do, help Canadians find
and keep jobs. The new employment insurance legislation is an
essential and integral part of that new vision leading into the year
2000.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member for
Provencher has made much of the fact that businesses and
employers would, in his opinion, benefit, since two thirds of
businesses would find themselves paying lower premiums.
I would like to ask him two things. First: Is he aware that the bill
calls for employers whose workers abuse the system, in other
words where there is fraud, to have to pay twice as much in some
cases, and even three times in others, in the way of penalties? As a
corollary to that: Is he aware that even the volunteer administrator
of a not for profit organization could be considered guilty of fraud,
should an employee cause some problem, some irregularity with
2783
the government? Is he aware of the new and much stricter
mechanisms for employer penalties in this connection?
Now, to the second aspect of my question. He has spoken of
simplified procedures. I would just correct one thing. He has
referred to how wonderful it is that students will be able to get a
refund of up to $2000, whereas at this time they do not even have to
contribute. I do not see where the improvement lies, when they will
have to wait nine months to get any money back.
[English]
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his rather
lengthy question.
With respect to fraudulent claims, discussions with my
constituents in Provencher regarding both employer and employee
contributions allowed me to conclude quite categorically that
whether it was farm people who hired part time workers to work for
them in the summertime who might claim unemployment
insurance following that, or whether it was people in the northern
part of the riding in the forestry industry, both the employers and
the employees, indeed all Canadians, are concerned about the
fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars.
(1715 )
The other point I would like to make very quickly to the member
is with respect to job creation. Even in his own province, the
member might want to look at the self-employed component of this
job creation package and the fact that many of the women who find
themselves unemployed in the province of Quebec may find a
venue through that system.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Provencher would
agree with my colleague from Peace River that there should be
some kind of incentive to relocate if there are jobs available.
I had to relocate to start farming. If I had not relocated, my boys
would not have been there to farm today. Therefore should we not
have some kind of incentive to relocate if the possibility is there?
Mr. Iftody: Mr. Speaker, in the package the government has
presented there is a measure or measures which would allow for
transition payments. I believe there was a considerable sum of
money allocated to that process where workers who are changing
jobs and getting into new job areas would find some monetary
benefits in this package.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me begin by stating my support for Bill C-12 as it now
appears before the House.
With this legislation, the government has lived up to its
commitment to reform the unemployment insurance system and
bring in a fair and balanced regime that accommodates the needs of
Canadians in all regions.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, I was pleased to take an active part in the
amendments to this bill. I wish to compliment not only the
government and the minister for their approach, but also two of my
opposition friends for encouraging and pushing us in the direction
in which the explanations and the discussions have helped to
improve this process.
The minister, in appearing before us, invited us to make
suggestions for improvements. I am pleased that he has been
responsive to the amendments that were put forward: the divisor
used for calculating benefits; the question of gaps in earnings; the
so-called intensity rule governing reduced benefit rates for past
claimants. These have all made the bill a far better one. I encourage
all opposition members to support this final decision.
I want to focus on three areas that I think are important at this
time to bring before my friends in this debate. Bloc members
charged that higher entrance requirements for EI will make it
tougher for women who are re-entering the job market and force
them on to welfare.
In setting the record straight, let me say that it is true that women
are more likely to be new entrants or re-entrants to the labour
market. However, new entrants and re-entrants will now need 910
hours of insurable work to quality to benefit. However, if they work
at least 490 hours in their first year in the labour force they only
require a minimum of 420 to 700 hours to qualify the following
year.
The government recognizes how difficult it can be for a woman
to jump back into the job market after taking time out to raise a
family. That is why it has extended access to EI's employment
benefits to any Canadian woman who has collected maternity or
parental benefits over the past five years.
Employment benefits will help women boost their earnings,
contribute to their job stability, forge new trails in new and
emerging sectors. These benefits will be delivered in the woman's
own community. They will encourage other women to participate
and take into account the needs of the local workforce.
(1720 )
Child care support will be available to women who are taking
part in these employment benefits. Under EI's hours based system,
many women with part time jobs or several small jobs will be able
to qualify for maternity benefits for the first time. Women will still
need only 700 hours to qualify for special benefits such as
maternity benefits.
2784
Not only will EI enhance employment opportunities for women,
but it will actually create work. EI reforms are expected to
generate between 65,000 and 115,000 new jobs funded by an $800
million investment fund. On top of that, modernization will create
150 jobs and a transition job creation fund is expected to provide
work for 15,000 more Canadians.
The Canadian workplace recognizes the importance of women's
participation and the EI legislation reflects the realities of this
modern system. One of these new realities is that women are
working part time. In fact, women currently make up 70 per cent of
Canada's part time workforce. Under EI they will be covered from
the first dollar earned for the first time.
Women also make up a slight majority of those holding multiple
jobs. Again, under EI many will be insured for the first time. While
more women will be insured, many others will have their
premiums refunded. About 700,000 women who earn $2,000 or
less a year will receive a refund, including 495,000 who premiums
today.
The government has also implemented special measures to help
offset the impact of the reform on low income claimants, many of
whom are women. Benefits for single parent families, most of
which are headed by women with incomes below $26,000, will
actually increase by about 13 per cent on average under the new
system. Benefits to low income families with children will go up
by 12 per cent on average.
The family income supplement will boost the weekly earnings of
many low income families. It will provide an average of about
$800 to each family with an income below $26,000.
The new rules also mean that low income women will be able to
increase their weekly income without jeopardizing their EI claim.
The increased earnings exemption will mean women are able to
earn up to $50 a week or 25 per cent of their earnings, whichever is
higher, while on claim. This means that EI not only encourages
work efforts, but also enhances women's employability.
I have a few points on the issue of young Canadians. Some Bloc
members have charged that higher entrance requirements for EI
will doom young Canadians to living off welfare and moonlighting
at night. The truth is that new entrants, many of them youth, will
now need 910 hours of work to qualify for benefits.
The entrance requirements have been raised for a very important
reason. We want to discourage young people from becoming
dependent on a handout. We want to encourage more young people
to stay in school instead of dropping out early to take unstable jobs.
Too many young Canadians use up their UI benefits without
upgrading their education or acquiring new skills. They are stuck
on a hopeless treadmill, one of short periods of work alternating
with UI claims.
Evidence shows that some young people are drawn into the job
market before they finish their education due to easy access to UI.
In fact, the working group on seasonal work and unemployment
insurance stated: ``Something has to be done to stop young people
from leaving school to take advantage of the specious, short term
benefits of UI to the detriment of their future and their career
prospects''.
Increased entrance requirements will ensure that youth will
develop a stronger attachment to the labour market. It will ensure
that young people stay in school to get the skills they need for the
jobs of the 21st century.
(1725 )
It is true that high entrance requirements will affect some young
workers, but they will also allow many youths who work part time
or who earn a living at several small jobs to insure their work for
the first time. It is estimated that 39,000 of them who cannot
qualify for UI today will qualify for EI benefits.
