37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 039
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 29, 2001
1000
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Human Rights Commission Report
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1005
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| The Speaker |
1010
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ESTIMATES
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| AIR TRAFFIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Veterans Affairs
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| The Speaker |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW ACT
|
| Bill C-322. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1015
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-38. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1020
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 9
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1025
1030
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Human Rights Commission Report
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1035
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1040
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1045
1050
1055
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1100
1105
| Ms. Carol Skelton |
1110
| Ms. Monique Guay |
1115
1120
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1125
1130
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1135
1140
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1145
1150
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1155
1200
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
1205
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1225
1230
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1235
1240
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1245
1250
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1255
1300
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1305
1310
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1315
1320
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Sitting suspended
|
1335
| Sitting resumed
|
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
1340
1345
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1350
1355
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
1400
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
| AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| F. R. CRAWLEY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| FIGURE SKATING
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN BROME—MISSISQUOI
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1405
| GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| ABORIGINAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
|
| Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| SALON DU LIVRE DE L'OUTAOUAIS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| NATIONAL WAR MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1410
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1435
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1440
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1445
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Pat O'Brien |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1450
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
1455
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| MULTICULTURALISM
|
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Richard Harris |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
1505
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
1510
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Report stage
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Motion
|
1555
(Division 60)
| Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 039
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 29, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[English]
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the annual report and the employment equity
report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the year 2000.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege this morning as my
rights as a member of parliament have been abused again.
I speak of the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission which you just tabled in the House immediately prior
to my speaking, but which has been reported extensively in the
press this morning. For example, the Toronto Star and
other papers have reported it at length.
This contempt of parliament by this unelected and unaccountable
commission and the Minister of Justice is quite obvious. This is
the second time in a month and a half that the commission has
leaked one of its reports to the media prior to it being tabled
in the House of Commons. I raised this as a question of
privilege on February 15, 2001 at page 714.
When it comes to government doing business, I sometimes have to
wonder if this House means anything to it or is it just a
superfluous adjunct as it jumps over the heads of this
institution to communicate directly with Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you speak out and protect the privileges
of this House and its members.
Erskine May describes contempt as:
—any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt
even though there is no precedent for the offence.
We do have precedence here. There are news articles, as I have
referred to, the Toronto Star, the Hamilton Spectator
and the London Free Press, detailing the exact contents of
the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Annual reports to parliament are to remain secret and
confidential until tabled in the House of Commons. Other
agencies, crown corporations, the auditor general and so on are
able to respect this tenet. Why is it that the Canadian Human
Rights Commission believes that it is above the normal protocols
and trashes them instead of respecting them?
The member of parliament for Provencher raised a similar point
of order on March 14, 2001 at page 1646 of Hansard when he
argued that his rights as a member of parliament were breached
because of the contempt shown by the Minister of Justice to this
House in excluding members of parliament from briefings on a bill
prior to it being tabled in the House. Yet the media had the
contents and substance of the bill published prior to its
tabling.
Mr. Speaker, you ruled on March 19, 2001, at page 1839, that the
member for Provencher had a prima facie case of privilege. Today
we have a repeat of the same situation. The media had the
contents and substance of the annual report while the members of
parliament are in the dark.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission falls under the purview of
the Minister of Justice.
1005
While the commission is a quasi-judicial body, it still has to
answer to both the minister and to parliament. There is a
pattern here where the minister has contempt for this honourable
and venerable institution.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is becoming intolerable. I ask that
you find that there is prima facie case of the breach of my
privileges. Since you ruled that way so recently, and it was
obviously ignored, I ask that you recommend that the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deal with the matter
sternly.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree generally with what the
hon. member has said. It is unfortunate, though, that he has
chosen to trivialize such an important issue by somehow alleging
that this has something to do with the government.
First, the commission reports to parliament. The Speaker just
rose and tabled the report. This has nothing to do with an
action of the government.
An action of the government, which I regret, occurred some days
ago in the House for which instructions were clearly given about
a protocol and giving these kinds of media briefings under
embargo, which, as we now know, were not respected by members of
the media. The Chair indicated to ministers that these things
could only be done if done in a secure way, which I read to be a
lockup or some such thing, but that was a different issue
altogether.
Mr. Speaker ruled on the previous item and we accepted the
ruling that he gave of prima facie and it is still before a
parliamentary committee for further study.
In the case today, this was not a report that was given for the
government to table. This was a report given directly to
parliament and tabled in the House by the Speaker of the House.
If someone has breached that, which obviously has happened, then
I agree with the hon. member across. I do not object to what he
has raised in the sense that it indicates rules were broken.
Where I do disagree with the hon. member is on the personal
comment he made about the Minister of Justice, alleging that she
was personally involved. He should retract his comment as he has
no proof of that. The hon. member knows that the minister does
not report that document. He knows that the minister is
responsible for the estimates of that organization. That would
be the same as alleging that because I am responsible for the
estimates of Elections Canada, I am somehow responsible for the
tabling or non-tabling, or the actions or non-actions of the
Chief Electoral Officer, or that somehow the Minister of Justice
would be responsible for adjudication of the supreme court. That
is inappropriate and the hon. member knows that.
While I agree with the principle of what he has raised, the
gratuitous accusations against the Minister of Justice and
against the government are wrong and should be withdrawn. That
being said, I agree with the point that he has raised about the
inappropriateness of the commission or anyone who by negligence
wilfully allows a report to leak out.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have to sit here with some amusement watching the
feigned indignation of the government House leader over these
personal comments.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that because of the
proximity in time, given your ruling, there is an opportunity
here to bring this matter also before the procedure and house
affairs committee to look at it.
The government House leader is right. The Minister of Justice
is not personally responsible, but this goes to the principles of
governmental and ministerial responsibility.
The Speaker: We have a situation here where a report,
which was prepared by an officer of the House of Commons, a
person who reports to the House of Commons directly, has
obviously been given to the media, based on the information I am
hearing in the House today.
The report stands permanently referred to the justice and human
rights committee of the House. It seems to me that the
appropriate course in the circumstances is for that committee to
undertake its study of the report, as I am sure it will in due
course. It is free to call the head of the commission and anyone
else it sees fit to come and explain what has happened and the
circumstances. It seems to me that would be the appropriate
course.
Should the procedure and House affairs committee, as part of the
work it is doing on the question of release of documents that has
come to it as a result of my previous ruling, want to look at the
matter, it is of course free to do so.
1010
What I would suggest to the hon. member for St. Albert, the
government House leader, the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and all hon. members is that we
let this go to the justice and legal affairs committee. If the
committee has concerns about what has happened and feels that
something inappropriate happened, I will allow the hon. member
for St. Albert, if he wishes, to bring this matter back to the
House. We will treat it as a matter of privilege and deal with
it at that point.
However, I think that since this is a matter involving an
officer of the House, I do not see that today there has been
necessarily a breach of the privileges. The matter can be
investigated by a committee. The committee can come back to the
House or the member can come back to the House and raise it as a
question of privilege when we have heard the evidence on it.
There will be evidence. This matter is before the committee and
making a finding today that sends it to the committee again is
unhelpful.
I am aware that the procedure and House affairs committee is
looking at the other matter as a result of my ruling and I am
sure that should it choose to do so, it could look into this
matter also, but certainly the justice and legal affairs
committee can do so.
I hope that hon. members can deal with it there and then, if we
have to, we will come back to the House and deal with it here.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ESTIMATES
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table, on behalf of my colleagues, part III of the
Estimates consisting of 87 departmental expenditure plans and
priorities.
These documents will be distributed to the members
of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of
the spending authorities sought in part II of the Estimates.
* * *
[English]
AIR TRAFFIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Transport and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the first report of the air
travel complaints commissioner, Mr. Bruce Hood.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (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.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. This morning I just heard about contempt for
the House and it had to deal with another issue. There is
contempt in the House once again.
The Toronto Star has an article about Ottawa extending
benefits to more veterans. Of course we all want more benefits
for our veterans but the statement by the minister is that the
announcement by the veterans affairs minister could come as early
as Thursday with regard to allowing benefits for those Canadians
who served in the gulf war or Balkans. They are to be awarded
full veteran status.
This should not have gone to the Toronto Star until it
came to the veterans affairs committee and to the House. This is
total contempt—
The Speaker: The hon. member is aware that ministers
are free to make announcements in the House, in committee or on
the street. The House for a long time has not enforced any
right, and indeed it is questionable whether it ever had any
right, to demand that all announcements be made here.
I know the hon. member may be outraged that the statement was
made somewhere else but these things happen and the Chair is
powerless to do much about it.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade on the issue of softwood lumber. This
represents the first report of the subcommittee on international
trade disputes and investments.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts with regard to international financial reporting
guidelines and standards for the public sector.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests that the government table a comprehensive
response to the report.
* * *
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-322, an act to provide for a House of
Commons committee to study proportional representation in federal
elections.
1015
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to begin a
study of the idea of proportional representation in terms of
changing the voting system in Canada. We are one of few
countries in the world that does not use some measure of PR.
The purpose of the bill is to look into what model might be
appropriate and then put that model before the Canadian people.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, could the
parliamentary secretary inform the House when he will be
providing an answer to Question No. 31, which asked the
government to announce the date upon which it will finalize a
just and full settlement for our merchant navy veterans.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 31 is of course
in the pipeline. The answer will be forthcoming in due course
and well within the timeline projected in the standing orders.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the government tabled a response to my questions,
Question Nos. 1 and 2, regarding Huey helicopters and Challenger
jets, for which I waited close to a year. There are gaping holes
in those responses. Some of those questions have not been
answered.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, I am looking for guidance from the Chair.
Where do individual members of parliament go from here when
questions are not answered on the order paper? I waited almost a
year only to find out they had not been answered. That is a
violation of our individual rights as members of parliament. It
does not allow us to effectively do our jobs.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a wonderful remedy under
the rules. He could put down the questions that were not
answered on the order paper and right after that have them
transferred for debate. He could have a great time at 6.30 some
evening with a four minute speech on the subject and a two minute
reply from a parliamentary secretary. I am sure he would find
that experience rich and rewarding.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
that point of order, I could not help listen to your suggestion
to my hon. colleague about putting it on the late show. That in
itself presents a problem. When we raise a question on the late
show we expect the minister to be there to discuss the details of
the question. However we have a parliamentary secretary
sometimes—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. It
is not for the Chair to defend who speaks and when. I am sure
that if the hon. member pleaded with the minister he might get
it. I have seen ministers here at late shows.
Mr. Yvon Godin: When was that?
The Speaker: Not frequently but I have seen it. I know
that hon. members will find innovative ways to use the rules to
their advantage.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-2, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance
(Fishing) Regulations, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Ten motions in amendment are listed in the
notice paper at the report stage of Bill C-2.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 cannot be proposed to the House
because they are not accompanied by a recommendation from Her
Excellency the Governor General. Standing Order 76(3) requires
that notice of such a recommendation be given no later than the
sitting day before the beginning of report stage consideration of
a bill.
Since the Standing Committee on Human Resources and the Status
of Persons with Disabilities considered this bill at clause by
clause stage on March 21, the same day as my statement outlining
the guidelines for the selection of motions at report stage, the
Chair will exercise discretion and select motions which could
have been proposed in committee but were not.
1020
I would ask all hon. members to note that this is the last
report stage ruling where the Chair will be taking into account
the timing of clause by clause study in committee, relative to my
March 21 statement on the guidelines for the selection of motions
at report stage.
[Translation]
Consequently, in connection with the report stage of future
bills, I have asked my representatives to examine each motion in
amendment submitted at report stage to see whether it could have
been presented at committee stage, and if so not to select it.
That said, the Chair must acknowledge that one or two motions in
amendment are sometimes indispensable to a debate on a bill, and
hon. members could argue that they deserve to be examined in the
House, even if there has already been an examination of them in
committee.
I will agree to hear such arguments and I encourage hon. members
to examine this type of motion with my representatives as soon
as the bill is returned to the House.
As we are all aware, there is often a very tight timeframe for
the report stage, which may be a hindrance to debate. I am
relying on the cooperation of hon. members to ensure that the
Chair is kept fully informed, via its representatives, of their
opinions when it examines each preliminary decision at report
stage. I will do my utmost to be fair and impartial in the
choice of amendments and I am convinced that hon. members will
acknowledge and respect the principles set out in my decision of
March 21 in order to assist me in this.
[English]
To repeat some of those words:
I...strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves
fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee
stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for
which it was created, namely for the House to consider the
committee report and the work that the committee has done, and to
do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed
consideration of the bill.
[Translation]
Motion No. 4 and Motions Nos. 8 through 10 will be grouped for
debate. The voting patterns for the motions within each group
are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of
each pattern at the time of voting.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ) moved:
That Bill C-2,
in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-2,
in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 11 on page 4 with the
following:
“(3) For greater certainty, weeks of benefits that are repaid as a
result of an act or omission mentioned in subsection (1) are not deemed to
be weeks of benefits paid”
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) moved:
That Bill C-2, in Clause 9, be amended by
replacing lines 14 to 20 on page 4 with the following:
“9. Section 66 of the Act is replaced by the following:
66. (1) The Commission shall, with the approval of the Governor in
Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance,
set the premium rate for each year at a rate that the Commission considers
will, to the extent possible,
(a) ensure that there will be enough revenue over a business cycle to pay
the amounts authorized to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account;
and
(b) maintain relatively stable rate levels throughout the business cycle.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the premium rate shall not exceed
$2.20 for the year 2002 and $2.10 for the year 2003.
(3) When setting the premium rate for a year in accordance with
subsection (1), the Commission shall provide a written explanation as to
why the premium rate is set at that level for the year.
(4) The Commission's explanation under subsection (3) shall be
referred for review to the standing committee designated by Parliament for
that purpose.”
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak to Bill
C-2 at report stage, not so much for the amendments that are
included therein, apart from the one on clause 9, but rather
because the debate in committee clearly demonstrated that Bill
C-2 did not meet the needs of those who appeared before the
committee.
Instead of putting forward an indepth reform of the employment
insurance plan, Bill C-2 proposes no more than a few amendments
that have been called for for a long time, particularly the
suppression of the intensity rule. Since 1997 this rule
penalizes all seasonal workers. We are telling them that if we
take away 1% of their benefits every 20 weeks, they should be
more encouraged to work.
The government always assumed that seasonal workers preferred to
collect EI instead of working. After denouncing that for many
years, a statistical study finally proved that there was no
correlation between the two.
1025
Workers in seasonal industries want to work but unfortunately
their jobs do not last the entire year, and the fact of
penalizing these people by taking away up to 5% of their
benefits after three years would not in any way make them work
any harder as there were no more jobs for these people.
These people often work in natural resources such as forestry,
fisheries, tourism or in areas where they cannot be readily
trained for work in other sectors.
Bill C-2 did not really meet the requirements set out by over
60 groups that systematically came to tell us it was vital to
reform the system much more thoroughly. Fortunately the
committee unanimously adopted a motion I proposed, which
provides:
That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of
Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and
that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.
The committee will do the work the government refused to do
during the period between the election and the reconvening of
parliament. The government could have avoided this delay of
several months and introduced a Bill C-2 that really reformed the
employment insurance system. It did not do so, but all
members of the committee assumed their responsibilities,
listened to the evidence presented and clearly said they wanted
to recommend other changes to the employment insurance system.
Obviously the current bill must be improved as much as
possible, and this is what we are doing with the amendments
proposed. There is one that is much more important, and
we will discuss it later. It concerns the elimination of clause
9, the one that would, if the bill were passed as it stands,
make it legal to misappropriate funds from the employment
insurance fund.
We know that it has now grown to between $34 billion and $35
billion. With the provision in the bill that would allow the
government to set the premium rate instead of letting the EI
commission do it, the government could evade the application of
the act and not have to put the money back in the EI fund.
When we get to the discussion on this clause, people will see
that all the opposition parties have a common position in this
regard, a position set out by the Bloc Quebecois but also
supported by the auditor general who stated in committee that he
preferred section 66 of the current act, in spite of its
weaknesses, to this clause, which would allow the government to
determine the premium rate.
We are at report stage on a bill we have to improve as much
as possible, a bill we were unable to amend substantively to
really reform the employment insurance system because this is
impossible at the parliamentary level. Once Bill C-2 was
introduced we could only amend its clauses as they stood.
For instance, we are not allowed to deal with important issues
such as eliminating the waiting period. Those who have been on
employment insurance know what we are talking about. It is the
first two weeks after one has stopped working, when one has no
income. That is an archaic rule dating back to the time when
people qualified only after a number of weeks of benefits. Now
they start paying premiums from their first hour of work. We
have a system that is generating a huge surplus, so why could we
not deal with this issue and eliminate the waiting period?
There is also, the fundamental issue of the creation
of an independent EI fund. I think this will give rise to a
major debate that should be held in committee for its June 1
recommendations.