These reforms are primarily designed to actively help people
find and keep stable employment. This includes young people. EI's
active employment measures will help young people gain the skills
they need for the changing job market.
These are some of the reasons for my colleagues to be convinced
that this is good legislation. This is legislation that needs to be
supported. I call on all members, despite the discussion and the
arguments, to support Bill C-12.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore well, having been on the
human resources development committee with her for the past two
and half years, ever since the Liberal government was elected.
I know how sensitive she generally is, and I know she feels a bit
uncomfortable when she comes back to the House to tell us what
we have heard several times in committee from the mouths of staff
members of the Department of Human Resources Development. I
would ask, on another level, how she felt as a woman who has
always shown sensitivity and humanity, after hearing the testimony
of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and other organizations
representing women across Canada, who told us that this
unemployment insurance reform made no sense, because it would
penalize women.
Yes, with the hours principle, some 5 per cent of women will
perhaps be able to take advantage of unemployment insurance in
future, but 25 per cent will be excluded. The hon. member knows
the reason: many who used to need 15 hours of work per week or
2785
less will now need many more hours to be eligible for UI. In my
region in particular, people will have to work a minimum of 26
weeks, at seventeen and a half hours a week. What is more, they
will all have to contribute, but will not all be able to draw benefits.
The situation is so bad that the Fédération des femmes du
Québec is contemplating going to court to raise the issue of
discrimination against women, to prevent the act from being
implemented. The same thing goes for young people.
I have trouble recognizing my colleague's usual character when
she takes such a position, when she finds it normal to be harder on
young people who have never yet drawn any benefit from
unemployment insurance. Now she is letting herself be influenced
by the arguments of the department's employees, who told her
young people are potential cheats, potential abusers of the system.
I am appealing to her sensitivity, I am appealing to her
sympathetic ear as a member of the human resources development
committee, where 75 or 80 per cent of the men and women who
came before us in the last two and a half years told us this was not
acceptable. I am trying to find out, and I really do wonder, if she
feels right about her party's line.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration for the
member who just spoke and with whom I have worked for the past
couple of years.
The member knows that I took very seriously the arguments he
brought. I went back and spent a good deal of time with my
colleague and others in looking at the parts of the bill we
considered to be difficult. We looked at parts of the bill we
considered would disadvantage several individuals. We put
forward amendments to assist and to make the bill a far better bill.
The member also knows that it was not without deep
consideration of all concerns: the hours, the dollars, the situations
of people in various regions of the country, that I arrived at the
point where I was satisfied that we were doing what would be in the
best interests of all Canadians in every region by amending certain
parts of the bill.
(1730)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is the last time I will rise in this House on this bill. We
have followed it in committee for nearly two years. We have tried
to make the government aware of the Canadian reality. Rather than
get into technical arguments, I would ask the Liberal members to
consider the upcoming vote and look at the effects on Canadians,
the people of the maritimes, of Quebec, Ontario and especially
northern Ontario, and western Canada and even the major centres. I
will explain.
This bill on unemployment insurance reform is a sort of model
for society the government wants us to choose. It has decided to kill
off the old model of Canada where some things worked and other
things did not work so well, but the desire to ensure that each
region received equitable amounts, at least in terms of
compensation for economic development, is gone. The government
decided to do away with this sort of development, and now we have
this bill before us today.
I am going to give a more down to earth example, which seems
to me to be very close to the truth. As you know, the economy in
our regions is a bit like a second hand car that uses up a lot of oil.
Its motor does not work well, because the oil evaporates too
readily. Usually, you put oil in the engine to keep it running, and, at
some point, you decide to have it repaired so that it will then work
properly.
For the UI reform, the government decided that even if the
engine was using up too much oil, the solution was to quit topping
it up and after that the engine would repair itself. We know very
well that it does not work like that. Regional economies, the
economies that depend on seasonal industries, are economies that
need diversification.
That was proven by the human resources development minister's
committee on seasonal workers, as well as by the demonstrations
seen by the human resources development committee. It was also
proven by people in the last consultation on the bill itself, when
people from the Gaspé Peninsula, as well as other areas, gave us
examples where there were 50, 75, 100 applicants for one job. So,
people want to work and see their economy develop, and that raises
serious questions about an inequitable principle, an unacceptable
principle in the present system, which is to decide from the outset
that people are taking advantage of the system.
This bill assumes guilt on the part of the people using the
unemployment insurance system. It considers that they must be
punished to set them back on the straight and narrow. This
approach is difficult to understand coming from the present
government, because when it was elected it told us that it would
make employment a priority, and came up with the slogan: ``Jobs,
jobs, jobs''.
It therefore proposed a model of society that was completely
different from that of the former Conservative government. If we
had the present reform before us and it was the former
Conservative government that had introduced it and been elected,
we could say that Quebecers and Canadians had chosen this kind of
government, that that was what they wanted, and we would act
accordingly. But no, we have before us a government that was
elected on a completely different philosophy than that in the bill.
Today, it is abdicating completely the responsibility of a party in
power, which is to do what it was elected to do. This government,
particularly the members from the Atlantic provinces, will have
2786
some terrible political fallout to contend with if they vote in favour
of this bill.
Allow me to quickly quote several excerpts from a letter signed
by the present Prime Minister on March 26, 1993, when the
Conservatives were taking measures far less harsh than those
contained in this bill. Among the points made in the letter-and it
is the present Prime Minister, who was Leader of the Opposition at
the time, speaking:
I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern about this attack
against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent superficial
amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures.
Do you not find that this bears some resemblance to the three
little amendments we have had tabled before us just now? The
Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition at the time, goes on to
say:
Instead of getting to the heart of the problem, it goes after the unemployed.
(1735)
In closing, he says:
You can be assured that the Liberals will continue to call on the government
to withdraw this unfair bill.
This may be the most serious effect of this bill.
It is true that it penalizes the regions and the workers. It is true
that there are regional economies in danger of destruction. It is true
that people are made out to be nothing but economic agents.
They are telling us mobility is necessary. That the fact that you
have been in the same community for generations does not give
you the right to stay there, the right to demand development of the
economy in your area. No, you have to go where the jobs are. That
is what the government is saying. The most serious point is that it
casts doubt on the credibility of elected officials. The fact of being
elected with a mandate and failing to fulfil it gives politicians today
a standing of 4 per cent in the polls. And this is totally
unacceptable.
It is true that there are major negative consequences. This
applies to regional economies, but also to the major centres. In the
next few years, the labour force will move out of the regions,
including those people with skills in the tourist industry, who will
not be able to accumulate the number of hours they need to be
eligible for unemployment insurance. The race for hours will be on.
People in the labour force will move to the major centres, empty
the regions of valuable resources and put unacceptable pressure on
the work force in the major centres. The negative effects of this will
be significant.
The unemployment insurance system is the best economic
regulator during a recession. My greatest fear is that, in the next
recession, we will be dealing with economic situations similar to
those of the 1929 depression, where people were literally dying of
hunger because there were no social programs.
These programs were set up. They realized that the
unemployment insurance system at least made it possible to avoid
the long term effects of the recession. A person receiving
unemployment insurance benefits continued to contribute to the
economy and remained a consumer. This will no longer be the case.
These are the major changes.
These are the negative effects of this choice of society, the
choice of the path of neo-liberalism that disregards the need, in a
country like Canada, for stop gap and economic assessment
measures making for a better society.
When you vote shortly, give some thought to what will happen to
our regional economies if you know people who live in Shediac,
Bonaventure, Charlottetown, the Gaspé, in Nouvelle, in Gaspé, in
any of the regions and areas. What will happen to a labour force
that for a number of years has been working in seasonal industries,
which takes workers who will not be able to work the entire year?
We are going to put them in unacceptable situations where they will
have to go on welfare.
All this in a society where there is an unemployment insurance
system that will generate systematically this year, next year and in
other years a surplus of $5 billion. Is this in keeping with the values
for development we sought for Canada in the past 20, 25 or 30
years? Are people going to want to continue to live in a country that
sets all these values aside? I think the answer is very clear to
Quebecers.
The Liberal government will have to bear the responsibility for
its decision. This is not only an unfulfilled commitment, but a form
of disregard for democracy. Who are the real decision makers?
What made them create a system like this one?
Why do members who were elected on their promises to work in
good faith to promote full employment, to use human potential so
their constituents can be happy in their own environments,
suddenly all clam up two and a half years later? They are not saying
a word on these issues and are no longer making any suggestions so
that these results can be achieved.
How come no one told us to set goals in the fight against
unemployment, as we did in the fight against the deficit? How
come? These are fundamental questions to ask ourselves as they
are to be found not only in this bill, but also in other government
measures.
There are two types of decision makers. I think the basic flaw in
this reform is the link between the UI system and the fight against
the deficit.
(1740)
To have unemployment insurance claimants pay premiums is
one thing. They paid them in the past and could have been asked to
keep on paying them. But the government stubbornly insists on
2787
drawing $5 billion a year on a fund basically intended to support a
person's income between jobs. UI claimants are being penalized
and made to feel guilty for using the unemployment insurance
system to offset those negative aspects, where the government
failed to take its responsibility.
Concerning the $5 billion put to the somewhat artificial use of
covering the deficit, the preferred approach would have been to
say: We will take a closer look at government spending on items
such as embassies or national defence to see if we could not save
more on those items. We will settle once and for all the whole
manpower issue and stop wasting $250 million a year in
duplication with the Quebec government alone.
Had they dug deeper in that area, we would not have had to take
actions such as defending, as we are doing now, a reform that is
indefensible on the basis of its economic objectives. The $5 billion
surplus generated by the system is being sunk into in a bureaucratic
machine and conditions created where the money will not be put to
productive use. Why not have decided to put this money back in the
economy to foster job creation instead of reducing employees and
employers contributions?
We are told that, for every penny by which employer
contributions are being reduced, approximately 12,000 jobs could
be created across Canada.
When will the bureaucratic machine generate such interesting
things? We have to realize that the government no longer has any
money to spend in areas that are under provincial jurisdiction. It no
longer has the money required to be involved in these areas, and it
can no longer borrow on foreign markets. The only thing left is the
cash cow that the unemployment insurance system has always
been. The government is relying on a fund in which it does not put
one penny. Indeed, all the money in the UI account comes from
employers and workers.
But the government will not let them manage their $5 billion
surplus. It will not tell them: Employers and employees, you will
decide what to do with your surplus. Are you going to build a
reserve for bad times? Are you going to reduce premiums? Are you
going to invest the surplus in other ventures? Are you going to
increase benefits for those in more difficult situations? This is your
money. You do what you want with it. We will simply make sure
that it is properly spent. But no. The government does not say that.
Under the circumstances, the opinion of Quebecers regarding
these measures should not come as a surprise. According to a poll,
75 per cent of Quebecers feel that the whole issue of
unemployment insurance management should become the
province's sole responsibility. Moreover, 59.8 per cent of
Quebecers oppose the UI reform, while 27 per cent support it. As
well, 79 per cent of them think it will primarily benefit the federal
government, not workers and employers. These people clearly
understand the point I made earlier.
They clearly understand that it is strictly a deficit-related issue.
The government is holding employers and employees hostage.
Quebecers clearly understand, since 72 per cent of them oppose
a reduction of the benefits paid to the unemployed, while 66 per
cent oppose a reduction of the benefit period. It is good to see that
Quebecers have clearly understood the negative impact of this
system.
There are other indications of that, including the fact that the
Minister of Human Resources Development received 40,000
postcards from people asking for the withdrawal of the bill and the
patriation of the manpower sector. The fact that 40,000 people took
the time to send a postcard is a clear message in itself. It is a
message to federal Quebec Liberals, but the message would be the
same in the maritimes if the same poll was conducted there
tomorrow.
I will conclude by quoting a Quebec poet, Gilles Vigneault, who
wrote a line in a song that perfectly applies to the current Liberal
government, and particularly to the Prime Minister: ``By
generating such winds, you prepare quite a storm''.
The storm will come from the young people and those you will
oblige to work 910 hours, 26 weeks of 35 hours of full time work,
in order to become eligible for unemployment insurance, instead of
300 hours. It will come as well from seasonal workers whose
benefits you are cutting, event though they paid for these benefits.
For each 20-week period of unemployment insurance, they will
lose 1 per cent of their benefits. We will be the ones who will have
voted for this bill, on behalf of all those who will have to live with
it.
It will also affect owners of small businesses. In a region such as
mine, there will $10 million less in the economy. This is therefore
very significant. I think this bill must be roundly criticized. There
is still time to defeat it, and I think the same message as was sent to
the Conservatives over the closure of the post offices should be sent
to the Liberal government. The Conservatives thought they were
right and the people were wrong. The government is doing the
same thing and, if it does not change its mind, the people will judge
it the same way.
_____________________________________________
2787
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
relation to a motion adopted earlier this day concerning travel for
2788
the foreign affairs committee, I seek the unanimous consent of the
House to add the necessary interpretation staff from the
Department of Public Works to the list of necessary staff to
accompany the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2788
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12,
an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be read the
third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.46 p.m., it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before
the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 86)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-123
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
2789
Loubier
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
St-Laurent
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
Wayne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest) -80
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Cannis
Caron
de Savoye
Debien
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Payne
Pettigrew
Regan
Sauvageau
Serré
Sheridan
Walker
(1810 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred division on second reading of Bill C-19, an act to
implement the agreement on internal trade.
* * *
The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade,
be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could seek
unanimous consent that all members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, members of the official
opposition will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will be
voting no, unless some would like to do otherwise.
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr. Speaker,
New Democratic members will be voting no.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yea, in favour.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 87)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
2790
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
St-Laurent
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wayne
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-169
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest) -34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Cannis
Caron
de Savoye
Debien
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Payne
Pettigrew
Regan
Sauvageau
Serré
Sheridan
Walker
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.16 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young
Offenders Act (capital punishment), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I think of how Canadians must view
this debate tonight, I am embarrassed to be an MP, a supposed
representative of the people, a servant of the public. Since the death
penalty was abolished in 1976 this is the third time it has been
debated in Parliament.