There is the increase in coverage from 55% to 60%. We know we now
have an employment insurance system where about $18 billion in
premiums is collected year after year and about $12 billion is
put back into the system. There is a surplus of about $6
billion, which is used to cover the government's general
expenditures. This is being done by collecting premiums from
people earning wages or a salary of less than $39,000. This
means that people earning more, or those who do not pay into the
system, do not contribute their share toward this portion of the
government's general expenditures.
The government, considers the EI system as a payroll
tax. This is a very regressive tax, because not everyone pays
into the system. Even though he had been a member of parliament
for about 20 years, it is here in the House that the Prime
Minister found out that he pay, EI premiums. Such people are
not paying their share. There should be a substantive debate on
this issue to ensure that since the surplus is so high
premiums are lowered or the conditions that apply in the system
are improved.
There is a basic condition that could be amended: benefits could
be raised from 55% to 60% of average earnings.
1030
All discrimination against youth, women and people re-entering
the workforce must be eliminated.
Bill C-2 does not change anything in the requirement to work
910 hours to qualify. The government's logic is the same here as
with the intensity rule. It is saying to young people “If the
requirement is 910 hours, you will have to work harder to
qualify”. Under the intensity rule it said “If benefits
are reduced, people will be more anxious to work”.
Statistics show this was not the case with the intensity rule.
We know from experience that it is not true for young people
and that today they are the victims of intolerable
discrimination.
It is important that we revisit this issue before long because
we have no right to discriminate against our young people. We
have no right to treat them like second class citizens,
particularly as we are experiencing a period of economic growth.
They must be able to reap the benefits of the effort that has
been made to fight the deficit. We must not continue to take
their money from them since they contribute right from the
first hour of work without qualifying. Only some 25% of our
young people qualify for benefits.
As far as all the conditions are concerned, these are
examples of issues that should have been dealt with in Bill C-2
but were not.
That shows the extent to which a thorough reform of EI is needed
to make it more adequate.
Many amendments were proposed but they were rejected. I give
the example of the retroactivity of the intensity rule.
According to our proposal, the retroactive period would have
gone back to January 1, 1997, instead of to October 1, 2000.
In other words, since it has been clearly established that
rule was inefficient and that its only result was to penalize
seasonal workers and frequent claimants, why not give these
workers their money back? It is becoming obvious that they have
been penalized without reason and that they should have received
that money.
We introduced an amendment to make the payment retroactive to
January 1, 1997, but the government rejected it because it would
cost $250 million, which is not
even 1% of the $35 billion surplus. If that is so much money for
the government, think what this represents for seasonal workers,
for people who contributed to the financing of the government
due to an infamous and unacceptable rule.
That is the reason Bill C-2 must be amended. Everybody must
realize that in the next few months the Standing Committee on
Human Resources will be making a special effort to make
recommendations for a thorough reform of EI to the government,
one that will go a lot further than this half-baked Bill C-2.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At 10 o'clock this
morning you tabled the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission in the House. The commission, as an office of
parliament, reports directly to the House.
I rose immediately thereafter, pointing out that my privileges
had been breached by the fact that the report was all over the
media this morning, in the Toronto Star, the Hamilton
Spectator and the London Free Press, and that it
should have been confidential until tabled in the House.
After I left the House at 10.25 a.m. I asked one of the pages to
obtain the report for me. The page went to Journals and Journals
said that it did not have the report. Journals checked with
distribution and the report had not arrived. That was at 10.25
a.m.
At 11 o'clock the chair of the Human Rights Commission is having
a press conference to speak about the report at the press
conference centre. At 10.30 a.m. we do not have the report in
the House available for members even though the chair is going to
have a press conference to speak to Canadians. We have been
denied a copy of the report that has been tabled in the House
already. There are none available. None have been delivered.
1035
This is an affront to the House. There seems to be no limit to
what this commission will do to disregard its responsibility to
report to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I thank the hon. member
for pointing this out to the Chair. I will take it under
advisement. I will consult with the Speaker and ask him to
report to the House later today.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing)
Regulations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and
of the motions in Group No. 1.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few issues
based on the amendments that have been placed before the House at
report stage.
The Canadian Alliance is very much in support of an employment
insurance program. We feel the government is justified in
providing support to the unemployed to help them in times of
stress.
We have heard many of the witnesses who have appeared before the
committee over the last four or five weeks. We have heard many
witnesses talking about the government's approach to making some
minor amendments to the Employment Insurance Act through Bill
C-2. In looking at the motions that have been allowed, with all
due respect to the Chair, I have some concern with the process of
limiting members on how they would present amendments on
legislation, whether it would be through a more public process in
the House or a more limited public exposure process in committee.
I do want to point out that I have a concern with that.
However, I would like to make a few comments on a number of the
motions that have been allowed to amend Bill C-2 at report stage.
In my understanding, Motion No. 4 adds an exemption for a person
who is considered to be a return claimant or a new entrant. We
recognize that there are some exemptions such as maternity and
paternal reasons. There is an omission that we agree needs to be
addressed, and that is the omission of benefits for claimants by
reason of illness, injury or quarantine. We have no problem in
rectifying that omission in the amendments to the legislation. We
feel it is justified.
Just flipping through the pages of those amendments that have
not been allowed, we come to an amendment that is trying to
address what is considered to be an unfairness. The feeling
seems to be that someone who has fraudulently misrepresented the
facts should not be penalized and should be treated the same as
any other claimant under the EI program. We have difficulty with
that, because one of the changes the government has put in is
that those who have made a claim for employment benefits of more
than a week in the last 10 years fall into the category of having
30% clawed back if they make more than $48,000.
If somebody who collected two weeks of insurable earnings 10
years ago is put under this 30% clawback for any income over
$48,000, it is hard to justify not penalizing someone who has
misrepresented the facts and who perhaps fraudulently claimed
earnings he or she did not make. It is hard to imagine that
people would not be penalized for doing so.
We will not be supporting that amendment. We find it very
difficult to justify supporting somebody who deliberately scams
the system while penalizing people who may have collected
employment insurance 10 years ago for a couple of weeks. We are
not prepared to support this.
However, I want to give most of my attention to clause 9 in this
legislation, which causes us great concern. Clause 9 just
supports the trend of the Liberal government, ever since I came
to the House seven and a half years ago, of removing
responsibility from the House of Commons, from parliament, and
putting it into the hands of the cabinet, into the executive
branch of government.
This has been a consistent trend in legislation. Through
regulations, through using orders in council or through
legislation itself, the Liberal government is transferring the
responsibilities of the House of Commons, of parliament or of an
independent commission to the hands of a handful of people in
cabinet.
1040
We heard from almost every witness that this is not acceptable.
They had great difficulty with cabinet setting the rates of the
employment insurance fund. They saw it as an intrusion of
government into something that government should be removing
itself from. They saw it as a grab for the wealth that has been
created through surpluses in the EI fund. They felt it was a
means for the government to try to control where the surplus
goes. They felt that the surplus would not go where it is
intended to go and where legislation says it must go, which is to
the workers and the employers who contribute to that fund.
I believe the fund has a $35 billion surplus to date. There is
concern that the government wants to get its hands on that
surplus and take it out of the EI account. There is concern that
the government wants to control rate setting so it can control
this unwarranted increase in surplus in the EI fund. The chief
actuary for the employment insurance fund has said that the
surplus is unnecessary, that $35 billion is far too much and $15
billion would sustain the employment insurance program even at a
time of recession, and that lowering rates to $1.75 for the
employee would still sustain the employment insurance fund at a
level during a recessionary period.
All the evidence is there that this $35 billion surplus is not
necessary. Yet we have a cabinet that wants to take control of
rate setting so it can maintain that surplus fund to use for
purposes outside the Employment Insurance Act.
We very much oppose this clause and support the amendment put
forward by both the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance to delete that
clause from the legislation.
I noted with interest an amendment that was put forward by the
Conservative Party. Unfortunately, we in our party only got it
this morning and did not have time to deal with it. We noted
with interest that the Conservatives have proposed an amendment
to that clause which details how we would treat rate setting and
how we would re-establish the commission's authority. However,
although we like the concept, there is no evidence to support the
numbers that have been proposed. Nothing suggests they are the
right numbers, so we would not at this time be prepared to
support that amendment. We feel that more time is needed and we
feel that more evidence is needed to support the numbers brought
before us for consideration today.
My remarks have been a brief summary of where the Canadian
Alliance stands on the amendments being proposed at report stage.
I want to reiterate my concern that the Chair is going to take
away from members of parliament their discretion in regard to
when they want amendments to be dealt with, whether that is in
less public circumstances like committees or a more public
situation such as the House of Commons during report stage. I
want it to be noted that I have a problem with this.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-2 today.
Unfortunately my Motion No. 5 on increasing from four to five
years the authorized period of absence was rejected. This is
unfortunate because the purpose of the motion was to harmonize
our system with what the government grants its own employees
who are authorized a period of absence of five years.
One thing that can be said about the bill on employment
insurance is that the more than 60 witnesses we heard at the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development did not talk
about what was in Bill C-2 but mostly about what Bill C-2
was not providing for Canadians and workers.
For example, on the issue of the divisor rule there is the
period during which the unemployed receive employment insurance
benefits. The amount they receive; is now equal
to 50% of their wages or salary, but even 55% would not be
enough.
1045
We must keep in mind that 55% of $7 is only $3.75. This is
less than welfare; it is less than social assistance. That is
our employment insurance plan in Canada, a plan which is funded
by Canadian workers. The federal government grabbed the cash in
the fund to pay its own debt and balance the budget, at the
expense of people who had lost their jobs.
That is crystal clear.
During the committee hearings all Canadians who came to
Ottawa to testify and express their views on behalf of the
Prince Edward Island chamber of commerce, labour federations or
municipalities with many seasonal workers described how workers
were hurt by employment insurance changes.
Today the government brings us Bill C-2, a clone of Bill C-44.
This is mere cloning, a procedure which should not be legal
in Canada. The government did not make a single change in Bill
C-2 which is before the House. During the election campaign the
Liberals themselves promised some changes.
I remember my colleague for Madawaska—Restigouche stating that he
would run as a Liberal because he wanted to be elected as a
member for the governing party. He felt Bill C-44 did not go far
enough and he wanted to make changes to the employment
insurance plan. What kind of changes did we get? None, if we
compare Bill C-2 with Bill C-44.
The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok
boasted about wanting to be on the government's side to make
changes to the employment insurance because the changes brought
in by the Liberals were hurting workers in the Gaspé. I remember
the first meeting with the minister when he said “I make a heartfelt
appeal to the minister”. This was broadcast in all news programs:
he wanted to change the EI plan. Precious little has changed.
The result is a measly 5% for the poor and the clawback rule for
full time workers. This is what we got, but this is not what we
need. The problem lies in the fact that some families are
without any income from February to May. When families are
suffering there is a problem.
The two members who ran as Liberal candidates, as did the member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, said “I want to be on the
government side like my father, so as to be able to bring about
changes”. However we have yet to hear from him since his election.
We have never heard him. We have never heard from him state his
position.
Today I am pleased that the committee, regardless of the party
to which his members belong, approved a motion from the hon.
member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, whose
objective is that a report be submitted to parliament by June 1.
We hope that the members who made promises in their ridings will
have enough backbone to make the Liberals change their mind,
including the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister who
know that they are hurting Canadians.
Let us not forget that when there is a father or mother whose
EI benefits run out and is without any income in February there
are children involved. If we want to eliminate poverty in
Canada, we should begin at that level.
I am ashamed when I think that there are 800,000 people who
cannot qualify for employment insurance and that government
investigators harass workers, call them into their offices and
tell them behind closed doors “You realize that if you do not
tell me the truth you could end up in jail”, something which
the police itself cannot do with criminals on the street. That
is shameful.
I am ashamed of the way the Departement of Human Resources
Development is run. A thorough clean-up is in order in that
department because this plan belongs to the workers and businesses
that contribute to it. Seasonal work in Canada is a fact of life.
1050
We do not want our loggers, our factory workers and our tourism
industry workers to be forced to rely on social assistance. The
same goes for people working in peat bogs.
Is it the only solution that the government can propose to us? I
do not accept that. I do not agree with the way the Liberals are
handling the employment insurance issue. Their robbery is the
biggest ever covered in Canada by an insurance company. This is
unbelievable and unacceptable.
I hope that the cry from the heart of the hon. member for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok will touch the heart of
the Prime Minister once and for all and will cause him to change
his position and do something. We know that the Liberals
are under dictatorship. Before retiring after 38 years of
service to the House of Commons the Prime Minister could do a
good thing for Canadians for once by taking care of the most
disadvantaged in our society.
When people who worked all their life as loggers, in fish plants
and in peat bogs see their electrical service cut off because
they cannot even pay their bills from February to May, we must
realize that action is needed.
I have said it often, almost every day, in committee that one cannot
catch lobster on Yonge Street in Toronto or cod on St. Catherine
Street in Montreal. One has to go to Chaleur Bay or to the
Pacific. These jobs are seasonal jobs.
For those who do not know, Chaleur Bay freezes over in winter.
One cannot catch cod as if it were sportfishing, by making a
hole in the ice. This is not the way it works. One needs boats
plying the waters of Chaleur Bay to catch this fish. People
like to have this fish on their table.
We are happy to have products from the farm, but it is quite
difficult to grow carrots under snow.
We will have to acknowledge the fact that there are seasonal
jobs in Canada.
There is not a single seasonal worker in our country but
there are seasonal jobs. Workers are not the ones who decide.
There is nothing they can do if a week before their employer
tells them that there is no more work for them because he has
reached his lumber quota and can no longer cut down trees.
Workers are not responsible if their employer tells them, after
August 15, which is the feast of the Acadians and when there are no
tourists left, that he now has to lay them off for winter. The
employee is not the one who decides. He is not seasonal, but
jobs are.
I know that some members across believe what I say. It is not a
coincidence if sometimes when we leave the House some
Liberals shake our hands and say “Continue the
fight, go on. We must make the government aware of the issue”.
I would like to draw the government's attention to the fact that
that money is not its own to spend. I have full confidence in
Canadians. I can say very confidently that there are no
lazybones in Canada.
I said once that if my predecessor, Doug Young, had been paid
$5.50 an hour, he too would have been lazy and unwilling to
work. If we had good jobs for people they would be happy to get
up in the morning, go to work and get their paycheque at the
end of the week in order to pay their bills and take part in
activities with their families.
Members across the way went so far as to call the unemployed
lazybones unwilling to work, something I never accepted. I said
I would never accept such statements as long as I represented
the people of Acadie—Bathurst in the House. I know that my time
has expired, but I could talk for hours about the injustices
committed by the Liberals.
I will now conclude by saying that today I am asking the
Liberals to listen to what I have said in the name of workers
across Canada, those of Quebec as well as all the others, to
change their mind about employment insurance by the end of June
and to ensure that we have a bill that is good for workers.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous
consent of the House to allow my friend, the member for
Acadie—Bathurst, to carry on with his speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1055
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure I can be as entertaining as the member
from Bathurst, but I will do my best.
We support the bill before us. We will not hold up the
legislation. There are many deficiencies in it, as pointed out
by many members. However the truth is that some of the changes
they are bringing in, especially the elimination of the intensity
rule which discriminates against and penalizes workers who have
drawn unemployment over a series of years, would eliminate some
of those deficiencies. The intensity rule amounts to about 5% of
a person's benefit if he or she has collected employment
insurance in the past. We support its elimination.
Some things should have been addressed in the bill which are
important to the people of Canada, especially in communities
where seasonal work is a reality. That is where the bill falls
down. As members of the opposition we cannot have everything our
way, and we understand that. However one thing that should be
considered in future legislation is a better identification of
areas that depend on seasonal workers. Those areas are penalized
under the existing rules which determine the unemployment rate in
regions.
For example, in southwestern New Brunswick communities that
depend on seasonal workers are lumped in with bigger communities
like Saint John and Fredericton which have their own problems in
terms of unemployment. It makes the number artificially low in
some areas where it is in fact a lot higher. The government has
the capacity to more accurately measure the unemployment rate
within those communities. That is important because the number
of hours people must work to qualify for employment insurance
varies depending on the rate of unemployment within their area.
For example, in the last official census, which I believe was in
1996, the unemployment rate in communities in and around Black's
Harbour, New Brunswick, and some of the Fundy Islands was as high
as 45%. However when lumped in with bigger centres the
unemployment rate in those communities is disguised, in a sense,
or not obvious. It goes from 45% down to 7% or 8% because of the
larger population in the city areas. That is unfair and it
punishes seasonal workers. It is not addressed in the bill and
it should be.
Another point with regard to seasonal workers is the premium
rate. The premium rate is the money we all pay in Canada as
employees, and it is much higher than it should be. Between an
employee and an employer about $5 is paid in for every $100 of
earnings. That is too high. As evidence of exactly how high it
is, the government now has a surplus of $35 billion in the
employment insurance fund.
The government's own chief actuary has told us the premium rate
should be lower. For example, employees across the country are
paying in $2.25 on $100 of earnings. The chief actuary has told
the government the rate could be as low as $1.75. That does not
seem like a lot of money except when we see that the total figure
between an employee and an employer is $5 on $100 of earnings.
That is 5%.