Nothing has been resolved. Throughout the past 20 years the
number of Canadians who support the reinstatement of capital
punishment has consistently hovered around 70 per cent but MPs
have steadfastly refused to represent their constituents on this
issue. They have voted on the basis of their personal opinions or
with the blessings of their political masters.
In my own riding 85 per cent of constituents who responded to a
1994 survey said that they wanted the death penalty reinstated. My
efforts to carry out the wishes of my constituents and 70 per cent of
Canadians were blocked by the Liberal dominated subcommittee
responsible for deciding which private members' bills would
become votable. The subcommittee decided that Bill C-218 was
not worthy of three hours of debate and a free vote. This topic gets
one hour and then it is dropped.
Ideally the people should finally get their say on this issue in a
binding national referendum which would be held at the time of the
next federal election. That is the position of the Reform Party of
Canada and that is a policy I fully endorse.
However, the Prime Minister and the justice minister have
already indicated that they have no intention of allowing this issue
to be decided by average Canadians. My hon. colleague from North
Vancouver presented a motion in September 1995 to enable
legislation for a referendum on capital punishment. Again,
government members refused to make the motion votable.
(1820 )
A free vote on a private member's bill would have been the next
best thing, particularly if it were a truly reformed free vote in which
all MPs could accurately represent the wishes of the majority of
their constituents rather than voting their own conscience in spite
of how their constituents may feel.
After tonight Canadians will remain frustrated with the
government over this issue and they will be forced to continue
watching criminals get away with murder. That is a sad statement
on the job performance of MPs.
This bill is not just about capital punishment. The reinstatement
of the death penalty is but one of many substantial and necessary
steps Canadians have been demanding to better deal with
murderers in our society. This bill was about plugging the leaking
holes in our justice system.
We see murderers who show no remorse for brutally slaying
their victims. They show no potential for rehabilitation and instead
languish in jails at the taxpayer's expense. Worse yet, when they
are released and paroled we are expected to welcome them back
into our communities.
2791
We have had to swallow our disgust as some of these released
murderers murder again or commit other violent crimes. We see
16 and 17-year olds with little respect for the law receiving slap
on the wrist sentences for murder.
Two weeks ago in Prince Rupert, B.C., three teenagers received
jail terms ranging from only seven months to two years for the
clubbing to death of a fisherman known as the Gentle Giant. I do
not believe that any Canadian is prepared to let these preventable
crimes and miscarriages of justice continue.
Politicians and academics are fond of quoting optimistic crime
rates when they argue against capital punishment. That is pointless.
Canadians know their streets are more dangerous today than they
were 20 years ago. Statistics do not always tell the entire story.
As members of the House are sure to mention, it is true that there
has been a slight decline in the murder rate since the death penalty
was abolished in 1976. However, the last execution in Canada took
place in 1961, 15 years before. The murder rate almost doubled
during those 15 years. The murder rate is still 50 per cent higher
than it was when that last sentence of death was carried out.
Some members across the floor have argued that the
sensationalism surrounding a handful of murders is driving the
demand to improve the justice system. Sensationalism? How can
the efforts to prevent murder, even just one murder, be called
sensationalism?
We must use these tragedies as a guide to help us make
fundamental changes which would prevent further anguish. This
government uses prevention to justify implementing a useless
bureaucratic gun registration, but refuses to even consider what the
people are really crying for: punishment that fits the crime.
In a further example of hypocrisy the government embraces the
policies of the Canadian Police Association when it concerns gun
control, but ignores a strongly worded resolution by that same
association which calls for the reinstatement of capital punishment.
There were 107 police officers killed in the line of duty between
1961 and 1994.
Even after years in prison and the efforts of an army of
psychiatrists and social workers, we cannot rehabilitate a violent
murderer who has no remorse. In this case the punishment must fit
the crime. In the case of first degree murder, 70 per cent of
Canadians believe the punishment should be death. This sentiment
is not a matter of vengeance but a prevailing need to send criminals
the message that society is not prepared to condone or excuse
sadistic premeditated murder.
I do not claim that the prospect of death will deter others sick
enough to consider committing murder, but at least we would not
have to support a murderer for 15 to 25 years. Lethal injection may
not provide any deterrence whatsoever but it would certainly
eliminate repeat offenders.
According to the 1994 report of the auditor general it costs
approximately $48,000 per inmate per year in a federal prison.
While we are supporting an incarcerated murderer it is possible
that he will become increasingly dangerous with the onset of
resentment and bitterness over his years of imprisonment. Even
convicted murderers have expressed that death could be a more
humane alternative to a lengthy incarceration.
In 1982, one-third of the 300 convicted murderers in Canada said
that they would prefer the death penalty over life in prison. In 1983
a convicted murderer in Saskatchewan formally requested the
death penalty by lethal injection on the basis that his life sentence
was cruel and unusual punishment. His request was denied by the
court.
(1825)
In this debate we cannot forget the inevitable release of
murderers. How do members feel about the possibility of Paul
Bernardo some day being their next door neighbour? Canadians do
not want criminals who are guilty of torture, rape and first degree
murder back on the streets to kill again. They have good reason to
worry.
Between 1986 and 1995, 133 convicts released from prison for
first and second degree murder returned to our communities and
committed crimes again. These included 87 violent crimes and sex
offences and 10 murders. Two convicted murderers who had
escaped murdered again. How does one explain to the families of
those victims that 12 murderers were given the opportunity to
strike again? How can anyone possibly defend our justice system to
the family of just one of those victims?
Let us take a look at the so-called rehabilitation of convicted
murderer Allan James Sweeney. He was convicted of murder in
1978. Following his 1984 release on day parole, the taxpayers who
paid for his expensive jail stay were horrified that his freedom
resulted in the rape and stabbing death of a 21-year old Ottawa
halfway house employee.
What about the impressive rehabilitation of Jean-Guy Chantal?
He was paroled in 1984 after serving 17 years of a life sentence for
a 1967 murder. Three years after his release he beat a Montreal
janitor to death with a pool cue and a paint can. These are just two
tragedies that could have been prevented if our justice system had
served our best interests.
In the event that a convict guilty of first degree murder were
successful in appealing a death sentence, this bill would have at
least ensured that they stayed in jail. That would have meant no
possibility of day passes.
That is no consolation for the families of Wanda Woodward and
Vital Piquette. They were murdered in 1987 by Daniel Gingras, a
convicted murderer who used his birthday present, a one-day pass
from an Edmonton prison, as his opportunity to murder again. He
had been under the supervision of his social worker, a man half his
size who he overpowered and tied up before he escaped to roam
freely for nearly two months. Gingras should never have been let
out of jail in the first place. It is too late to protect Woodward and
Piquette but it is not too late for all the other potential victims.