1100
That is one of the reasons every man, woman and child in the
country who is contributing is making the finance minister look a
lot better than what he would have been. The surplus is being
used to balance the books and to make debt reduction more of a
success than it otherwise would have been.
We have a $35 billion surplus in the fund. None of that is
addressed in the bill, except in the perverse sense that the
government wants to keep the $35 billion and enhance it. It
wants to take away the right of the commission to set the rate.
I have moved an amendment today that we are discussing, Motion
No. 10. The amendment says that the commission should be left
intact. It should be provided with the ability to set the rate.
In the bill the government would take away the right of the
commission to set the rate. It is blatantly attempting to
politicize the EI fund. It is a question of greed.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Keep all the money.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Keep the money, as the member for
Saint John says. The $35 billion is just a notational entry in
the finance minister's books. The government says the money is
from the EI fund and it is for the finance minister to keep.
However it is the workers and the employers, rich and poor, who
contributed to that $35 billion. The government has the audacity
to want to keep the rate as high as it is for its own purposes,
for its own bookkeeping purposes.
That is what my amendment addresses. It says to let the
commission do its job. The chief actuary should do his job, and
when he makes a recommendation to the government or to the
commission it should be acted upon. Up to now it has not been
able to do anything because the government is stripping away its
power.
Every time the government wants to do something, the commission
kowtows to the power of the government. That is even more
blatant in the act. It would completely take away the power of
the commission which is wrong.
The government's intent is to maximize premiums and minimize
benefits. It has a great record for doing that and the bill
would allow it to continue doing that. That is one of our
problems as an opposition party. We do not want to hold up the
bill because there are some good parts in it that we support.
The danger in opposition is that if we hold up the bill or stall
it, the government will then accuse us of holding up a bill that
will do some good, which is true. Some things are right in the
bill, but the truth is that the bill should have been a little
wider in scope. It should not take away the power of the
commission to set the rates.
The auditor general has said the same. It is wrong for the
government to take away the powers of the commission and to
ignore the reality that the rate could be a lot lower than it is
today. The rate could be as low as $1.75 per $100 of earnings.
That $1.75 could sustain the fund even during a downturn in the
economy.
The government wants to take away the powers of the commission,
which we feel is wrong. It has to take a look at its internal
guidelines in terms of how it interprets the employment insurance
act and be a little more considerate of those people who need
employment insurance. The auditor general has mentioned this as
well.
The investigative powers, the proficiency and the knowledge
level of some of the people within the department have to be
addressed. A lot of people are being unfairly discriminated
against in terms of their abilities to collect employment
insurance, which was borne out last night in a CBC documentary
film called Country Canada. The headline story was
“P.E.I. fishers fight government to clear their names”. The
same thing is taking place in other parts of Canada.
1105
Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are debating report stage of Bill
C-2, the minor reforms to the existing EI legislation that the
government brought forward.
We saw a large number of witnesses in committee, all of whom
contributed their time and input to give us a better
understanding of the potential impact of the legislation. We
heard from business and labour, from fishermen from both coasts,
from restaurateurs, and from a host of others. Not one of them
could bring themselves to support the bill in its entirety.
My colleague and chief critic from South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley and I, together with the witnesses, agree that the
bill is tinkering at its best. It addresses what the government
considers flaws in the 1996 EI reforms, but it fails even at that
small task.
Rather than continue what it began in 1996, that is to
discourage repeat users of the EI as a wage supplement program,
the bill actually takes a step backward. During the testimony in
committee most of the witnesses were looking for a more indepth
review of the entire employment insurance system. We concur that
the bill is not broad enough to cover their concerns.
At report stage we deal with amendments. My colleague has moved
an amendment calling for the deletion of clause 9 of the bill and
our colleagues from the Bloc have essentially moved the same
amendment as well. I hope all hon. members support the
amendment. The clause as written would give EI premium rate
setting powers to the governor in council for the next two years.
Clause 9 is a blatant hijacking of the rights of the employment
insurance commission.
The government indicates that it is only giving rate setting
powers to the cabinet for two years. If hon. members believe
that the cabinet would give the powers back after those two
years, I have some land in Shawinigan that they may want to have
a look at.
I will explain what the clause means. It is an issue that has
widespread opposition from both employers and unions. They may
have different objectives with the rates, but they all have
problems with the way the government uses EI premiums in general
revenue. Employers and unions objected that cabinet was taking
control of the EI rate setting process since the Liberal
government balanced the EI books on the backs of employers and
employees.
The government wants complete control over the billions in the
EI surplus. It is one more unhealthy, undemocratic example of
the government consolidating control in cabinet. The Canadian
business community is in almost unanimous opposition to the bill.
It is not that it feels that people in seasonal industries do not
need assistance. It feels it should not come from the EI fund to
which it provides 60% of the funding.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce thinks Bill C-2 is inconsistent
with the development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit
and that it does not advance competitiveness. Catherine Swift of
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say
about the legislation:
After several years of making some steps in the right direction
on EI policy, this is a U-turn that hearkens back to the 1970s—a
big spending government promoting dependency on programs, instead
of solid economic growth. We thought they had learned something
from the mistakes of the past.
We have a flawed bill which seeks only to roll back earlier
reforms and enhance the power of cabinet. What are the
alternatives?
1110
First and foremost, we must state that seasonal industries are
just that, seasonal. Seasonal industries are very important and
those involved in them must be supported. Those who are rendered
unemployed for other reasons must also be supported.
There needs to be an acknowledgement that the two are not the
same. The solution to the seasonal work dilemma must lie in the
direction of education and training. Young people in communities
which traditionally rely on seasonal employment must be properly
equipped with the job skills for the workplace of the 21st
century. We must provide training for those currently involved
in traditionally seasonal employment as an alternative to EI.
In conclusion, as the first bill introduced in this parliament
it is quite a disappointment. Bill C-2 attempts to address flaws
in the EI system but succeeds at only minor tweaking. The
government was moving in the right direction before but has taken
an about-face with the legislation. I encourage all hon.
colleagues to join with us in opposition to the bill.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
rise to speak to Bill C-2.
First I want to tell members how deeply moving I found the 60
statements or so that we heard during the committee's hearings.
They disturbed me because they were a cold and profound
reflection of the needs of the Canadian and Quebec societies.
To briefly resume the situation, we now have before us Bill C-2,
the former Bill C-40 introduced in 1996.
This bill does not bring about the radical changes requested by
Canadians as a whole, unions, women's groups, young people,
boards of trade, employers and all the representatives of the
Canadian and Quebec populations.
I would like to quote parts of some briefs tabled by people who
appeared before the committee. I think it is important to read
them into the record and to remember what those people had to
say.
As the House knows, and I would like to congratulate my Bloc
colleague who introduced this motion, in committee we succeeded,
with the assistance of the government, in asking for a report from
the committee which will be able to examine all the briefs and
report back to the House before June 1.
We hope that it will advance the cause of unemployed workers and
not just ease the government's conscience. This report has to
lead to something concrete, to major changes in the EI plan.
I want to come back to certain labour unions, including the CSN,
which represents a good 250,000 workers in Quebec. The
following is a short passage from its brief:
As for the amendments in Bill C-2, the CSN feels that these are
half measures which will not result in access for those workers
who have lost their job because of changes in the work place.
I will now read a few lines from the FTQ brief.
FTQ members would have hoped for much more from EI reform. We
feel that the legislator does not go far enough to right the
wrongs of past reforms.
That was what the FTQ had to say. Another labour confederation
in Quebec, the CSD, put it this way:
A decent reform would not give the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Finance the authority to set
premium rates, when it was the employment insurance commission
that used to have this authority.
This is an unacceptable ploy that will give the government
unfettered access to surpluses in the EI fund, because premium
rates will no longer hinge on self-funding but on the
government's financial needs.
1115
We are not the ones saying so; the CSD is.
My last quotations will be from the auditor general, in whom we
have the utmost confidence.
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and
Chapter 34 of the December 2000 Report, lack clarity on the
basis used in setting employment insurance rates.
A little later on in his statement the auditor general adds:
The introduction of Bill C-2 has not alleviated our concern.
There is no requirement for the interim rate-setting process to
be more transparent.
Furthermore, unlike the introduction of
Bill C-44, there is no information on, or commitment to review,
the rate-setting process while section 66 is suspended. In other
words, the scope and nature of the review, if any, are unclear.
When the committee met with the various witnesses our awareness
of a number of areas was greatly improved. Perhaps I do not
have enough time in my 10 minutes to give them all, but I shall
try to touch on them briefly.
There was discussion of the seasonal industries, for the truth
is that it is the work that is seasonal and not the workers. I
can speak with authority on this because my riding depends on
tourism, which is a seasonal industry.
When the snow is gone, so are the jobs. People have to wait
until the summer tourist season comes along to work in golf
clubs and the like.
Between those two seasons, however, they have no work. They
go off to apply for employment insurance. They are faced with a
two week penalty because every time a person applies he or she
has to wait two weeks before drawing maybe a month of benefits.
These people return to the labour market for the summer, and
with the arrival of fall they are again penalized for two
weeks because they apply for employment insurance for three or
four weeks while looking for work for the winter.
Is this what these people want? Do we
think they go out of their way to get half their salary twice a
year for two months? They lose a month's salary, a month of
income in their budget. They have to live with that. They have
to plan their lives around it. These people depend on this
industry. Why are they penalized? This is totally
unacceptable.
Do we think that the women working in seasonal industry are
happy at losing their spots in day care? Not at all.
They have to continue sending their children to day care while
they are not working to make sure they do not lose their place.
They pay for that.
It is not true that people are encouraged to go on employment
insurance. It is totally false. If these people could do
without it, they would do a lot better.
There is also the whole issue of self-employed workers. In
Quebec there are a lot of small businesses. Elsewhere in
Canada too, but primarily in Quebec, a lot of small and medium
size businesses have been established.
Self-employed workers have become a fact of life. There were
perhaps fewer of them in the past than there are now, but it is
a fact of life in Quebec and Canada.
These people often work very hard for long hours and they are
not protected by any system.
They represent perhaps 18% of the population. That is a lot of
people. They would like to be included in the employment insurance
plan if possible or in something like it. They want to be part
of a plan that would allow them to have employment insurance.
They are prepared to pay the money necessary for the protection.
They need it just as much as the person working for a business.
1120
This will increasingly be the case in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada. These people cannot be excluded. Yet there is
absolutely nothing in the bill for them.
Another very important issue for me is the case of young
workers. It almost makes no sense to require young workers to
work 910 hours. It is absurd. They are penalized because they
are part of the labour market. Does the government realize
the result of this? It leads some employers to abuse, to tell
a young person “You better work and do your job, otherwise you
will not get employment insurance benefits”.
I could have elaborated on other issues such as the case of
pregnant women. Why are pregnant women penalized when a newborn
child should be the most wonderful thing that can happen to a
family? Pregnant women are being penalized. From now on, women
may decide to have children or not based on whether they qualify
for employment insurance benefits. Otherwise they will
not be able to afford it. This does not make sense.
There is $35 billion in a fund that belongs to people who
have contributed to it throughout their lives but who will not
qualify. This is totally absurd.
I would like to end with clause 9. We asked that this clause be
deleted. It is the most important one in the bill. It reads:
Notwithstanding section 66, the premium rate for each of the
years 2002 and 2003 is the rate set for the year by the Governor
in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the
Minister of Finance.
We want that clause deleted. We do not want it. We do not want
these people to set the premium rate and to decide who will be
entitled to employment insurance benefits.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member and understand the major concerns.
Having lived in the province of New Brunswick and having grown up
there all my life, it hurts when I hear someone refer to our
seasonal workers in a negative way.
When this matter was being discussed before, the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill stated:
Now that he is about to call an election, the Prime Minister has
decided to increase EI payments to seasonal workers who already
earn a comfortable annual income.
Yesterday the member for Calgary—Nose Hill revealed her party's
position on low income seasonal workers when she said again that
seasonal workers already earned a comfortable income.
I want to present some figures to the House. In 1996, before
the Liberals slashed the EI program, 75% of seasonal workers in
New Brunswick made less than $10,000 a year. How could anyone
say they have a comfortable income on $10,000 a year? Everyone
in the House knows that anyone making $10,000 a year cannot live
in a comfortable manner.
As was mentioned by the hon. member from the NDP, over 800,000
people are not eligible for EI. Seasonal workers could be
fishermen or lumberjacks. They could work in tourism. They
could be construction workers. When the snow comes and the frost
hits the ground they are not working.
They want to work. They do not want to sit on their hands, and
they do not. Most of them work for the United Way. If their
next door neighbour is having a problem, they are right there to
help. That is the kind of people there are in the maritime
provinces. Hopefully that is the way it is across the whole
country.
Because of what has been happening and because of the changes
that have negatively impacted on our people back home, a lot of
them have had to leave. In the city of Saint John, the largest
city in the province, people travel by bus for one hour in the
morning to work at one of the fish farms in another county.
Because they live in Saint John, New Brunswick, and because the
government says our unemployment rate is so low, they pay a
higher EI rate. Yet they are working in another county where the
rate is lower for the people who live there. That is wrong and
needs to be corrected.
1125
Thank God for those men and women who do it because they do not
want to be on welfare. They want to show their children and
their families that they have their dignity. That is why they do
what they do. Our people are like that back home. They want to
have dignity. They want to work.
One member in the Bloc mentioned about the independent
businessman, that small businessman who is out there. I know
about that because my son is one of them.
This past winter a man came to the door of Stephen's TV shop and
said that he did not have any money to pay for a TV but he would
like to have one. He had not been working for almost six months
but wanted the TV for his children for Christmas. My son said
that he could have it and asked whether his mother made mincemeat
pies. He said yes, his mother made mincemeat pies, that he had
deer meat that he could give her to make the pies, and asked
whether that would pay for the TV.
They are people who care, who want to go to work. The
government has over $35 billion of their money in its pockets to
make the government look good. It says that it will pay down the
debt. That money should be in the pockets of men, women and
employers who put it there. It should be an independent fund
which no one could touch. It should be there for them so that
they will have quality lives.
The premiums taken from their paycheques are far too high, yet
the government has increased them and reduced the benefits to the
people. It has put more money into the bank account.
It tugs at my heart when people come to me and say they want to
go to work. It tugs at my heart when I see our shipbuilders,
4,000 men, many of whom are now on welfare. A lot of them are
down in Louisiana. The Trudeau government built and put money
into the shipyard. The Mulroney government also put money into
the shipyard. We have the most modern shipyard anywhere in the
world sitting idle.
We should be building the ships for our military right here, not
buying new submarines from London, England, and then spending
$800 million to make them float. We should be doing it through
the Davie shipyard and the Saint John shipyard. Those two
shipyards built the frigates.
Those men do not know where to go. They do not know where to
turn. All they are saying is that they want to contribute to the
economy. They want to contribute to Canada. They want to work.
They want their dignity. The sooner we give them their dignity,
the sooner they will do more in their communities to make a
better way of life.
I look at our young people today. We educate them. They want
to work where their moms and dads are, where their families,
their sisters, their brothers, their nannies and their grampies
are. They do not want to have to go away. We do not want them
to go away.
A person from Vancouver came to our city market in Saint John.
It is the oldest open common market of its kind in Canada. I was
walking down the aisle and she came over to me and said that my
people were very special, the friendliest people she had ever
met. I told her that was the way we were back east. Our people
are friendly, outreaching and generous.
When it comes to the commission, the commission should stay in
place. The commission should handle the funds. We must get the
politics out of the EI fund. We must leave it with that
independent commission and then deal with it. The commission is
not there to play politics. It has to be there to do what is
right. That is why the hon. member from Charlotte county said
the commission should remain.
1130
That is why he included the motion. If we do not have the
commission we will have politics again. Heaven knows what the
men and the employers will be paying for premiums and how little
they will have in their pockets to feed their little families.
I say please, every one of us here, let us take the politics out
of the bill. Let us do what is right for the man and the woman
of Canada, right from Vancouver and the Northwest Territories
through to Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us do what is right
for our people. Let us all be Canadians today. Let us all be
equal in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you for sure that everybody will be
watching what the government does with that $37 billion, which
those men and women worked so hard for to put in a bank account
where they knew there was security for their future.
I have to say that my party is pleased that the intensity rule
will be removed. That rule was wrong and it really hurt.
However, we are also saying that the commission must stay in
place.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
react to the comments of my colleagues.
Before commenting on what my colleagues said about Bill C-2, I
wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities.
As several members across the way have said, thanks to our
spirit of co-operation almost all members of the committee
recognized the importance of this bill. They also recognized
that it was important to pass this bill as quickly as possible
in this House and also in the other place.
Having acknowledged this spirit of co-operation in committee, I
would also like to clarify certain comments made by my
colleagues, especially regarding the motions on Bill C-2 brought
forward in the House.
First, Motion No. 4, by my the Bloc Quebecois colleague,
proposes to include sickness benefits in the retroactivity
period for parents who are going back to work.
The government designed this provision after concerns were
expressed about the possibility of parents staying at home with
their children and going back on the labour market later on.