2792
This bill would have made capital punishment the mandatory
minimum sentence for adults convicted of first degree murder. For
those who believe this is extreme and that life in prison is adequate
punishment for these murderers, I ask them to examine the extreme
nature of the lenient section 745 of the Criminal Code. Incredibly,
it allows convicts the right to shorten their life sentence. Even if
they are ordered to serve life in prison, all convicts can have the
length of their sentence reviewed by a jury after serving only 15
years. If successful, they can apply for parole.
Of all convicts who have applied under this provision since
1987, only 13 applicants have been denied an early release. That is
a frightening prospect when we consider that even serial child
killer Clifford Olson becomes eligible to apply for early release on
August 12.
The justice minister says that he is in favour of keeping section
745 in all forms. He finds this loophole is acceptable despite a
petition from 16,000 Canadians asking the government to repeal
section 745. This is another example of how this government is
sticking its head in the sand and refusing to carry out the wishes of
Canadians.
While we mend the punitive aspects of our justice system, we
must not forget to address the grey area of the criminal population
known as young offenders. Currently, a young offender convicted
of first degree murder faces just 10 years as a maximum prison
term. That 16 or 17-year old is perfectly aware of their actions and
can easily understand the difference between right and wrong.
Many people think we should focus on rehabilitating and not
punishing these youths. I disagree. There must be a balance. How
will a youth who has already demonstrated disdain for justice ever
take it seriously if they are not held accountable for their actions?
Between 35 and 65 kids, most of them older teens are charged
with murder every year. Youths aged 12 to 17 were accused of 10
per cent of all homicides committed between 1983 and 1992. As
with older criminals, they also need to know that their actions are
not acceptable in our society.
(1830)
This bill would have seen a 16 or 17-year old serve a life
sentence for first degree murder. Furthermore it would have
ensured that this age group served at least seven years for second
degree murder. For those under 16, first degree murder would have
carried a minimum sentence of 10 to 15 years while second degree
murder would have meant imprisonment for five to seven years.
Note that the key word here is minimum, not maximum.
I recognize that in advocating capital punishment serious
consideration must be given to ensure that an innocent person is not
put to death. Both law and science have progressed significantly in
the past 20 years. A mechanism proposed in this bill would have
given the jury the option of recommending clemency so only those
guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt would be put to death.
The appeal process proposed was thorough and fair. A
conviction could have been appealed to the supreme court on the
basis of both fact and law. This means that legal arguments could
be used as sufficient grounds for overturning a conviction. More
important, the facts and details surrounding the murder case could
be re-examined to determine if the conviction was valid.
The investigative tools and techniques of modern science
certainly diminish the ambiguity of guilt or innocence. DNA
testing has been proven to be a powerful means of identifying those
who may have committed serious crimes. Bill C-104 which passed
unanimously by this Parliament in June 1995 makes it easier for
authorities to obtain DNA evidence through hair, saliva, blood and
skin samples from a person who is reasonably believed to have
perpetrated a crime.
Those opposed to capital punishment would have us picture in
our minds a row of convicts hanging in the gallows. That is
sensationalism. Lethal injection of sodium thiopental ensures a
quick and painless end and does not turn the culmination of a tragic
chain of events begun by a brutal murder into a media and public
circus.
I am advocating change in the justice system as an average
Canadian, one who sees criminals coddled and protected while
their victims are denied their basic right to safety. Reinstatement of
capital punishment along with other measures such as a victim bill
of rights as proposed by my colleague from Fraser Valley West
would go a long way toward restoring some of the public's lost
faith in our judicial system.
There are avid supporters of our rehabilitation programs who
believe we can help these lost souls through counselling or
training. Of course this is the same program that was allocated an
entire chapter by the May 1996 auditor general's report listing a
range of inefficiencies.
Canadians want to see murderers be adequately punished for
their crime. Canadians do not want a murderer out on the streets to
kill again. They have grown weary of watching teenagers laugh at
our laws. They are sick and tired of paying for failed rehabilitation.
They do not want to accept that murderers may never serve their
full sentences.
2793
This government says tough luck for Canadians. The justice
minister and his government like the status quo. Who cares what
Canadians think? Canadians are being denied the right to vote for
these changes in a national referendum and now their
representatives, members of Parliament, are being denied the right
to vote on their behalf.
Canadians want capital punishment reinstated. Poll after poll has
overwhelmingly shown this. When capital punishment was
abolished in 1976 it was given 98 hours of debate. In 1996 this
debate tonight warrants one hour. One hour.
If the reinstatement of the death penalty were given fair attention
and due consideration by Parliament, there would be no backing
down. Canadians would have demanded that this bill be passed.
Given the tremendous support of Canadians for the reinstatement
of capital punishment, and because it is the duty of MPs to
represent their constituents' interests in the House, I seek the
unanimous consent of the members present to make Bill C-218
votable this evening.
(1835 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make this a
votable item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear at least two members saying no.
Therefore, there is not unanimous consent. We will proceed with
debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
bill introduced by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace
River is a bill to restore the death penalty. Under this bill, all cases
of first degree murder committed by an adult would be punishable
by death, while the sentence for second degree murder would
remain imprisonment for life, although the terms of release would
be stricter.
In addition, the Young Offenders Act would be amended to
provide for a sentence not exceeding 25 years for first degree
murder and not exceeding 10 years for second degree murder.
This reopens the debate on capital punishment. As you know,
this issue has already been debated at great lengths in this House.
Let us start by asking ourselves if new developments justify
throwing back into question the existing provisions of the Criminal
Code?
Has the number of murders increased in Canada? The latest
statistics published by Statistics Canada in Juristat actually show a
6 per cent drop in the number of homicides in 1994, the lowest
number in 25 years. The 596 reported homicides represent a 34 per
cent reduction over 1993, that is to say the third consecutive
reduction from one year to the next.
The lower number of homicides committed in 1994 is mainly
explained by 30 fewer homicides in the greater Montreal area. That
is also why the number of homicides recorded in Quebec has gone
down by 33 over 1993. In the case of the other provinces, only New
Brunswick and Alberta have seen an increase in their homicide
rates in 1994. Murders committed with a firearm continued to
account for about one third of all homicides.
On the basis of the statistics, I do not think that there are valid
reasons for looking at this issue all over again. Life imprisonment
with eligibility for parole after 25 years is a sufficient sentence.
There is nothing to prove that capital punishment could save lives.
On the other hand, the risks are greater that an innocent person
could be sentenced to death. That is essentially my position.
Let us look again, if we could, at the main argument advanced in
favour of capital punishment. Proponents of capital punishment
think that it is a more dissuasive measure than life imprisonment.
We must, however, point out to them that for some people, such
as fanatics and those acting on impulse, no sentence will be
dissuasive. There was even an overall drop in the murder rate in
Canada after capital punishment was abolished. Studies done to
date indicate that the death sentence is no more dissuasive than the
prospect of life imprisonment. The prospect of losing one's
freedom for the rest of one's days is dissuasion enough.