At present, people are eligible for 15 weeks of sickness
benefits. As far as the retroactivity period is concerned, we
had promised to introduce Bill C-2 in September. Therefore, a
retroactivity cheque will be sent to those eligible as soon as
this bill is enacted.
The government is aware of the needs and
concerns of Canadians, especially those who are too sick to
work. This is why the government has improved access to sickness
benefits by reducing from 700 to 600 the number of hours people
have to work to be eligible.
Like any member of a government that gives thought to what it
does, I, as well as the government and the minister, would like
to proceed carefully and understand all aspects of the issue,
which is an extremely complex one.
For instance, this system is designed to provide assistance to
workers during temporary absences from the labour market. I
believe that a decision about the level of support we should
offer Canadians who are out of the labour market for an extended
period is one which requires a much deeper and comprehensive
analysis, one which will probably take in more than the EI
system. For instance, assistance is available from the Canada
pension plan.
1135
Benefits from workers compensation programs, as well as the
taxation system, also play a role. We should therefore approach
this problem comprehensively and this is the direction in which
the government is headed.
The second motion, which was deemed debatable here in the House,
has to do with the clawback provision, which would not apply to
fraudulent claims for benefit weeks. The member who moved this
amendment in the House is suggesting that we should be more
tolerant of those who defraud the EI system.
His proposal would mean that Canadians who made honest claims
for benefits would be required to give back a portion of their
benefits, while those who made fraudulent claims would be exempt
from having to do so.
In effect, the member is suggesting that we introduce an
incentive for people to defraud the EI system. I cannot believe
that this is the intention of the member who moved this
amendment, but it is the potential impact of the amendment if
ever it were passed. It is obvious that the government cannot
go along with such an amendment to Bill C-2, and we therefore
reject it.
Third, I would like to dwell on the famous clause 9 discussed
earnestly by several members opposite. The purpose is to delete
clause 9 of the bill that would change the way the premium rate
is set in relation with the role of the EI commission.
Let us look at the facts. What is the bill saying? It is
saying that the government wishes to suspend the commission's
role in the determination of the premium rate, but contrary to
what my hon. colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, it is not a
suspension forever. It is a suspension for a period limited to
two years in order to allow the government to review the way the
rate is set.
Why are we asking for that? It is because we too happen to
follow the advice of the auditor general who, as my hon.
colleague said, is well accepted and recognized in this House. We
are following the advice of the auditor general who indicated
that the premium rate determination process was not clear enough.
The Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons has
also indicated that the mechanism should be reviewed.
It is in the perspective of a review aimed at making the rates
fairer that we want to suspend the role of the commission. I
repeat that the suspension would be extremely limited and would
not exceed a two year period.
The review will deal with rates and premium rate determination.
We believe, on the government side, that it is not appropriate to
have the commission keep on setting the rates under those
conditions. We want to review the system.
[English]
Finally, Motion No. 10, which was proposed by my colleague from
the Progressive Conservative Party and also addresses clause 9,
would fundamentally change the purpose of clause 9. I would like
to remind hon. members that clause 9 relates to the role of the
commission in fixing the premium rate.
In fact, as I have just said in French, we are suspending the EI
commission's role in rate setting for two years to allow time for
the government to review how the rate is set.
Once again I will say in answer to my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative that it is the auditor general who
suggested that rate setting is not clear enough and hon. members
on the other side of the House have said it before. The finance
committee has also said that it needs to be revised.
I remind all members that the finance committee of the House of
Commons is made up of all parties present in the House.
1140
These issues need to be addressed in the review. It is not
appropriate to ask the commission to continue to set rates in
these circumstances. Therefore, we are suspending their rate
setting role while we conduct the review.
[Translation]
Finally, I would like to address an extremely important point
that was raised by several members of this House, particularly
members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois,
about the fact that Bill C-2 does not respond to the needs of the
people of Canada.
The government has already made the commitment at the standing
committee of this House to start examining suggestions made to
us by witnesses who appeared before the committee and to make
some recommendations to the minister.
However, I would like to quote once again the auditor general,
who said to us on February 22, while appearing before the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
We thus have the support of the auditor general.
Before concluding, I have two other quotations. The first is
from Mr. Robert Blakely, director of Canadian affairs, building
and construction trades department, AFL-CIO, who said “In
general, we support the reforms proposed under Bill C-2”.
Another quotation—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I regret to interrupt the
parliamentary secretary, but, to be fair to all of our
colleagues, I must. The hon. member for St. John's West.
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to say a few words about this bill, which I look upon as
a blackmail bill, to a degree, simply because government is
throwing out enough to the people involved to encourage all of us
to support the bill, yet is holding back so many other changes
that are so necessary we are torn between supporting the bill and
voting against it.
However, our party is supporting the bill simply because we in
our party know that if we do not accept the changes offered right
now, small as they are, those affected may have to wait for
prolonged periods, as they did during the fall, of course, when
the bill was first introduced. It should have been passed before
the election was called but was not and people have suffered
decreased incomes throughout this winter.
I congratulate some of the members who spoke this morning. I
agree with everything, I think, that was said on this side and I
can appreciate exactly where these hon. members are coming from.
I especially was impressed with the speech given by my colleague
from the NDP who did a magnificent job in outlining some of the
concerns his constituents face.
One of the rules that has not been touched at all in this new
piece of legislation is the divisor rule. We ask why it has been
there from the beginning. If some seasonal employee is fortunate
enough to find x number of weeks of work, why should it be
divided by a larger number to directly increase his income?
The bill deals with the intensity rule, again a rule that should
never have been brought in. It seems the government has been
looking at people who are contributing to a fund well in excess
of what is required and has been taking money from employers well
in excess of what is required, to the extent that we have a
surplus of some $32 billion, instead of asking how we could use
this money to help the people who were meant to be helped in the
beginning, the people who contribute and the employers who
contribute on their behalf.
We say to the employers that we will not allow their advisory
council to have any say in rate setting. That is how we treat
them. We say to the employees that we will try to find as many
ways as we can to reduce their benefits. We will increase the
number of hours of employment needed to qualify. We will bring
in the intensity rule which reduces their payment every year. We
will bring in the divisor rule which artificially divides their
income. Consequently we end up with 50% of nothing being nothing
which is what an awful lot of seasonal employees have been
getting over the last few years.
1145
The intensity rule change is a positive one, and we agree with
it. We also agree with assisting some people to get back into
the workforce without having the heavy onus of paying in
excessive hours.
In relation to the required hours, if we go back, the original
changes were brought in to offset what was always referred to as
the 10-42 syndrome. People would work 10 weeks, get 15 or 20
hours of work a week and get stamps, as they used to say then, to
draw unemployment for the next 42 weeks. Nobody was happy with
that system. However it is like everything else the government
does. Once it starts swinging the pendulum, it lets it go from
one end to the other and the people who suffer in this case are
seasonal employees.
We have regions where the economy has been disastrous during the
last few years, in particular, the ground fishery in Atlantic
Canada. The bottom has fallen right out of it. This not only
affects people involved in the fishery, it affects an awful lot
of people who work in the processing industry, the fish plants
and associated back up activities.
When there is a shortage of resource, as we have seen in recent
years, and when we have demands from the market, especially the
Japanese market, looking for product that requires little or no
processing, the opportunity for the people working in that
industry to obtain employment becomes less and less and the hours
are fewer and fewer.
We have made no provision to address times of disaster. Earlier
in the year I remember some of my colleagues from the Bloc Party
talking about people employed in the forest industry. They
were having the same problem. When the work was scarce, they had
a problem finding the number of hours required.
We do not want to go back to the old 10-42 syndrome, a handful
of hours and a person can draw on the employment insurance all
year. That is not the case. However there has to be some
special provisions made for individuals who live in areas that
have been devastated by lack of resource, or slowdowns in the
industry, or lack of construction, or major strikes or whatever
the case might be. We do not have that flexibility and people
are suffering. Ironically, they are suffering while they
themselves have contributed to a fund that was supposed to look
them, a fund in the amount of $32 billion which the government
lumped in with general revenues.
This is not the way we are supposed to look after the people in
our country. This is certainly not the way we are supposed to
look after people who really need our help, people who in trying
to help themselves get the door slammed in their face.
The bill needs to be amended in several ways and there are
amendments on the floor. Certainly, we will be supporting many
of them, and perhaps all of them. However amendments should not
have been necessary. A government with a conscience, a
government that is supposed to know what is going on should have
brought in a full bill to deal with all the issues. It is not
enough to placate a few and bribe politicians into supporting it
so that these people will at least have some benefits, while
completely rejecting other benefits that are necessary.
1150
Let us talk about the EI funding and the Department of Human
Resources Development. There are provinces which have a lot of
seasonal workers. This in itself creates high unemployment in
those areas. These people are looking for work and asking
government to help out. At the same time we see the end of March
approaching, which is the fiscal year end.
Some provinces use the word dump, which in this case means
millions of dollars from small, poor provinces are being dumped
back into government coffers because of the tight reins the
government has on local offices. The flexibility is not there to
deliver even the meagre amounts that are assigned to the various
regions. It is amazing.
For the first half of this year and part of the previous year,
most of the employees of HRDC were busy trying to correct
mistakes of the past as a result of the looseness of the
government. With the reduction in staff in the department, the
manpower was not there to educate people on what was involved in
putting forward good, solid proposals which could generate
activity in the communities and create employment.
The local offices have been hammered by their own department.
What happened? Through no fault of their own, they have not been
able to deliver the funds available. Money has been sent back to
government. It is unheard of.
It is time the government become aware of what is happening,
especially in the rural areas. Somebody mentioned today that
small communities adjacent to bigger ones have been lumped
together. The small communities are paying the price because
they live near areas of high employment.
All of these things have to be looked at. Hopefully we will see
changes before the final vote and will be only too glad to see
such changes occur.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
begin my speech by asking a question, and I am sure the answer will be yes.
I would imagine that you are quite familiar with the works of
Jean de La Fontaine. I see that you are nodding your approval. I
am convinced that everyone in the House knows Jean de La
Fontaine, a famous French poet who lived from 1621 to 1695. He
is particularly well known all over the world for his Fables.
If Jean de La Fontaine were still living today, he would find
that the ideal conditions, the winning conditions for writing a
new fable, are all brought together in the employment insurance
plan. Let me explain.
When Jean de La Fontaine personified an animal, he did it for
two very specific reasons. First, it underlines human and social
behaviours and helps us understand how they work. Second, it is a
means by which to draw attention to the sensitivity and
intelligence of animals that should at times be a source of
inspiration for us. We would be better off. I can easily imagine
a fable he could have entitled the nasty chickens and the nice
geese”.
Mr. Speaker, just like me, you were once small, even though it
does not show any more, and young. When I was a child there was
a tradition which still exists. At Easter, my brothers would go
out and buy cute little chicks. Spring being the time of
renewal, of rebirth, we used to love to buy these animals.
I was six or seven years younger than my brothers.
Who do you think had to feed the chickens every morning? Me, of
course.
1155
As time went by, the chickens got bigger. However, I had noticed
that one was a bit smaller than the others. I wondered what was
happening. I began to observe it. I realized that the smaller
chicken was excluded by the others until one day it finally
died. We know how it is when one chicken is weaker than the
others. They begin pecking at it and hurt it until it dies. That
is the first part of the fable.
Here is the second part. I was a little older at that time. My
brothers took me fishing and hunting. One day, they showed me a
flight of Canada geese. We know that these birds travel over
fairly long distances. We also know how it is with Canada geese.
When one of them becomes too weak or too tired, the strongest
goose will go just under it and support it in flight. When that
goose gets tired another one takes its place, and in the end
the weak goose reaches its destination.
We saw that nasty chickens exclude whereas nice geese
include. That is a very good illustration of how EI works at
present.
It is pretty serious business to lose a job. People have
responsibilities. They feel helpless. Then the nasty chickens
come along to peck at them. Here we have someone who has lost a
job. What is the first question we ask? “Eligible or not
eligible?” Then we pick, pick, pick away at eligibility. We
make sure that the rules are as strict as possible. If we find a
person is eligible that bugs us, so we pick, pick, pick away
again, adding the two week waiting period. Tactics of exclusion
are constantly being used.
At one point benefits were 60% of earnings. We say that is too
much, so we pick away some more and bring it down to 55%. Then
we pick away again at the seasonal workers because they apply
every year and reduce benefits by 1% per year. The
institutional tactic of exclusion is obvious. I could go on, in
fact I will.
Construction workers are also seasonal workers. They
have to be looking for work, however. The department says that
construction workers who go through their unions, their
construction board where all the available jobs are posted, are
not considered to have been looking for work. We are picking
away again.
Then there are the young workers, women who are excluded from
eligibility, parental leave. Earlier in my introduction I
spoke of spring, which is a call to life. A man and a woman who
decide to have a child are again virtually excluded. They are
not eligible under the terms of employment insurance. If the
expectant mother has to make use of preventive withdrawal from
the workplace, here there is another exclusion. In this
employment insurance system, it is exclusion from A to Z.
Then, there are the older workers. It is certainly
difficult when a person is 55 and has been in one job for 35
years. Here again we exclude them. Assistance programs which
could help them until retirement are taken away. As far as I
know, there was a commitment to reinstate such a program. It has
not yet appeared. Once again exclusion is the rule.
1200
Basically the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition believe that we
are doing what we are doing because of what we are. We are the
nice geese.
If for some reason someone is going through hard times, such as
the loss of a job, there must be some system somewhere to help
him, to support him until he gets back on his feet.
All the amendments brought forward by my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois and other colleagues in the opposition are along that
line. We do not want the employment insurance system to be
exclusive. We want it to be an inclusive plan.
We could go on for hours about various issues. We could add
amendments. However now they are restricting debate partially
in this case, but it will probably come to total closure very
soon.
I am sure Jean de La Fontaine would have been delighted to write
a fable about the nasty chickens and the nice geese. This does
not only apply to employment insurance. We could also apply it
to federalism and sovereignty.
There are nasty chickens that are leading us, the nice geese, to
support sovereignty in Quebec. We want a nation that once it
fully controls its own employment insurance fund will be able to
include persons who are going through hard times so that they are
not excluded from society but are helped and can later return to
society with pride and dignity, thanks to the assistance they
received from support programs, just like a nice goose would do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): That was a fairly picturesque
speech. The hon. member for Windsor—St. Clair.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to reiterate the points made by my colleague from the
Progressive Conservative Party about the inadequacies of the
legislation being proposed, specifically the short list of the
amendments and changes that would be made, depending upon the
outcome of the vote. Many more issues need to be addressed and I
will draw them to the attention of the House at this time.
One issue that has been of particular import to my riding in the
last few months is the change concerning the 85% rule that is
required in one of the regulations under the act. It establishes
that if an employee does not return to work in a strike lockout
situation, the reason must be because of lack of work and not
because of lack of work or production generated as a result of
the strike lockout.
The rule is wide open to abuse on the part of employers if after
the strike lockout they wish to be vindictive. The offensive
part of the regulation is that the employer is the one who is
sought out and asked for information on whether the 85% rule is
being met.
I wish to make a side point here. The 85% rule is not only with
regard to 85% of the employees being called back to work but also
85% of production being restored. It is a double opportunity for
the employer to have the final decision on whether individual
employees will qualify. We had two recent situations in Windsor
where this specific situation arose.
The interesting part is that as a result of work done by the CAW
union and my office, the department reversed the original
decision disqualifying all those workers. Literally hundreds of
them were disqualified.
I still have not had a response from the minister in terms of the
interpretation placed on the rule, but there seems to be some
policy where during certain periods of time the rule is not
enforced. Our party's position is that the rule should be done
away with completely. The general application of the act and the
regulations should flow once a strike lockout situation has
terminated.
1205
Another concern I have, and one that I run across in my riding
repeatedly, is with one of the penalties under the legislation.
It is in regard to individuals who know that they will be
unemployed and they make arrangements in all good faith to seek
retraining.
The government is actively pressing individuals who are
unemployed to upgrade themselves. It constantly publishes
figures about the need for people to recognize that in the course
of their working career they will be repeatedly required to
return to some educational or retraining program in order to
maintain full employment.
In spite of the figures that we have all seen, and the position
that the government is taking, individuals who wish to return to
work by way of upgrading their skills and knowing that they will
need to do that in order to get favourable employment situations,
are in effect penalized by being required to go without
employment benefits for a full two week period. They leave the
workforce, usually not voluntarily, and then they are without any
form of income for a full two weeks while in an educational
program.
It is particularly offensive to single parent families with
children who rely on that income to have a waiting period of two
weeks. It has a very negative effect, particularly for women in
the workforce, as it forces them to go on social service benefits
rather than get the retraining that they really require.
Retraining would be much better for them as it would enhance the
overall economy and it would be good of society. That is another
change that is required and we see no signs of the government
moving on it.
My final point deals with the inaction on the part of the
government to deal with the taking of the money that has been
paid for by both employees and employers to the tune of $35
billion. It has also refused to even acknowledge a
responsibility to replace those funds.
If the government returned those funds, there is no question
that the amount the employer or employee would have to contribute
would be significantly reduced. We need those funds available in
case of a significant economic downturn, which we may be
confronting at this period of time.
We need action on the part the government on each one of those
items. As Bill C-2 and the proposed amendments show, we are not
getting it at this time.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am always very interested in talking about the employment
insurance bill.
1210
I have to say that I opposed the bill. I opposed it and I still
oppose it, but a little less today because now I have hope.
I will first explain why the Bloc Quebecois and I oppose this
bill as currently defined. First off, clause 9 of the bill
gives the government the power to set the premium rates for 2002
and 2003, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.
Under the existing act the premium rates are set by the
commission, with the approval of the governor in council, on the
recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development
and the Minister of Finance.
The nuance is significant since with the ousting of the
commission for the rate setting process the rates could be
adjusted according to the needs of the government and its
deficit, rather than according to the needs of the unemployed
and the amount of contributions received, as the chief actuary
recommends.
If passed, clause 9 would legalize theft and the government's
having full possession of the fund.
This morning people talked about a real employment insurance
fund. However, with clause 9, we are making it legal for the
government to draw from the fund surplus as it wishes. I
therefore appeal to this government to have this clause
repealed. If it were, I would vote in favour. The Bloc
Quebecois would vote for the bill. Why?
If members read over my last speech concerning Bill C-2,
they will find that I was very critical of that bill, which had
nothing to do with the reality of the area I represent where
seasonal work is a fact of life.
Why am I less critical today? It is because I have hope. Nevertheless,
I remain concerned. I have hope, given the fact that a motion was
adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development which was put forward by the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and which said:
That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and
the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of
Commons other recommendations related to the Employment
Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no
later than June 1, 2001.
Hearings were held and people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean gave
testimony before the committee. We were very happy about that.
Several witnesses said that the actual reform was nonsense
since it does not answer the needs of our fellow citizens.
I am still concerned today, but I see a glimmer of hope. What
will be the content of the report tabled on June 1? I do not
know. However my colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has all my
confidence, because he is a man full of compassion and
understanding toward Quebec workers.
There are many things I would like to see in this report, and I
hope it can generate major changes in the present plan.
The Employment Insurance Act as it stands now has a negative
impact on my region and that of the hon. member for Charlevoix,
because we both experienced the same kind of situation on July
1. This is not a problem affecting all our colleagues.
The act provides for a review of EI zones every five years. The
number of hours and the number of weeks of benefits vary between
an area with high unemployment and an area with a strong
economy.
1215
When the zoning is sensibly done it reflects the reality of
regions. A new zone was established on July 1 last year without
any real consultation. There were token consultations. I wrote
to the minister to tell her I disagreed with this new EI zone.
In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean her officials told her to keep the
status quo. In spite of it all, the chief actuary established
the new zone. Actually I do not know whether the actuary or the
minister was involved, but that is not relevant.
Still, a major change was made in that instead of having to
work 420 hours to qualify workers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean
region will now need 525 hours to get a maximum of 22 weeks of
benefits, instead of 31.
This may be of little significance to us, in the comfort of
our seats. This morning, I listened to the passionate speech
made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on the realities
experienced by the families and workers who will not qualify, or
who will qualify but will only receive benefits until February.
How will these people survive? From February to May when the
tourist season starts and seasonal economic activities resume,
these people will have to rely on income security, on welfare.
Do hon. members think this is what these people want? Absolutely
not, particularly since they often have a house or a car, which
is perfectly normal and something I wish on everyone. Because of
that they cannot qualify for provincial income
security. These people then find themselves without any income,
and governments wonder why people turn to the underground
economy. There comes a point where people have to get into
survival mode. When the government comes up with measures like
this one, with measures that do not reflect the workers'
reality, some turn to the underground economy because they need
to put bread and butter on the table.
That is why the minister, faced with an outcry from workers in
our regions before the election was called, agreed to change the
rules to propose transitional measures so that workers would
have the time, the minister put it, to get used to the new EI
rules which restrict eligibility and decrease the number of
benefit weeks.
People do not get used to poverty. Even if we wanted to
extend the tourism season, and we are working on it, the
weather must be factored in. When the ground is frozen it is
frozen, with the result that there are certain activities which
are impossible during the winter season. Seasonal work is a
reality in this country and must be taken into consideration.
I mentioned earlier that I hoped the committee would submit
a report and that it would lead to amendments so that the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions would see a
return to measures reflecting the economic reality of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. The result would be that seasonal
workers could make both ends meet and that they would not find
themselves facing poverty. This does not mean that they do not
want to work. Far from it.
Once again, I listened to the speech by the member for
Acadie—Bathurst who had heard in the House that some people are
lazy and want to live off income security. There may be a
percentage who do, but it is not true of most workers. Far from
it. What people want are working conditions, work and decent
pay, to which everyone is entitled.
If the existing rules are not amended the impact on the economy
of my region and on businesses will be disastrous.
1220
I mentioned workers who will face a gap in benefits in the
spring. Businesses will be affected as well.
Unfortunately that is all the time I have.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak to Bill C-2 which really hurts seasonal
workers.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister claimed loud
and clear throughout Quebec that as soon as he was back in
office in Ottawa his government would undertake an indepth
reform of the EI plan.
In some regions Canadian voters believed him and in others
they did not. In the Gaspé peninsula people believed that the
Prime Minister, having finally wiped out the deficit, was
promising in his red book to completely overhaul the EI plan.
The citizens of the Gaspé and the islands were fooled again.
They were wrong in voting Liberal, even if the Liberal member
made a heartfelt appeal to the Prime Minister during the
campaign, asking him to finally listen and keep the election
promises he had personally made.
The Prime Minister will not be easily moved by the heartfelt cry
from my colleague from
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. The Prime
Minister has been in politics for 35 years. He has seen and
done all kinds of things. He made promises and even acknowledged
that he was mistaken when he had seasonal workers, women and
students pitch in to help wipe out the deficit by cutting their
EI benefits from 55% to 50%. This had a double effect.
The Prime Minister thought these cuts in their benefits would
encourage them to improve their skills and work longer.
Several members mentioned that in several areas of Quebec such
as Charlevoix and the North Shore there were a lot of seasonal
jobs. Workers would like to have permanent jobs. Employers would
like to be able to give them permanent jobs. As we know, if
employers cannot guarantee a high enough number of hours of work
to allow workers to qualify for employment insurance benefits,
they tend to leave. It is very expensive for employers to have
to constantly train new workers for these seasonal jobs.
Bill C-44 was on the table before the election campaign. The
Prime Minister promised an indepth reform when parliament
reconvened. He introduced Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is a photocopy of
Bill C-44.
If Bill C-44 was not acceptable, Bill C-2 is even less so
because again it does not meet the commitments made by the
government during the election campaign. The government was
re-elected on these promises.
It would take some major changes right away. There was no need
for Bill C-2 to go through all the stages: introduction and
first reading, second reading, committee review to hear
witnesses, back to the House for third reading and
finally royal assent. I am convinced the Prime Minister
would have had the unanimous consent of the House, of both
government and opposition members, to split Bill C-2 into two
separate parts.
We would have unanimously agreed to it if only the government
had promised to immediately and retroactively give back all the
money it took from the unemployed through the intensity rule, to
bring in an increase from 50% to 55% to eliminate the clawback
effect, and to bring in an increase from $28,000 to $38,000 to allow,
mothers to stay on maternity leave instead of being
unemployed for two or four years. We would have agreed
unanimously to split the bill.
1225
The government would have also made the commitment to proceed to
a true reform of the employment insurance plan. The Prime
Minister knows what a true reform of the EI plan is, and so do
the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of
Finance since there was such a reform in 1996, the Axworthy
reform, when drastic cuts were made to the plan.
In 1996, when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and
the then Minister of Human Resources Development decided to
reform the EI plan, their goal was to take in as much as possible
and give out as little as possible. With eligibility requirements
set at 910 hours, six persons out of ten who paid EI
contributions were not eligible for benefits.
The need is in our ridings but the money is in Ottawa. The
unemployed need the money but the Minister of Finance has it in
his pockets. Of course the intensity rule made no sense
at all. The Prime Minister recognized that fact following a
question from the Bloc Quebecois and undertook to review the rule
and change it. However we are asking for a lot more than that.
At least 60 to 70 witnesses came to say unanimously to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of
Persons with Disabilities that Bill C-2 did not go far enough.
The two week waiting period should also be abolished.
We know that employment insurance is an insurance that employees
and employers pay into in case there is a job loss or
termination. It is part of the social benefits.
It is not because people apply for EI benefits that they must be
penalized with a two week waiting period. Why keep the 910 hour
requirement for seasonal workers? Whether they are temporary or
part time employees, these people pay premiums and never receive
benefits.
A seasonal worker status should be recognized. This would
prevent regions from quarrelling among themselves. This would
also somewhat prevent businesses, employers and employees from
being in a difficult situation compared to others.
On the ferry, the boat belonging to the Société des traversiers
du Québec which sails between Baie Sainte-Catherine and
Tadoussac in my riding, I have seen Tadoussac and Baie
Sainte-Catherine residents who did not have the same EI coverage.
This is illogical because they have the same employer.
Also, when a seasonal employee was lucky enough to get some work
in the last two or three years, he needed 420 hours to qualify for
32 insurable weeks. The minister wants to come back with her
project in 2003-04. However this is done increasingly. In
2000-01, today, 420 hours are required to qualify for 32 weeks.
In 2001-02 someone will have to work 420 hours to qualify for 28
weeks. Already next year four weeks will be cut.
In 2002-03 it will be 455 hours for 24 weeks and in 2003-04
525 hours for 21 weeks.
At this time of year, at the end of March, we will be reading in
the papers or hearing on the TV that according to Statistics
Canada the unemployment rate has dropped in Quebec and Canada.
Why has the unemployment rate dropped? It is because people are no
longer covered by employment insurance. The government is not
paying money out any more. It is paying out a lot less.
Statistics Canada says the unemployment rate has dropped. It is
not because people have entered the labour market. It is because
they no longer get employment insurance cheques. At this point
it is something like the principle of communicating vessels.
If people do not get EI cheques social assistance goes up. Who
pays for social assistance? The workers do, through their taxes.
The workers of Quebec pay for this assistance which provides
some income security.
Thirty-six billion dollars have been in the government coffers
since the 1996 reform. Six people in ten are not entitled to EI.
The needs are in ridings and the money is in Ottawa. The
unemployed need money, and the money is in the Minister of
Finance's pockets.
1230
There have been multiple demonstrations, at least 10,000
signatures on petitions—I have tabled some 10—and meetings
with native communities, unions, Charlevoix—Côte-Nord coalitions
in an effort to appeal to the minister. We almost had to wring
her arm to get a meeting.
She promised a bill, training and programs, but unfortunately
the transitional measures were empty because there is no money
in the program.
In closing, we want a thorough reform by the government as soon
as possible, because the unemployed have been penalized enough by
Liberal government reforms.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak about Bill C-2 and the whole employment
insurance saga.
We know that the reforms in the employment insurance program
have made victims and that some people cannot collect insurance
benefits any more when they loose their job.
Today we are asking for real action. We are asking for a real
reform that will give more people access to employment insurance.
Six people in ten are currently excluded. Such an insurance
should allow any worker who loses his or her job to collect
employment insurance benefits, but it is not the case any more
since the 1996 reform of the employment insurance program.
Some changes were introduced through various bills, including
Bill C-44 which only brought minor improvements. I cannot
understand how the government could not respond to people's
expectations. Our committee had several meetings to look at a
real indepth reform of the employment insurance bill. We have
heard groups that were very representative of the population.
The Bloc Quebecois went on a few fact finding tours to try and
understand what was happening in the various areas, what
impact this unfair and unwarranted reform was having. It has
already hurt many, people who could not find work in time
to go back to work within a reasonable time frame. We were
talking about the spring gap. Many seasonal workers do not
qualify for EI because their insurable period has been shortened.
Before the elections they were talking about true employment
insurance reform, but now they are back with Bill C-2. It does
not go far enough. It will hurt the unemployed without really
overhauling the system.
Our critic on human resources development, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, has really
worked hard in committee. He is very familiar with this issue.
After listening to the concerns of the various witnesses, he came
back with amendments to the overall Employment Insurance Act and
asked the government to consider them.
About 60 organizations appeared before the committee to talk
about the reality faced by the unemployed, by all those who lose
their jobs and can no longer qualify. The legislation limits
access to EI benefits. The Bloc Quebecois is bringing forward all
the changes he has been asking for. The Bloc's concern is not
new. This has been an issue for the Bloc ever since 1993, because
we are very much aware of the hardship faced by the people who
were discriminated against because they cannot qualify.
We can also talk about eliminating the waiting period, something
that was set to target workers who were claiming UI benefits too
often. They were not doing so out of malice but because they
were unable to find work.
1235
We know that the 1996 reform, which was unprecedented in this
government, made it even harder for workers to qualify. Those who
used EI too often were penalized and saw their benefit rate
reduced by as much as 5%.
During those five years recipients could no longer get benefits
at a rate of 55% of insurable earnings since they could lose up
to 50% of their benefit rate.
Why are we calling for the establishment of a separate
employment insurance fund? It is because what is happening right now is
unacceptable. The government is dipping into the EI fund. It is
doing it to eliminate the deficit, which makes it look like a
government that has a lot of money to hand out in grants to
friends of the party or in grants with no particular objective in
terms of helping the unemployed.
We know there is $36 billion in the EI fund today. We could have
a separate fund administered by those who contribute to it,
namely workers and employers. That fund must be managed
separately.
We are calling for an increase in insurable earnings from 55% to
60% to respond to the rising cost of living. Right now the rate
is 55%. This increase is totally justified to give the unemployed
slightly higher benefits to help them make ends meet while they
look for a job.
We are requesting a change in the definition of the rate
calculation period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. At present, those who
qualify are few and they have fewer weeks of insurable
employment.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord keeps saying that we
should be fair with the regions. Often workers in some areas
depend on seasonal or unstable jobs. Twenty-six weeks is clearly
not enough in a context where there may not be any jobs
available.
Another serious change we would like to see is the insurability
of independent workers through a voluntary plan. Had the reform
of employment insurance been tailored to the needs of the labour
market, an assessment of the impact on independent workers would
have been made.
I also know, because I was told about it, that the cultural
industry should have been taken into consideration
Human resources people in the cultural industry have formed a
coalition, asking for a pilot project for cultural workers.
These are very often independent workers, with incomes at or
below the poverty level. That is another aspect of the labour
market which has not been taken into account.
We wanted to bring down to 300 hours the eligibility requirement
for special benefits. In some areas those who want to take a
maternal or parental leave with special benefits, or those who
are sick, have to work more hours. They need 600 hours before
they qualify for EI benefits.
We would like to bring that figure down to 300 hours. In some
areas workers need 420 hours to be eligible. It is unacceptable
that people who experience very special conditions cannot be
treated just like other workers.
1240
Concerning the increase in the duration of benefits I believe
that if we do not take into account what is really going on in the
field, some people will find themselves without any EI benefits
and that their duration is too insignificant to meet their
needs.
Harmonizing to 25% the earnings of all claimants before EI
benefits are cut, this is a main theme of the Bloc Quebecois.
Members can be assured that all the reforms asked for by the Bloc
are shared by all the people who testified before the committee
on human resources development and the status of people with
disabilities.
Insurable yearly earnings must be indexed and raised to $41,500.
I think the government has a lot of work to do to correct this
inequity going back to the 1996 reform, which resulted in several
poverty level people having to apply for welfare. Finally, the
provincial governments had to step in and take over the federal
government's responsibility.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to address the bill before us today.
Let me begin by saying that in my opinion the employment
insurance issue has evolved somewhat, but in a negative way. Let
me explain.
There was a time when the federal government contributed to the
employment insurance fund, then called the unemployment insurance
fund, to the tune of about 25%. Of course the rest of the money
came from employers and workers. All of a sudden in the 1980s,
the government said “We will no longer contribute to the
employment insurance fund. We will no longer put in our 25%.
From now on all the money will come from employers and
workers”.
A number of economic and financial studies have shown that our
businesses have since lost a degree of competitivity, because
they must make greater contributions to the employment insurance
fund.
That decision has been a costly one. At the same time that the
government was withdrawing from the plan in the 1980s a number
of bills were introduced to make it harder for people to qualify
for benefits. Before these changes seven or eight people in ten
who would lose their jobs would qualify for EI benefits,
compared to only four now.
The federal government is putting less money into the fund.
In fact, it is not putting any and it is tightening eligibility
rules and a whole set of other rules, which my colleague
described very well.
These will, if I understand correctly, be raised before the
House on June 1, 2001, when the standing committee tables a
report.
The rules were tightened and made stricter. The government
withdrew and contributed less money while at the same time
wanting more control. Hon. members will tell me there is
nothing new about that. That is more or less what the federal
government has been doing for several years. It wants to
contribute less and less but to centralize more and more.