It is through better control of firearms and alcohol consumption,
greater attention to mental health, and a more effective battle
against poverty and unemployment that we will cut down on the
number of murders, far more than through bringing back the death
penalty. There is no foundation for the belief that the death penalty
will cut down on the number of murders.
Recently, in Senneville, near Montreal, a police office was killed
while on duty, as he was about to arrest a driver for an infraction of
the highway safety code. The murderer is still at large. Might the
death penalty have prevented this tragedy? There is no reason to
think so.
Still relying on data from Statistics Canada, in 1994 one police
officer was killed in the line of duty, compared to two in 1993, one
in 1992, and three in 1991. For the tenth year in a row, no federal or
provincial correctional worker was murdered in the performance of
his or her duties.
(1840)
Perhaps the most valid argument against capital punishment is
the risk of killing innocent people. No system can guarantee the
infallibility of a ruling. There were cases in the past in which
people were killed by mistake and, despite all the guarantees
2794
provided by our modern system, the risk remains. A witness may
be mistaken or lie under oath.
Our legal system is based on the credibility of witnesses. If all
murderers were like Paul Bernardo and provided videotapes of
their crimes, it would be different. In recent years, however, some
people such as David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul
Morin were wrongly convicted of murder. If capital punishment
were still legal in this country, these three men would have been
dead and buried a long time ago. The state would have become a
killer without being able to correct its actions. We learned that, in
the last two centuries, 343 people were wrongly convicted of
murder in the U.S.
Of course, some cases, like the rape and murder of children, like
the Bernardo case, are revolting. We must, however, keep in mind
that not all murder cases are so shocking. It is not because of a few
unusually revolting cases that we must take an extreme position
that would apply to all cases of first degree murder.
Other factors such as the eventual rehabilitation of murderers
argue against capital punishment. Commuting a death sentence to
life imprisonment by order in council, as is proposed in the bill
before us, would open the door to arbitrary decisions and would
result in a loss of respect by the public for our judicial system.
The bill also proposes to give the judge who sentences a person
to death the power to make a recommendation in favour of royal
clemency, or to postpone the execution of the sentence for any
reason and for an indefinite period. It is obvious that even the
sponsor of the bill has doubts about the merits of the death
sentence.
The amendments proposed by the Reform member for Prince
George-Peace River also seek to amend the Young Offenders Act
to impose longer sentences in the case of a murder committed by a
juvenile. The bill provides for a sentence of 15 to 25 years in the
case of a person convicted of first degree murder who is 16 or 17,
and a sentence of 10 to 15 years in the case of person under the age
of 16. The current maximum sentence is 10 years for all minors. In
the case of a person convicted of second degree murder, the bill
proposes a maximum sentence of 10 years and a minimum one of
five years. The current act provides for a maximum sentence of
seven years.
Current prison terms were just lengthened in December by this
House. They better reflect the representations made to the standing
committee on justice. Prevention and rehabilitation are much more
effective, particularly in the case of minors, and the emphasis must
be on adequate public awareness measures.
In short, I am completely against this bill, which would bring us
back 20 years. I urge members of this House to do like me and to
vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-218, which is
sponsored by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.
Bill C-218 seeks to impose the death penalty for first degree
murder committed by a person 18 years of age or more and it seeks
to change the prison terms for first and second degree murder that
can be imposed on persons under the age of 18. In my remarks
today I wish to speak on two aspects of this bill: first, the wisdom
of reopening the debate on capital punishment for murder, and
second, the suggestion that there should be increased prison terms
for murder for persons under the age of 18.
(1845)
The issue of capital punishment has been thoroughly explored at
the national level. After debating the question a number of times
between 1966 and 1976, the House of Commons adopted a bill
abolishing capital punishment in 1976.
The most recent extensive debate took place less than 10 years
ago in 1987. The subject of debate was a government motion. It
called on the House of Commons to support, in principle, the
reinstatement of capital punishment and to establish a special
committee to provide recommendations on two aspects: first, on
the offences that should carry the death penalty; and second, on the
method or methods that should be used to carry out the sentence of
death. In a free vote, and after debating the question at length in the
House of Commons, members of the House of Commons voted
against the motion and, therefore, against the reinstatement of
capital punishment in the Criminal Code.
It is notable that in the time since this was last discussed in the
House, capital punishment has not been an issue of great national
importance. The hon. member is introducing this bill now,
notwithstanding the fact that in 1994 Canada recorded its lowest
murder rate since 1969.
In 1975, just before capital punishment was abolished for
murder, the homicide rate in Canada was 3 per cent. In 1987 when
the last major debate on this subject took place, the rate was 2.4 per
cent. The homicide rate for 1994 in Canada, the last year for which
it is available, was 2 per cent. These numbers show that not only
has the murder rate not gone up since the death penalty was
abolished, it has actually gone down. This is hardly justification for
seeking a debate on the death penalty.
While Canadians are rightly revolted by murder, which receives
the most severe sanction under the Criminal Code, the case has not
been made effectively to demonstrate that the current law has failed
to punish murders adequately and requires change. In my view, the
2795
death penalty exceeds what is necessary to achieve various
legitimate sentencing objectives.
The onus is on those who would want to change the law in such a
fundamental way to make a compelling case. I am not persuaded by
the arguments being made.
I also oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, moral
grounds and conscientious grounds. I believe that effective
arguments can easily be advanced to support this position. Such
arguments have been made in the House over the years.
Since the 1987 debates, however, two significant cases have
come to light: the wrongful convictions for murder of Donald
Marshall, Jr. and Guy-Paul Morin. If capital punishment had been
in effect, they may not have had a second chance at life. This is why
I oppose the death penalty on very practical grounds.
If we as legislators were to support the death penalty, would we
or a member of our families be willing to be that first mistake? I
think not. That is why I am very opposed to capital punishment.
Our system of justice, while it does a good job, certainly is not
perfect and mistakes happen. When concerned with the life of an
innocent individual, we cannot afford to make that mistake.
The issue of capital punishment is both a moral and a personal
issue. It is also a matter of how we see ourselves as a country and as
a people. To return to capital punishment in Canada would be to go
against the grain internationally. The trend in the world is to
abolish the death penalty. To support a return to the death penalty
for murder would be a retrograde move.
We see in the neighbouring nation to the south the presence of
the death penalty. Has that done a thing to stop crimes of violence
in that country? No, it has not.
(1850 )
I want to turn my attention now to the proposed increased prison
terms for murder for persons under 18 years of age. It is quite
surprising for the hon. member to bring forward these proposals at
this time when new sentencing and parole eligibility periods for
youth convicted of murder came into effect less than six months
ago, on December 1, 1995.
A youth who is 14 years of age or over at the time of the
commission of the offence of first degree murder or second degree
murder may be transferred to adult court. Depending on whether
the youth is found guilty in youth court or in adult court, different
sentences and parole eligibility regimes apply.
If convicted of murder in adult court, the youth will be sentenced
to life imprisonment. In such a case, the parole eligibility period
was formerly set by the court at between five and ten years. Since
December 1, 1995, a 16 or 17-year-old youth convicted of first
degree murder must serve at least 10 years before being eligible for
parole. A 16 or 17-year-old youth convicted of second degree
murder must serve at least seven years. A youth aged 14 or 15 who
is convicted of either first or second degree murder in adult court
must serve a period of time between five and seven years inclusive
as set by the court before being eligible for parole.
For convictions in youth court the maximum penalty for first
degree murder has been increased from the maximum of five years
to a maximum of ten years. The penalty for second degree murder
is now seven years. Sentences for both first and second degree
murder in youth court have a maximum custodial portion and a
maximum period of conditional supervision within the community.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs is currently studying issues related to youth crime,
the youth justice system and matters concerning the operation and
implementation of the Young Offenders Act. We should wait for
the report of the committee before amending further the Young
Offenders Act. We should also wait until we have an opportunity to
assess the recent modifications to that act.
In addition, further input on the Young Offenders Act will be
provided by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers task
force on young offenders which will be forthcoming soon.
I cannot support this bill because I do not support the
reinstatement of the death penalty. I believe the proposed
amendments to the Young Offenders Act have been made and any
addition or changes to that act prior to further deliberations by the
committee and before the input from the federal, provincial and
territorial justice ministers' committee would be premature and
ill-advised.
I do not support the bill. I would like to thank the House for the
opportunity to participate in the debate.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a privilege to speak to Bill C-218 which introduces once again the
concept of the death penalty.
I commend my colleague from Prince George-Peace River for
the courage to once again introduce this matter even though
members opposite do not have the courage to put it to a vote in this
day and age.
One of the questions that comes to me is why once again is it this
party which is bringing forward issues that are relevant to
grassroots Canadians. On the death penalty all we are looking at is
a debate and a vote. Why is it necessary to fight like we did for
victims' rights? Why are these things necessary? Why is the
government not running with these kinds of issues and dealing with
them?
I was reading a book put out by Amnesty International the other
day entitled When the State Kills. I will read an excerpt because it
may give some the understanding of exactly what is on the minds
on this side of the House. It states: ``The important point is that
2796
every person can improve himself and should be given the
opportunity to do so, however serious his mistakes have been. The
reason for this is that deep down inside each human being there
exists the potentiality of development towards the highest good. A
death penalty would totally destroy that potentiality''. Think about
what it says. I would repeat this part: ``The important point is that
every person can improve himself and should be given the
opportunity to do so however serious his mistakes have been''.
(1855)
I can provide a litany, as my colleague from Prince
George-Peace River has, of mistakes. I do not know how one
could say that Wayne Perkin made a mistake by bludgeoning
Angela Richards to death, stabbing her 26 times. It happened in my
community. He had made that same mistake a couple of years
before. He got out on parole and made the same mistake again.
These are not mistakes. They are cold calculated problems. It is a
human deficiency. They are animal instincts. For the life of me I
cannot understand how the concept of mistake gets into it. We must
deal on a better level than this.
Some comments have been made by members opposite in their
speeches that I must address. Their comments emphasize exactly
some problems in their logic. The Bloc member said that according
to current statistics homicides have gone down in all categories.
The Liberal member also said that we have the lowest murder rate
in years, and that the number of murders has actually gone down.
I could give them a good idea why that has happened. I was at a
victims rights rally this past Saturday and talked to a lady named
Leona. Leona and I have talked a number of times. She has been
through hell and back. I will give the House an idea of why the
statistics show that the murder rate-murder one in particular-has
gone down.
I will read exactly what Leona said in reference to Bobby
Gordon Oatway. Members may remember his name was brought up
recently. He was to be let out on parole in my colleague's riding.
The inhabitants screamed about that and they tried to let him out in
Abbotsford in my riding. We got on that, so they flew him to
Toronto and there he resides.
Leona said: ``I am a victim of this man and can tell you more
about him than most. He is one of the most dangerous kinds of
pedophiles there is. For about 10 years of my life this man raped,
beat and sold his child victims. One of the men he sold us to''-she
was one of them-``was Clifford Olson.'' I am sure most of you
know about Olsen.
``We have suffered every form of abuse imaginable. Mr. Oatway
changed his name in prison. His name was Robert Gordon Stevens.
When I was a young child and in my teens I was forced to witness
several child murders committed by Oatway and a few deaths
caused by Olson. We were forced to help bury the bodies of his
victims. As one of Oatway's victims I fought this man every step of
the way to try to protect the other children from the rapes and
beatings and horrifying deaths which I was forced to witness''.
She talked in this letter about how she tried to express exactly
what was going on and how no one would listen. She continued:
``The rapes I was subjected to, the numerous times I stepped in to
try to prevent another death, the blood I have on my hands, the
young children's bodies I have cradled as they lay there dead in my
arms, it is all so horrifying and I was not the only one. There were
many of us who suffered this horror. These murder charges have
not and will not be brought against Oatway because I am classified
as an unstable witness due to the horrors I have seen''.
``There were originally 41 counts against Oatway when the
charges from me were stayed, which left only 19. After all
witnesses had testified crown counsel and Oatway struck a deal. He
plead guilty to seven charges. Those were one rape, two bestiality,
two buggery and two assaults against adult women. He was given a
total of 10 years''.
This is a man who has murdered children. This is a man who
should have had murder one. This is a man who should have been
given the death penalty. Why the statistics go down on these
fellows is that lawyers and judges take over. They reduce murder
one and murder two to manslaughter and to things called buggery,
assault and bestiality. That is why the statistics are going down. It
has become a game of lawyers and judges. They plea bargain case
after case.
(1900)
I have more. I have been there. I was at a funeral yesterday
which involved such an issue. They say homicides have dropped.
Outside the House there is a monument of RCMP officers who
have been murdered in Canada. Roger Pierlet is on the monument. I
met Roger Pierlet's brother and sister in my riding. They asked me
to go to a hearing of John Harvey Miller who, with Vincent
Cockriell, shot this RCMP officer to death in 1974.
They were both sentenced to hang until the Liberal government
took away capital punishment. Then they were committed to life
imprisonment. Cockriell got out about seven months ago. So much
for life. So much for the family. So much for the considerations.
Cockriell is now apparently scheduled to go to the university
college in the Fraser Valley. I have to wonder what is wrong in this
country. Death meant death, but it does not any more. It means
ending up in the Fraser Valley college.
2797
The statistics say murder is going down, but it is not. The
problem is there is not a government in this country with the
courage of the convictions of its electorate. That is unfortunate.
It is unfortunate that we could not convince the government
tonight to vote on such an important issue. It would find, like
many in this country feel, the death penalty is a necessary
deterrent and could be a positive thing, not a negative thing.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to watch members of the Reform Party, the less
civilized ones, trying to turn the clock back some 300 years. They
do not seem to realize Parliament and Canada several years ago, by
way of an historic vote, decided to eliminate once and for all the
death penalty.
An hon. member: Was it a free vote?
Mr. Caccia: Yes, it was a free vote.