This has had repercussions. In my riding of Saint-Jean a PSAC
survey has shown clearly that Saint-Jean was losing $21 million
yearly because of all the restrictions relating to employment
insurance: restrictions on eligibility, on the number of weeks,
on what the federal government contributes.
Saint-Jean has received $21 million less than it did under the
generous, previous plan.
Saint-Jean is not alone. In all ridings of Quebec and all
ridings of Canada similar things have been happening. As a
result, people losing their jobs have found themselves dependent
on provincial welfare once they were no longer eligible for
employment insurance.
I hardly need point out that Ottawa has also reduced the amounts
earmarked for transfer payments to the provinces for health,
education and social assistance. Thus the provinces are hit
with exorbitantly heavy costs.
1245
Why are we against this bill at the moment? It is because of
clause 9. If the government agreed to delete clause 9 there
would be no problem. Under the current legislation the premium
rate is set by the Employment Insurance Commission on the
recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and
the Minister of Finance.
The bill before us goes further. The Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Minister of Finance will make their
recommendations directly to the government. They will no longer
have to go through the commission. As I was saying earlier, the
government no longer contributes to the EI fund. This means that
from now on there is a great risk that the decisions made by the
department, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development in terms of setting the premium rate will
be based on government needs.
A lot of people question the legitimacy of a fund like the one
we now have, with a $6 to $7 billion a year surplus for a
cumulative total of about $25 billion over the last few years,
when that money is used for purposes other than the one for which
it was intended, namely helping people who lose their jobs.
There is a major problem with clause 9 and we cannot agree to
it. Many people have criticized this clause.
In Quebec businesses and employers have spoken out against this
because they have realized that they are now paying more without
getting anything out of it, practically. They know that by
paying more surpluses are building up in Ottawa and that part of
what they are paying is used by the government to meet its own
needs, which is not what the EI fund was designed to do.
Employees who pay premiums every week have come to the same
conclusion. They are saying that it does not only provide a
safety net for those who lose their jobs. They
understand that with what the government is taking out of the
fund it can pay back its debts or inject money in its daily
operations.
There is a big problem. If the government could come to terms
with this issue and say that it will forget about clause 9 and
leave it up the commission to set the rate, then it could have
the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Until it change its mind,
it will have to do without our support.
I also want to commend our colleague for making a list of very
specific items that are not in the bill but that will eventually
have be considered. Let me review some of them. There is the
elimination of the waiting period, which is very important to us.
During the 1998 ice storm in my riding of Saint-Jean people who
had paid EI premiums all their lives and were laid off when
their employers had to close shop because they were out of power
were told “You have to wait two weeks”. I thought that was too
much.
These people had been paying in all their lives and needed these
benefits, but the federal government had found a way to turn
them down.
The way I see it, it is not an employee's fault when there are
no longer any jobs. Employment insurance is a safety net. The
only purpose I can see for the government in a waiting period is
to ensure a supply of additional funds or fewer expenditures.
It is the same with the creation of older workers' benefits.
Since the government wrapped up the POWA program, which was
designed to help older workers, we have had terrible problems in
our ridings. People regularly come to my office telling me
“Listen, I am 55 or 58, and I swear to you that when I apply for
work people look at me in an odd way and I never get an
interview”. This is only normal.
Employers are going to select from a much younger pool. They
feel that even though older workers have accumulated a lot of
experience, they will not be with the company as long. They do
not tell them “We are not going to hire you”. They say “We are
sorry, but we have selected someone else. We are not able to
hire you, but we will keep your name on file”.
Be that as it may, these people are unable to find another job,
and this causes a problem. This is one of the things that must
be looked at a little later on, I imagine, when the standing
committee submits its report on June 1. For now, there are a
whole series of issues that have not been resolved. One of
these is the benefit rate. It is now 55% instead of the 60% it
used to be.
1250
This is part of what I was saying earlier, that the government
has tightened and tightened in order to go on increasing its
surpluses for its own needs. This is something that is
difficult to accept.
I appeal to the government's sense of reason. If it wants the
support of the Bloc Quebecois, all it has to do is delete clause
9 and arrange things so that the commission, which sets premium
rates on the recommendation of the two ministers, is maintained,
so that it at least avoids the appearance of the government
wanting to help itself to the fund.
If the government withdraws clause 9 the Bloc Quebecois would
be pleased to support Bill C-2.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak
during report stage of Bill C-2 and in particular to address my
remarks to the amendments the House is now dealing with.
The perspective I bring to the Chamber this afternoon is one of
equality for women and parents. In my view if one addressed and
analyzed the bill from the point of view of gender fairness and
non-discrimination it would fail the test.
I have, as do I think many others in the House, a question for
the government. Was a gender analysis done for the bill? Were
the concerns of Canadians about the discriminatory features of
the existing Employment Insurance Act addressed in preparation
for Bill C-2?
It would seem that on every count and in every instance the
government has failed to address those concerns and has
perpetuated the enormous inequalities and discriminatory features
of the act and of the legislation before us.
We have raised before in the House our concerns about the
changes introduced by the government in 1997. We have raised the
concern that the government has taken important revenue away from
workers and unemployed Canadians to deal with its preoccupation
of balancing the budget and addressing the debt and deficit.
We had hoped, in this time of surplus and given the intentions
of the government to redress its previous mistakes, that the bill
would be a step forward. Unfortunately that is not the case.
It is a particularly sad day for us to be here addressing the
bill when at this very moment and as we speak a charter challenge
is being heard in the courts. It is a charter challenge that
could have been avoided had the government put its money where
its mouth was. If it had adhered to and respected its own
rhetoric the challenge would not be before the courts today.
The witnesses and testimonies for the charter challenge were
heard on February 19. It is expected that we will soon hear the
results of the challenge. All expectations are that it will be
successful and that the government will need to deal with the
situation. It will need to deal with its neglect in terms of
equality for women, part time workers and parents.
I acknowledge the work and contribution to the country by the
Community Unemployed Help Centre of Winnipeg, which has taken up
the challenge and supported a woman by the name of Kelly Lesiuk
in her charter challenge.
Following the 1997 changes, the Community Unemployed Help Centre
of Winnipeg surveyed organizations and individuals to determine
how the act might be improved. It heard very clearly from
participants that the present act was having a profound effect on
workers with the most tenuous attachment to the labour force,
including part time workers, new entrants and re-entrants.
The people who responded to the survey felt that unless the
government addressed those concerns a charter challenge was
perfectly in order and that there was incredible merit for such a
case.
1255
Kelly Lesiuk, a part time nurse from Winnipeg, came forward with
her situation. I will describe her case briefly so members can
see how the act and the bill before us fail to address a
fundamental right and freedom in our society.
Kelly Lesiuk worked part time for five years while also raising
a child. When Kelly's husband found alternate employment in
Winnipeg the family moved from Brandon, Manitoba and were faced
with a difficult situation. Kelly was five months pregnant with
her second child. She applied for employment insurance in
Winnipeg. It was her justifiable expectation to obtain regular EI
benefits while seeking employment. She expected that when she
was no longer able to work she could switch her claim to
maternity and then to parental benefit.
Needless to say, the Lesiuks were shocked to find that Kelly
failed to qualify for benefits because she had fallen 33 hours
short of the 700 hours required at the time of her application.
As Kelly said in an interview in the spring of 1999:
To make it through, we've had to deplete our savings, RRSPs, max
out our credit cards and borrow money. I have had to return to
work just six weeks after having my baby boy by cesarean section.
The safety net that we felt was there for us was not.
Kelly is not alone in the situation she experienced. Hundreds
of other women, part time workers and parents are in similar
situations. Some 60 other cases based on similar circumstances
are waiting to be heard pending the final word on the charter
challenge.
It is a shame that women like Kelly must go through such a
lengthy legal process. It is a shame that when the government
had an opportunity to act so many other women are left waiting to
hear how things will unfold.
We are dealing with a failure on the part of the government to
address a systemic problem. The government and society must
recognize that today women represent 70% of part time workers.
That means they bear a disproportionate negative impact under the
government's approach to employment insurance. They are the
hardest hit by the Liberals' rules on employment insurance.
To drive home the point, let us remember that seven out of ten
unemployed women have no access to benefits. Let us also remind
ourselves that only 15% of young women now qualify for employment
insurance. Finally, let us recognize that only half of women who
give birth receive maternity benefits under existing EI rules.
This is because so many women are in part time, temporary or on
call contracts that the government cannot meet the requirements.
It would have been very important for the government at this
opportune moment to address those concerns and bring forward
appropriate amendments to ensure there is no discriminatory
impact on women in our society today. For goodness' sake, we are
in the year 2001.
For some 30 years women and women's movements across Canada have
been fighting for legislation that has no gender bias. They have
been fighting for pay equity, recognition under employment
insurance rules and fair treatment with respect to pensions.
Women have asked the government over and over again to ensure
that every law is looked at from the point of view of its impact
on women and that every proposal before the House comes with a
gender based analysis. There could not have been a gender based
analysis with respect to this bill, or we would not be here today
talking about its impact on women. It is a matter of acting on
the facts.
1300
In conclusion, the government has talked a lot about equality
and about redressing the problems it created through its changes
to the Employment Insurance Act in 1997. This is the moment and the
opportune time to make those changes.
We have a bill before us that could correct both problems and
ensure that women, particularly women who work part time and
women who continue to have the primary responsibility for the
raising of children, are not discriminated against by actions of
the government. That is the fair, the just and the right thing
to do.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that with
regard to this debate dealing, with the status of
women, among other things, there are still only a few of us in
the House to advance the status of women.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the
House, not out of some mean-spiritedness, that every time there is a
major debate in the House on women's issues I see very few
women rising on the other side. Instead I see quite a few
men. This saddens me a little.
I had not planned to take part in today's debate on EI.
I will be speaking off the cuff, straight from the heart. This
is a unique opportunity for me to raise the awareness of members
of this House on the impact of some of the provisions of the
Employment Insurance Act on the living conditions of women.
On the weekend and again on Monday and Tuesday, I was fortunate
to take part in a national forum on birth and rebirth. It dealt
with the time in the life of a woman between the moment when she
becomes pregnant and 18 or 24 months after the birth of her
child. The lack of tools available to women to escape poverty
when they have a child was among the topics discussed.
Another topic was how through the whole process women find
themselves isolated from everyone except perhaps the father.
Quite often fathers, and increasingly so with young fathers, are
present and involved.
However, when we talk about single parent, people with children
living in poverty, we are talking about women. When we talk
about precarious jobs, we are talking about women.
We know that 70% of precarious jobs, and probably even more, are
held by women. They bear the brunt of precarious employment. Of
course when they have not worked enough hours to qualify for EI
benefits they do not get any. What do they do? That is the
question.
I am also thinking about self-employed women. Often women have
been taken for a ride in this whole situation. They are often
told “Become self-employed, work at home and you will be able to
care for your children at the same time”.
However self-employed women are not eligible for employment
insurance benefits and they will not have access to parental
leave either, because there is nothing about that in the bill.
Moreover, they often do not make enough money to be eligible.
Last weekend, I was very surprised to find out that there is a
committee of mothers who are being denied their maternity and
parental leave. It is true. I have the brochure right here.
1305
These women decided to form a group a few years ago
because they are not eligible for leave or benefits. They asked
that changes be made to the Employment Insurance Act. I Hope the
committee in charge of reviewing the EI plan
heard them. Everything revolves around the eligibility criterion
and the extension of parental leave.
It is a good thing that the government was able to take this
eligibility criterion into account. It helps a little, except
that when the benefit period was extended some of the negative
effects were ignored. Some workers are not eligible.
I will give an example and I will try to be very specific
because it is a complex situation.
For example, a pregnant woman who is on preventive withdrawal
because her health or the baby's health is in danger and who
receives benefits from the CSST is not eligible for EI benefits.
That is a delicate situation.
These women are penalized because they received money from the
CSST. They are penalized because they used preventive withdrawal
to ensure their safety and the safety of their unborn baby. In
doing that they cannot accumulate the required number of hours
to qualify for maternity or parental leave.
They are denied benefits; they are denied their rights. They are
forced to choose, which I think is totally unacceptable.
I believe this puts the government in a very awkward position.
The government says “We will help mothers because we believe the
first years of life are the most important. We will help parents
get closer to their children”. What about the women who
cannot get employment insurance benefits and who are not
entitled to parental leave? They are forced to go back to work.
Fortunately in Quebec we have a child care program. It helps a
little. It offers support, but day care centres will never
replace parents. The mother has a choice to make. She either
takes parental leave at her own expense or she goes back to
work. It is one of the bad elements.
I will give another example. In the former Employment Insurance
Act a woman was entitled to collect employment insurance
benefits from the moment she had delivered the baby or at the
expected time of delivery.
The new act now says that a woman who has delivered a baby on or
after January 1, 2000, is entitled to parental leave.
Madam Speaker, I have heard that you are aware of this problem.
I am personally trying to collect signatures. As a member of
parliament you might be doing an excellent job in this regard.
What I am saying is that under the new act a woman who was
expected to deliver her baby on January 5, 2001, but who did so
on December 12, 2000, is not entitled to extended parental leave.
She is not allowed the maximum period under the new legislation.
1310
I find that a bit unfortunate. As members know, as the critic
for the status of women I will do my best to explain, to change
and to improve women's living conditions.
All this should be taken into account, if possible, because women
represent 52% of the population in Canada. Women are in charge
of bringing children up. It is the women who make Canada and
Quebec what they are.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very happy to speak today in the House to Bill C-2 and, in
particular, to the amendment.
I would first like to pay tribute to the incredible amount of
work that has taken place to bring the bill to where it is today,
limited as it is.
I along with many of my colleagues were elected in 1997. From
day one of being elected to parliament, members of the New
Democratic Party took up the issue of the discrimination and
unfairness in the Employment Insurance Act which was brought in
1996. In particular, our spokesperson on unemployment insurance,
the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has taken this issue up with an
absolute passion and is an advocate for the unemployed men and
women in this country. It is the work of that member and of
other members in the opposition that has forced this issue on to
the political agenda. It is quite ironic to see the amount of
effort that was needed to force the government to bring forward
even the very limited changes that are before us today in Bill
C-2.
In looking over the bill and the amendments, there is no
question that if the bill is approved in its present form it
would still act as a discriminatory piece of legislation and hurt
those members of society who need the most protection and
support.
A glaring contradiction to the bill are the statements the
government side has made in the House professing to be concerned
about the increase in child poverty. I remember the unanimous
resolution that was approved by the House in 1989, moved by the
then leader of the NDP, Mr. Ed Broadbent, calling for the
elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. It was a noble
goal. Not only have we not reached that goal, we have fallen
further behind. We now have more children living in poverty as a
result of public policies. One of those public policies is what
has taken place with employment insurance.
My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spoke very eloquently on
how the bill historically, and even today, would have a very
negative impact on women. When we look at the provisions of the
bill we realize that even though women pay into employment
insurance they will not qualify.
On the one hand, with great respect, we have come to this point
only because of the absolute determination of members in our
party and other parties to bring this forward. On the other
hand, it is with a note of frustration and anxiety when I see
that the bill still does not fundamentally address the inequities
that exist within the system.
As the member for Winnipeg North Centre noted earlier, if the
bill had come forward with a gender based analysis, as the
government side said that it would, we would not be debating the
bill in its current form today.
1315
I am concerned that the provisions before us today will not help
part time workers. They will not help women and they will not
help all new parents. One of the positive things about the bill
is that it does provide new provisions for new parents, but not
all new parents will qualify.
I can tell members, and I am sure it is true for other members
of the House, about the phone calls I am getting in my
constituency office in Vancouver East from people who are
desperate for support for their families.
My constituents hear about the debate in the House of Commons.
They look with a sense of hope that some changes could be coming
to provide them with some relief to pay the rent, to put food on
the table, and to have bus fare to go to school and to go to
various activities in the community. Constituents phone and ask
whether the bill would help them, whether they would qualify for
employment insurance.
Reading the fine print we find that there are still huge numbers
of people, particularly women, part time workers and seasonal
workers, who will be left behind.
The New Democratic Party is concerned that Bill C-2, the
employment insurance bill, further entrenches growing inequality.
Members have an opportunity to recognize that the moneys that
flow into the fund come from the workers of Canada. We have a
financial, social and political responsibility to make sure that
unemployed workers, parents who are seeking re-entry into the
workforce and members of our society are protected.
We have a responsibility to ensure that they are treated with
fairness and that they are not penalized by clawback measures
which still exist in the current bill. Unfortunately that is not
the case. The changes in the bill are so limited that the number
of people who would be affected is very small.
The New Democratic Party and I know we are joined by other
members who understand that the political process is determined
and resolved in its efforts to make sure the issue stays at the
top of the political agenda. It is about fairness and equality.
It is about recognizing how women have been discriminated
against.
We believe in the charter of rights and in equality. We believe
that when workers pay into a fund they have a right to income
security when they are either unemployed, laid off or seasonal
workers. New parents should have access to parental leave. They
have a right to a certain level of comfort and security.