In Canada we can confidently look at statistics as they are and
we can confidently look at the reality which surrounds us in
everyday life. I would like to make two brief points because of the
time limitation.
Contrary to what the previous speaker said, statistics are a reality
that cannot be denied. Statistics are there for guidance. If the
statistics are not liked by certain members of the Reform Party, that
is too bad. Statistics demonstrate not only in Canada but also in the
United States that the murder rate and crime rates are down. That
may not be good news politically for the ambassadors of bad news,
but nevertheless that is a fact.
There is proof on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean that capital
punishment is not a deterrent. This evidently has some difficulty
penetrating into the consciousness of some Reform members. It is
not a deterrent and it has been proven in jurisdiction after
jurisdiction. There is one just south of us which can demonstrate at
any time on any day that capital punishment does not deter crime.
That has been established over the last 60 years in a number of
nations so much that progress on this matter has been achieved
exactly as a result of these findings in recent decades.
(1905)
For the state to have capital punishment is tantamount to giving a
bad example. We want society to behave in a positive manner with
respect to life. We want the state to promote that concept. We want
the state to do whatever is in its power, on behalf of the population,
to ensure life is protected.
If that premise holds, as most of us believe, then we cannot have
the state commit murder. We cannot have the state using violence
on people. We cannot have the state adopting double standards.
This is another point which is so difficult for some Reform
members to understand and accept. The state has to give the right
example. The state cannot use violence by snuffing out life.
This is an important watershed on this issue, in addition of
course to other considerations, which we all well know, of
misjudgments of people who were condemned and whose life was
taken away and whose innocence was proven decades later. The
records are full of those cases as well.
Apart from that aspect, it is well known, an established principle,
that if the state is to give the example that the population must
follow, the state cannot be seen as being the one that commits the
action of taking away the life of an individual. Some criminologists
have claimed in their findings that imprisonment for life is a very
serious and heavy punishment for any human being, the removal of
liberty, freedom and being able to enjoy the things in life that a free
individual can.
It is clear some Reform Party members have difficulty
understanding the validity of statistics. They do not exist for them
because they do not confirm their biases. That is too bad. Reform
members have difficulty in understanding that capital punishment
does not work as a deterrent. I invite them to visit countries where
capital punishment still exists and see what they have achieved in
terms of reducing the crime rate. It has not made one indent.
A concept which is perhaps too far reaching for the Reform
members to grasp is that the state must give the example it wants
the public to follow.
For all those reasons it seems this motion ought to be defeated. I
am sure that if it ever comes to a vote it will be. We cannot turn the
clock back 300 years. We have moved into an era in which we have
developed values and appreciation and in which we have learned
from past mistakes.
We crossed this threshold a few years ago after a very lengthy
debate and a very close vote; by eight votes. However, it was done
and Canada is committed to being a country in which the death
penalty no longer exists. We want to make sure that for the next
millennium this matter will never be considered seriously.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this for a few moments.
I really started to realize more and more what the problem is
when it comes to this place and it was expressed by the previous
speaker. When someone stands in the House and gives us messages
about why we should not have capital punishment, they are telling
70 per cent of the population of Canada that they do not know what
they are talking about. Once again the old attitude comes out that
we in Parliament know best, not the 70 per cent or 75 per cent of
Canadians calling for this through polls.
(1910)
The previous speaker spoke of statistics. The polls are saying
there is a very high percentage of Canadians who want capital
punishment.
2798
The Liberals have the gall to sit in the House and send a
message out across the land that they are the intelligent ones, they
are the smart ones, they know best and the ordinary taxpayers do
not know what is good for them, and so they will decide. This
will not be a votable motion.
Then I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands shouting
thank goodness the bill is not votable. I have to agree with him.
They are probably glad it is not votable because once again they
would have to vote against the wishes of the people in their ridings
and they would not want to do that too many times. They have
already done it so many times we cannot count them all. That it is
okay, do not listen to the people, do what you want to do. That is
the part that bothers me more than anything else.
People are saying what they want from this place. Canadians
want a fundamental responsibility that has been here for ages, to
provide legislation that shows responsibility to protect the lives and
property of its citizens, a fundamental request from Canadians. The
least we can do in the House is come up with legislation that
reflects the wishes of the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers of
Canada. That would be a novelty.
Look at Clifford Olson. He killed once and for that one death he
could have got life in 25 years. He killed twice and that was free.
The third time was free. The fourth time was free. The fifth time
was free. He killed 11 times and all the rest were free. He only had
to kill once to get the sentence he got.
Lo and behold, a few years back the miracle workers on the other
side of the House provided a clause that said even Clifford Olson
could apply to get out in 15 years. I do not believe that sits well
with the people of Canada. That is the mentality that goes on over
on that side of the House. That kind of mentality is what the
Canadian people are sick and tired of.
Canadian people would like us to send a message to the Paul
Bernardos, the Karla Homolkas and the Clifford Olsons of this
country that if you hunt and you capture and you abuse and you kill
another human being, the Government of Canada in the name of
justice and those innocent victims will hunt and capture you. If
authorized to do so after a fair trial by a court of law, we will take
your life, not in the name of revenge, but in the name of justice and
as a deterrent to future such acts by others. That is the statement we
need to send from the House of Commons to the people of Canada
and these types of Bernardos, Homolkas and Olsons.
I would like to be invited by any of those members to go to
their riding to debate this topic. Let us see if they can stand in
front of their people and do that. Likewise, I invite them to come
to my riding and convince my people this is not good for them.
They will not do that. It is more fun to sit in here and heckle and
not vote on it.
I fail to understand why we have a committee in the House of
Commons that determines which bills are votable and which are
not. There are criteria clearly laid out as to what makes a bill
votable. When that criteria is 100 per cent met, I do not think the
personal feelings of any individual from any committee should
interfere with making an item votable. I have a hard time
understanding that. Yet this government, which has the control of
the committees, lets the personal opinion of people override the
rules that are in place as to what makes an item votable.
(1915)
Once again, it does not make sense. The little dictatorship runs
on and on and personally, I am really tired of it.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know that time is short and I have just a couple of
minutes but there is a question I would like to ask the Liberal
government representatives opposite. Have they not stopped to
realize for one minute what the main criteria of government is? It is
for the safety and well-being of its citizens. It is not for the criminal
citizens in this country; it is for the law-abiding citizens. But not
according to this government and its ministers who say that the
first commitment with regard to crime has to be for the
rehabilitation of the criminal. That is the government's priority.
I am hearing that our first concern has to be the rehabilitation of
the criminal. If that is not the most sickening thing I have heard as a
priority for any government of any country, I do not know what is.
The government has thrown out, totally discarded the main reason
we have government in this country: the safety and well-being of
the law-abiding citizens.
The government, as my hon. colleagues have been saying since
this debate began, seems to have gone totally the other way. We
have heard about Mr. Olson. We have also heard from some of the
victims' families who have to suffer with this every day.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to tell the hon. member that the
time has expired. Accordingly, the matter is dropped from the order
paper.
_____________________________________________