We will continue to work very hard to make sure that the
amendments before us today that deal with some of the worst
aspects of the bill and try to improve it are passed. There is no
question that a much more indepth analysis is required on the
whole question of employment insurance.
I urge all members of the House to support the amendments before
us today that deal with some of the problems in the bill. It
must not stop there. It is only one small step. We must be
committed to ensuring there are further changes to the system to
end discrimination against unemployed people and women. We must
accept a very basic premise that unemployed people in Canada have
a right to access their own insurance funds.
One of the worst scandals is how the fund has been raided over
the years by the Government of Canada. Thirty-five billion
dollars has been taken in tax cuts to balance the books. That
does not help poor people. In any other instance this would be a
completely intolerable situation, yet it has been allowed to
happen here.
1320
It is so shameful that we see people desperately trying to keep
a roof over their heads, to pay bills every month, and to have
their kids go to school. Yet these billions of dollars have been
accumulated in the surplus fund and the money will not go to the
people who most desperately need it. There is no other example
that is as outrageous, as discriminatory and as unfair as this
one.
We on this side of the House and in this party will continue to
fight what appears to be the agenda of the government, to ensure
that unemployed people do not get what they deserve. We want to
make sure they have full access to income security and are
treated with fairness and without discrimination.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is passing strange that we should still be discussing this EI
reform in 2001. When I was the secretary general of the CSN back
in 1995-96 we were discussing exactly the same issues.
When Mr. Axworthy brought in this reform as human
resources minister we warned him that it would penalize many
workers, and it did.
At this very moment 6 out of 10 workers who contribute and then
lose their jobs do not qualify. It is totally unacceptable in a
society that is supposed to be democratic and value its safety
net.
Obviously the bill before us does not correct the fundamental
flaws we pointed out in 1995-96 and still condemn.
In my riding of Joliette, for example, there are many farm
workers. Because of the kind of harvesting they are hired for,
many of them do not work a sufficient number of weeks to qualify
for benefits. They leave for big cities like Montreal to find
jobs and make ends meet. We are therefore losing highly skilled
farm workers.
Perhaps the federal government thinks anybody can be turned into
a farm worker when the harvesting season comes.
This is not the way it works. It takes people who, after several
years of experience, know when it is appropriate to harvest. If
there are no experienced workers, choices will have to be made.
They will cost thousands of dollars, sometimes even millions
of dollars, in terms of farm income. This will penalize not only
farm producers but also the region as a whole, like my region
of Joliette. Lanaudière is also a region where there are more
independent workers than the Canadian average.
I remember quite well Mr. Axworthy saying at the time that this
reform was precisely aimed at adapting the EI plan to make it
more compatible with the new realities in the labour market. We
see that since 1995-96 the number of independent workers has
increased and our plan is still not adapted to this new reality
in the labour market.
These are people who do extremely important work in terms of
general economic activity. These people are needed, but they are
excluded from the social safety net and unduly penalized.
It would be very easy to find ways to include in the EI plan
some protection for independent workers. Indeed, Quebec was able
to do so in its—
And the fire alarm having rung:
SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): We will suspend for a few
minutes.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.21 p.m.)
1335
SITTING RESUMED
(The House resumed at 1.38 p.m.)
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I hope it is
not my fiery comments that triggered the alarm. Anyway my
mother would be very pleased with my speech.
To pick up where I left off, I was saying that the debate we are
having today is somewhat preposterous because the flaws and the
adverse impact of the EI reform have now been experienced for
more than five years throughout Quebec and Canada. It has
penalized farm workers, as I mentioned with regard to my
riding, self-employed workers who are excluded and young families.
My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville talked about this at
length a while ago, but it is important for me to mention it
again, as my riding of Joliette includes suburbs such as Le
Gardeur and L'Assomption where many young families are finding
it extremely difficult to get their lives organized, to combine
work and family, and who should have access to sensible parental
leave.
As a matter of fact, as I was winding up my speech when the
alarm sounded I was saying that in Quebec we were imaginative
enough to include self-employed workers in the parental leave
program introduced by the minister of the day. Therefore, if the
federal government had any imagination, we could solve all the
problems that have been identified in the EI reform.
It is obvious that Bill C-2, just like its predecessor Bill
C-44, solves none of the basic problems which have been identified
by everybody. I am happy that the committee unanimously adopted
the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, asking that it
report back on all these aspects by June 1.
1340
I will concentrate on a particular aspect of Bill C-2 that we on
this side consider fundamental, that is clause 9 in which the
government claims the right to set the rate of EI premiums
currently set by the Employment Insurance Commission with the
approval of the governor in council and under the recommendation
of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister
of Finance.
I know that the Minister of Finance has repeatedly ignored the
commission's recommendations over the last few years, but there
is at least a debate held regularly on the rate required to
finance the measures provided for in the employment insurance
program.
With clause 9 of Bill C-2 the government is trying to legalize
what it is doing already, that is to legalize the
misappropriation of funds we are witnessing with the creation of
a surplus completely unrelated to the needs of the EI fund, a
$35 billion surplus accumulated since 1995. This is totally
unacceptable.
The premiums are paid by the workers and by the employers. We
believe that it should be up to them, and only them, to set the
rates needed for funding the measures provided for in the
employment insurance plan.
The federal government accomplished quite a feat, and it is not
the first time, when it achieved a consensus in Quebec among all
partners in the labour market against clause 9, indeed
against Bill C-2.
When we see that the FTQ and the Conseil du patronat both
denounce clause 9 by which the government is giving itself the
right to establish contribution rates, I think there is a
problem and the government should do something right now to
convince us not to vote against Bill C-2. Obviously the Bloc
finds the bill totally unacceptable because of clause 9.
However we must go further. How can the government justify
giving itself the right to set premium rates under clause 9? I
believe the government does not see the full impact of that
provision because there are relatively few social consensus
building fora in Canada. We know that labour relations have been
rather stormy in the past and still are today.
Our unionization rate is not as high as I would like it to be
but it is still one of the highest in the western world. In
Quebec, for example, it is about 40% while in Canada it is
around 34%. A government must have a social relation vision in
order to be able to make labour market partners accountable on a
number of issues.
With workers and employers each having a representative the EI
commission was a consensus building forum. It encouraged
social dialogue. By eliminating that forum through clause 9 the
government is directly depriving labour market partners of their
responsibilities and giving itself the right to decide the
contribution rate of a plan to which it is not giving a cent.
By taking that responsibility away from partners on the labour
market it contributes to creating, I would even say generating, a
vision of confrontation in terms of labour relations. In that
regard I think the federal government is not acting
responsibly.
Instead of doing what everyone is trying to do now in the
western world, that is creating forums for social dialogue, it
is eliminating one by giving itself the right to set the premium
rates. I think that the approach taken in clause 9 goes beyond,
and far beyond, the issue of employment insurance, even though
that is already unacceptable. It goes to show that the
government has no vision as far as the development of social
relations within our society is concerned.
In that regard I urge the government to accept the amendment we
brought in to delete clause 9 so that we can vote for Bill C-2,
although we are aware that the legislation does not resolve the
problems I have pointed out concerning admissibility. I hope
this can be addressed after the committee tables its report in
early June.
1345
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I will say a few words on this
important but incomplete bill which obviously does not answer
the needs of workers in Quebec and Canada in terms of improving
on the Axworthy reform.
As the member for Joliette said, we have been discussing the
issue of employment insurance, formerly unemployment
insurance, reform for ages.
We have been discussing it since the days of Mr. Axworthy, who
was replaced by the current Minister for International Trade,
who was himself replaced by Mr. Dingwall, then by Mr. Doug
Young, and finally by the incredible current Minister of Human
Resources Development who had some problems we are all familiar
with. Thus it is not the first time that members opposite
are proposing major changes. They already did that with the
disastrous impact we are all too familiar with.
In a riding like Trois-Rivières, in 1989 83% of workers
were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in the unhappy
event that they lost their jobs because they contributed to the
UI fund. Now only 34% of those who contribute to the EI fund
qualify. This is what this government has managed to do. It is a
scandal we are faced with daily.
This means that the Mauricie, which includes the ridings of
Trois-Rivières, Champlain and Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's
riding, is being short-changed by tens of millions of dollars in
funds that could have been invested to keep the economy going.
It is a bit ironic to hear the member for Saint-Maurice, the
Prime Minister, with all the problems he is experiencing with
the Auberge Grand-Mère, say that it was to maintain and create
jobs that he invested there and that consequently he is
entitled to get his money back. We know that he was involved in
some of the administrative measures taken by his own government,
which have deprived our region of hundreds of millions of
dollars since 1994. Therefore it is indecent on his part to say
such irresponsible things, which show a lack of respect and
contempt for the workers of his own riding.
There are some very serious omissions in this reform, as we can
see from what happened to the surplus in the employment
insurance fund. We know that in less than 10 years the
surplus has grown to the point where it now stands at $35
billion. The government had maintained the 1997 decision
to abolish the program for older worker adjustment, better known
as POWA. This program was the result of cutbacks to a more
generous program, work adjustment training or WAT. This program
was designed specifically for the workers in the Canadian
textile industry which fell victim to decisions made in
Ottawa concerning a foreign trade deal with countries less
developed than ours whereby we would exchange wheat for
textiles. This measure affected the economy in Quebec where
70% of the textiles were produced in those days.
There was a program specifically created for the closing of
textile plants, and it was known as WAT.
It was designed for all textile workers. The program was
fundamentally changed and became the program for older worker
adjustment, POWA, which was more universal but had more
stringent rules. In 1997 the federal government had too
much on its plate in its fight against the deficit on the backs
of poor people, so it decided to completely abolish POWA
without any reservations and any further compensation.
Today, despite the $35 billion surplus, we still have to live
with the same administrative decision. When plants close,
sometimes ruthlessly or for external reasons of non-
profitability compared to foreign competition or management
negligence, workers are footing the bill and those who are 55
years of age and over are not receiving any compensation.
In Trois-Rivières this has had the following result: the Tripaq
plant, despite considerable assistance from the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, which should be
recognized, that did everything in its power to save it, had to
close its doors for objective reasons. The federal government
totally washed its hands of the matter. However much we appeal
to the government as we do on other issues, it was useless,
I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond who on the issue of the
Celanese plant had some people come here to show their frustration
and express their hope of being able to rely on public funds
they themselves contributed to, it was useless.
1350
I want to remind the House that the federal government has no
money in the EI fund. It is $35 billion that belongs to workers
and employers. Today the federal government wants to maintain
the rates it talked about during its totally demagogic election
campaign because the Bloc courageously opposed this before the
campaign. It wants to maintain control as if this was its own
money, and this is totally indecent.
If members were to ask workers and business people if they
wanted POWA to be reintroduced, with all the financial help and
social solidarity this program entailed, I am sure that they
would agree to have substantial help provided to older workers
who lose their jobs.
In a riding like Trois-Rivières this can be devastating. Despite
all its promises and all its billions of dollars, the
federal government's lack of concern and understanding is quite
shameful. What we are talking about here is a hidden tax, a
special tax paid by workers earning $39,000 or less. With only
34% instead of 83% of the people getting benefits, this is a
misappropriation of funds.
We will keep on criticizing the federal government for not
spending public funds most effectively, for not showing more
compassion to fathers, mothers and children facing hard times,
and for not strengthening the social fabric.
When we go from 83% to 34% women working part time and seasonal
workers are hard hit. I thought it was shameful and totally
immoral for the federal government to stop talking about
seasonal jobs and start talking about seasonal workers.
These workers are full time workers who unfortunately have
seasonal jobs. This is something we should remind the people in
charge of the EI system and their minister of. We have to adapt
the system to the realities these workers are facing.
Also, this legislation goes after the students.
They have summer jobs and pay EI premiums, and yet they know they
will never be able to collect any benefit.
The lack of concern of the federal government applies also to
the POWA file, as I mentioned, but in view of the government's
surplus it also applies to an issue that has to do with the
pulp and paper industry, the existence of which I am pleased to
mention today. I am referring to the integrated centre for pulp
and paper technology, a natural field for the Saint Maurice
valley, which is vital to how we have traditionally defined
ourselves.
There is a plan to merge the research centre of the Université
du Québec in Trois-Rivières with the Centre for Pulp and Paper
Technology at the cégep de Trois-Rivières. The Quebec government
has already announced its intention to be financially involved
in this project, pledging tens of millions of dollars. It is a
$85 million to $100 million project.
Hopefully this afternoon the minister of finance of Quebec is
going to reaffirm her intention to support this project.
However the federal government is stalling. The infamous Canada
Foundation for Innovation, set up by the current Minister of
Finance with $1.3 billion of taxpayer money, has so far said no.
To this day nobody in this government has cared to make up for
this seemingly totally arbitrary decision. This project, which
is a top priority in Quebec, does not even register on Canada's
radar screen.
This issue is the perfect illustration of our two solitudes. It
reflects two different ways of seeing things. It shows that our
priorities are very seldom the same. Hopefully Quebecers will
understand that they have no future in this country, and that it
is only when we are masters of our own destiny once and for all
that we will be able to work within a true partnership between
Quebec and Canada.
1355
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise to
express my opposition to Bill C-2.
My colleagues presented many aspects of the legislation that
show that the government has no respect for employees as well as
employers by not addressing their problems.
This legislation is hurting workers by refusing to address
urgent situations and to correct the deficiencies of the current
act.
What the Bloc Quebecois is asking for is clear.
The measures the Bloc Quebecois is asking for are meant to
correct flaws in the plan by taking into account the day to day
condition of workers and a labour market that keeps changing,
with students who have to combine a job and studying and an
increasing number of independent workers. These two groups are
not taken into account in the bill, but they will have to be
soon.
It is the duty of the federal government to address the issue
right away so that these two groups of workers are included just
like other workers already covered by the plan.
The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to respond
to the hopes of workers, to further improve
the EI plan and to eliminate discrimination in EI requirements.
We have to abolish the definition of labour force, because it
penalizes directly the young and women in that they have to
work a total of 910 hours in 52 weeks to qualify.
A women who re-enters the labour market after two years is
considered a new entrant and not a member of the labour market.
What a shame.
The same is true of young people who are also considered new
entrants, because they are in their first job. This same
definition allows certain workers to be eligible for the same
plan with no more than 420 hours accumulated.
The self-employed have been completely forgotten. It might even
be said that this segment does not exist at all, or worse, is
not worth the bother to the government. Self-employed workers
represented 12% of the total workforce in 1976. They
represented 18% in 1999. The government cannot deny this segment
of the population which now represents one worker in five. The
figure is huge.
We must absolutely not forget that this sector of workers is
growing. The federal government must, right now, include these
workers fully in the employment insurance plan.
Another group penalized by this bill is that of young people.
It creates a dichotomy in that students must go to school as
well as work in order to survive and in the hopes of finding
well paid work. However the standards in this bill give them no
help at all.
The latest census in 1996 reported over 2.8 million full time
students. According to the monitoring and assessment report one
million individuals earned less than $2,000 and were therefore
entitled to a refund.
However, only 40% of these people applied for a refund and 42%
of them were under 25 years of age. In short, 2.6 million
students are being taxed to study. Young people—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is
2 p.m. and we must proceed to statements by members. He will
have five and a half minutes to complete his remarks after oral
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
1400
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand in the House and share
with all members information on a truly unique event taking place
in my constituency this weekend. The 12th annual Vince Ryan Old
Timers Hockey Tournament is being held in Cape Breton beginning
today and will see 125 teams from across Canada and the United
States converge on my community.
The tournament's namesake, Vince Ryan, was recognized throughout
Cape Breton and indeed the Atlantic provinces as a skilled
athlete, a fierce competitor and a man who held high a sense of
fair play and sportsmanship.
Upward of 2,000 players will compete in the spirit of fellowship
in the country's national winter pastime in what has become one
of Atlantic Canada's premier adult recreational sporting events.
I thank Duddy Ryan, the entire Ryan family, Ritchie Warren and
his committed group of volunteers for ensuring that this annual
event continues to be a highlight of our Cape Breton winters. I
wish them all the very best in this week's tournament.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on Saturday, March 31, Denis Desautels, the Auditor
General of Canada, will retire after 10 years of dedicated
service as an officer of parliament. I rise today to acknowledge
his contribution as one of Canada's most dedicated and trusted
public servants.
He has served our country well. As members of parliament our
integrity is often questioned in the House, but his integrity is
beyond question. He has been our conscience and our watchdog.
When he speaks, the nation listens.
Many of his reports have highlighted the problems of waste and
mismanagement in government and the need for transparency and
openness in government. At times he fundamentally disagreed with
government and held his ground, but they all speak amply of his
dedication to improving the service Canadians receive from their
government.
On behalf of all members of parliament and senators, I thank the
auditor general. We wish him a happy retirement or a new career,
but whatever the future holds and wherever it may take him, he
goes with the best wishes of all in the House and indeed of all
Canadians whom he has served so well.
* * *
F. R. CRAWLEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
is Oscar week and the 25th anniversary of Canada's first academy
award for a documentary film The Man Who Skied Down
Everest.
This was won by F. R. Budge Crawley who in his acceptance speech
said:
Thank you...for this American award for a Canadian film about a
Japanese...who skied down a mountain in Nepal.
Crawley Films received hundreds of awards for its thousands of
films and TV shows. It was a springboard for stars with names
like Bujold, Davis, Greene, Grierson, Little, Pinsent and
Plummer.
The late Budge Crawley was a pioneer cameraman, director and
producer. He received an honorary degree from Trent University
and was a member of the Order of Canada. His work, including
much Arctic footage, now forms the Crawley Collection in the
National Archives.
He was recognized for his Oscar in the House of Commons on March
30, 1976. We honour him again today.
* * *
FIGURE SKATING
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the World Figure Skating Championships were held in
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Over 200 athletes from 55 countries and 540 volunteers
participated in this global event which took place from March 19
to March 25. The federal government provided financial support
of $250,000 through the hosting of major sporting events in
Canada program.
Special thanks to the minister for amateur sport for his
presence and support for this unique project in B.C. He, Senator
Joyce Fairbairn and I worked together as a Liberal team to help
promote B.C. and Canada to the world.
I extend congratulations to everyone involved in this successful
event.
* * *
[Translation]
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN BROME—MISSISQUOI
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I may,
I would like to salute nine young students from Brome—Missisquoi
for distinguished achievements over the past year.
Mélissa Arbour, of Magog, Joël Brault, of Cowansville, and
Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, of Bedford, received the Governor
General's History Medal for the Millennium.
Isabelle Fontaine, of the Canton of Magog, and Adam Hooper, of
Sutton, received the Governor General's Academic Medal.
Marie-Ève DuGrenier and Kim Desrochers, of Farnham, Joanie
Beauséjour and Michelle Campbell, of Bedford, came away with
honours from the Bell Science Fair Eastern Township regional
finals.
Congratulations to these young people. They must be proud of
their accomplishments. I admire their determination, creativity
and desire to excel. A future full of promise is before them.
On behalf of the people of Brome—Missisquoi, I to tell them know
how proud we are of their success.
* * *
1405
[English]
GRANTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Americas takes place in Quebec
City in three weeks, bringing together heads of state from 34
nations to discuss a number of issues including the creation of a
free trade agreement for the Americas.
A parallel people's summit is being organized around the same
time to protest the summit of the Americas. Groups who are
participating in the people's summit include the Council of
Canadians, Canadian Auto Workers and our very own NDP members of
parliament, as well as many others.
What I find very disturbing is that some groups are advocating
that people should break the law. They are very public in their
intentions to train activists in the skills of civil
disobedience.
What is even more disturbing is that these groups, through the
people's summit, are being funded by our federal government. The
Prime Minister has handed out $300,000 to these organizations. It
is appalling that the government would spend taxpayer money to
support people who intend to break the law.
* * *
ABORIGINAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two Nunavummiut, Mariano Aupilardjuk of Rankin Inlet and
Zacharias Kunuk of Igloolik, are recipients of the National
Aboriginal Achievement Foundation 2001 awards.
Both Mariano Aupilardjuk and Zacharias Kunuk are well known for
their work in promoting Inuit culture within Nunavut and
throughout the world.
Mariano Aupilardjuk is a teacher of Inuit traditional knowledge,
a great performer known for his drum dancing and song writing and
for the beautiful carvings he makes.
Zacharias Kunuk co-founded the first independent Inuit film
company, Isuma Productions of Igloolik. He has just completed
his own feature length movie, made in Igloolik and performed by
local actors and actresses.
I know their families and friends are very proud of the two
recipients. I wish to extend my congratulations to Mariano
Aupilardjuk and Zacharias Kunuk.
* * *
[Translation]
SALON DU LIVRE DE L'OUTAOUAIS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked
the opening of the 22nd Salon du livre de l'Outaouais, at the
Palais des congrès de Hull. The theme this year is “Lire aux
éclats”, which alludes to the great joy of reading.
The book fair runs for five days and will feature panel
discussions, meet-the-authors, literary games, literary
receptions, book-signings, interviews, and books, books and still
more books, as well as hours of delightful readings.
This international event is the work of a remarkable team of
people who have devoted their time, energy and passion to it for
some months. Congratulations to them, and thank you.
Particular mention needs to be made of the generous contribution
of Estelle Desfossés, chairman of the board of the Salon du
livre de l'Outaouais, who is also the committee co-ordinator for
the Bloc Quebecois.
We wish the Salon du livre de l'Outaouais every success.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the citizenship and immigration committee is hearing witnesses on
Bill C-11 to help rewrite the Immigration Act for the first time
in 25 years. It deals with issues such as visitor visas, landed
immigrant status, permanent residency and refugee determination.
We want to hear from as many Canadians as possible. Our plan
was to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and
London, Ontario to hear people's concerns. Schedules were laid
out, but the Canadian Alliance says it will not go. Instead we
will be relegated to hearing people who can get to Ottawa and to
teleconferencing.
The Canadian Alliance now wants to hijack committees the same
way it has hijacked parliament. Canadians are fed up with these
tactics. Instead of listening to concerns from across the
country, the Canadian Alliance would rather throw mud and destroy
parliament. It is doing a disservice to the country.
* * *
NATIONAL WAR MUSEUM
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, veterans and friends of the war
museum from across Canada have raised millions of dollars toward
the building of the new national war museum. They were told that
it would be built in Rockcliffe to complement the aviation museum
and the new military cemetery.
In 1998 when the federal government announced a new $70 million
war museum there was great joy. Today it appears the location
will be changed to LeBreton Flats. The original joy has now
turned to bitter disappointment.
Why does the government feel that it has a right to change the
original location without any consultation whatsoever with those
who have donated so generously?
1410
If this move takes place without total agreement from the loyal
supporters of the war museum, it will be a national betrayal. Who
will benefit from the property that was originally reserved for
the war museum? Certainly not the vets.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since
opposition members are silent on the important events taking
place in the country, I would like to draw the attention of this
House to the impressive job done by our police forces to fight
organized crime.
By launching Operation Printemps 2001, police forces have
destabilized criminal motorcycle gangs. In all, over 200
searches were conducted and 125 arrests were made, this
following an investigation that lasted over two years. Let us
acknowledge the remarkable work done by our police officers.
The message sent to criminal gangs is clear: criminal activities
will not be tolerated in Canada. Our government is very
concerned about the activities of criminal gangs. Our
communities must not live in fear.
The commitments made during the last election campaign are
clear. This week's operation shows more than ever that our
government is on the right track.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
new Liberal government is only four months old and already we see
that what the Liberals said during the election has nothing to do
with their actions once elected. There is a long list of broken
promises, from scrapping the GST and eliminating child poverty to
an independent ethics counsellor.
What are Liberal members doing that they never talked about
during the election? They never said a word about toll roads,
but now the transport minister cannot wait for Canadians to start
paying to use their own highways.
Another example is airport fees. It already costs an arm and a
leg to fly. Now the Liberal government is letting airports jack
up landing fees, taking even more money out of the pockets of
travellers. The transport minister states that people voted for
this when they voted in the Liberals. I wonder why the red book
did not say a word about it.
Toll roads and airport fees would not be necessary if the
Liberal government adequately funded infrastructure. Canadians
expect their taxes to fund public infrastructure. They should
not have to pay even more in the form of road tolls and landing
fees.
The government has the money and it should commit the necessary
funding for our highways and infrastructure. That is what
Canadians deserve, not more Liberal neglect.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
attitude of the Canadian government toward Quebec, its people
and its institutions is looking more and more like an obsession.
After the attacks of this government on provincial
jurisdictions, as exemplified by the 1999 social union framework
agreement, the federal government at it again, stifling the
voice of Quebec at the upcoming Summit of the Americas.
The Liberal government is essentially marginalizing Quebec and
the existing consensus about its existence as a nation and its
legitimate aspirations having to be recognized as such by the
world.
Canada's nation building is based on centralizing in Ottawa a
number of discretionary powers to spend and to manage affairs
that do not belong to the federal government. This is
irreconcilable with the aspirations of Quebec and of its people,
regardless of their political allegiance. Let those in charge be
warned that Quebec is neither stupid nor for sale.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I salute the action taken yesterday by
Canada's police forces in cracking down on organized crime.
With up to 150 arrests made, yesterday's operation springtime
2001 is being called the biggest anti-gang operation in Canada's
history. This is just part of an ongoing campaign to make it
clear to the criminal element that we will be vigilant in
demonstrating that these kinds of underworld activities are not
tolerated in our communities.
Yesterday's raids came after many months of investigations and
groundwork conducted by our police forces. One of the many tools
used by police forces was the broader powers granted to them by
the anti-gang law passed by the government in 1997.
Putting an end to organized crime remains a key concern of the
government. We commit to continue to stand behind our police
forces and to ensure they have the powers and resources necessary
to keep putting organized crime in its place.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
news flash. Tragically I have to announce that the Liberal Party
is now in favour of encouraging bulk water exports, jeopardizing
Canada's natural ecological heritage.
1415
The Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Premier Grimes are guilty
of this crime by pushing forward with the plan to export
freshwater from Gisbourne Lake, a scheme first envisioned by our
current Ministry of Industry.
Equally guilty as an accessory to the crime is the Liberal Party
of Canada for remaining silent and not condemning the actions of
its Liberal cousins. Moreover, the Liberal government is guilty
in failing to deliver a national strategy to ensure the
prevention of interbasin transfers and bulk shipments of
freshwater. Bill C-6 falls short of the mark and does nothing
for non-transboundary water.
For eight years we have watched the Liberal government neglect
the environment. I ask the ministers of the environment,
heritage and international trade, as well as the Prime Minister,
why they have flip-flopped and are now encouraging bulk water
shipments through their silence and legislative inaction.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in provinces like Ontario and British
Columbia simply calling crown corporations, let alone arm
twisting them for a loan, would constitute a violation of the
ethics code.
In most cities and towns in our nation calling an official and
arm twisting for a loan for a hotel next to a property which he
owned would cost that elected official. It would be a violation
of the code of ethics of that town or city.
Why is the highest elected office in the country held to a lower
ethical standard than aldermen and alderwomen in small towns? Why
is he held to a lower standard?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister, acting as a member of parliament,
did not arm twist. He made representations as all members of
parliament do. He was not dealing in a matter connected with a
property he owned. He was trying to assist the tourism industry
of the area.
Speaking of ethical standards, what about the ethical standards
not followed by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with
that shameful lawsuit in Alberta?
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, wrong again, wrong again. During the
Sinclair Stevens affair the Minister of Industry said:
The spectacle of the wife of a cabinet minister seeking terms for
a loan that are unavailable at normal lending institutions would
be a conflict of interest.
Those were his words. This is a spectacle of the Prime Minister
himself not just seeking but actively arm twisting a public
servant to get a loan for a hotel next to a property on which he
was owed money.
Why does the Minister of Industry not want the Prime Minister to
be held accountable to the same standards that he insisted on for
Sinclair Stevens?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of it or
not, the fact of the matter is that the people of Canada quite
frankly are fed up with this line of questioning.
They have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister of
Canada has acted in an honourable fashion. They are quite
frankly wondering why the Leader of the Opposition has nothing
else he can talk about as he desperately tries to save his
leadership.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the chosen son is learning from his
master the art of evasion.
[Translation]
Both William Parker, the judge who presided over the Sinclair
Stevens inquiry, and Robert Rutherford, who presided over the
Somalia inquiry, called for an independent inquiry into the
Shawinigate affair.
Is the Prime Minister going to listen to these universally
respected ethics experts and set up an independent inquiry so
that we will finally have the whole story on Shawinigate?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the RCMP confirmed that the Prime Minister acted
properly. Over and over again the ethics counsellor confirmed
there was no breach of ethics on the part of the Prime Minister.
Once again the Leader of the Opposition is failing Canadians. He
is not doing his job by asking questions on matters of importance
to Canadians. He does not care about softwood lumber. He does
not care about agriculture. He does not care about the health of
Canadians. He has failed. He should go, resign today.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the bill of sale the Prime Minister
released on Tuesday is a very strange piece of paper. It is
amazing that two corporate lawyers would sign a paper with no
letterhead, no corporate seal, no witnesses and no deposit.
In fact the payment schedule was even an afterthought, almost as
if the Prime Minister did not care if he got paid.
1420
Did the Prime Minister not ask for a deposit because he was more
concerned about a parking spot for his shares than getting paid
for them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member must have gone to the same law school as
the leader of the Conservative Party. A binding contract does
not need a letterhead. It can be in handwriting. The basic
thing is to show the intentions of the parties.
The intention was that the Prime Minister, before he became
Prime Minister, sold all his shares to Mr. Prince's company. That
is what happened. Those are the facts, and the hon. member ought
to admit it.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
date of the bill of the sale is the very date that the Prime
Minister chose his first cabinet.
Surely the Prime Minister could have found at least one
individual who was confident enough to draft a proper legal
document. What circumstances forced the Prime Minister to sign
such a dubious piece of paper?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I apologize to the law schools which the Conservative
leader flunked out of. I am sure that the hon. member is
following the same practice. Her legal advice is equally
unsound.
The document is a legally binding one. This is confirmed in a
later agreement between Mr. Prince's company and Mr. Michaud's
company when Mr. Prince signed that document which contained a
statement that he, Mr. Prince, had owned the shares all along
from and after November 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is still claiming that he sold his shares in the
Grand-Mère Golf Club to Jonas Prince in November 1993. But, in
the September 1999 agreement, it is J∾ Consultants, the
Prime Minister's company, which, under article 2.2, indemnifies
and saves harmless the new buyer against potential “losses,
damages, and expenses” arising from this sale.
Why is it the Prime Minister's company that is providing this
guarantee and not Jonas Prince, the supposed owner of the
shares?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
facts are clear. The Prime Minister sold his shares before he
became Prime Minister and the shares were sold by Mr. Prince to
Mr. Michaud. The facts are clear.
Why is the hon. member not prepared to accept these facts? He
must accept them because they are the facts and they are true.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we must accept
them because the Prime Minister tells us to. This is a powerful
argument.
It is the Prime Minister who is providing the vendor's guarantee
to the new buyer, Mr. Michaud. It seems to me that to provide a
vendor's guarantee, the Prime Minister would have to admit that
he had something to sell. Otherwise, he would not be providing
such a guarantee.
How is it that, in 1999, it was not Jonas Prince providing the
vendor's guarantee but the Prime Minister's company? Let him
explain that to us, rather than complacently believing what his
leader tells him.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the advice I have received, the documents contain
the usual clauses found in such transactions. It is a fact that
Mr. Prince and his company sold all their shares to Mr. Michaud's
company. This proves that the Prime Minister was not a
shareholder at the necessary times.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister told this House that he had sold his shares in 1993.
The ethics counsellor backed up the Prime Minister by saying
that it was a sale without right of reversion.
If the Prime Minister and the ethics counsellor were speaking
the truth, what was the Prime Minister doing in the 1999
transaction? How can a person sell something that has not been
in his possession for six years?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member said, on March 15, and I quote:
Does he not understand that the only way to settle this matter,
to exonerate himself...is to provide us with the record of sale,
as we have demanded so many times already? Let him provide that,
and the problem will be over.
1425
He tabled it. So there are no more problems. The hon. member
must withdraw his words, because the Prime Minister tabled the
record of sale, as the hon. member asked him to.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, they would be
all too happy to have the Prime Minister exhonerated when he is
in it up to here.
Article 2.1 of the 1999 agreement confirms that the Prime
Minister's company “or any third party will have no further
property rights or interest in the shares”.
If the Prime Minister signed this document and stated that he
had no further property rights, it means that just before
signing the 1999 agreement he had an interest, he had property
rights and he is in conflict of interest.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member told RDI “The Prime Minister just has to say 'Yes,
it was sold, here is the record of sale”'. And that is exactly
what the Prime Minister said “Here is the record of sale”.
So the member must withdraw his allegations because they are
totally false.
* * *
[English]
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the premier of Newfoundland has said that he intends to export
water in bulk from Gisborne Lake without regard to the well-being
of the rest of Canada. Whether that endangers our ability to
control our water resources, or anything else, he does not care.
I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The NDP
believes it is very important for the federal government today to
repudiate in the strongest possible way, not just rhetorically
but legislatively if possible, what the premier of Newfoundland
has said.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate today that they will
bring in a national ban on the bulk export of water?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill on water exports should
be debated in the House the week we return from the spring
recess.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, they say ask about something else and then we get that
kind of crap for an answer.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona clearly did not like the answer. That is
apparent to everyone. He also knows that it is quite
unparliamentary to use that kind of language in the House.
I would hope that he would be perhaps more discrete in his
question. He is welcome to ask a supplementary question that we
can hear, but I hope he would refrain from the use of such
language and carry out the proper decorum of the House.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Deputy Prime
Minister a question. Will he on behalf of the federal Government
of Canada get up and repudiate the premier of Newfoundland who
intends to jeopardize, thanks to NAFTA which does not have an
exemption for water despite what the Liberals say, the entire
country's water supply?
Will they repudiate that today and bring in a ban?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think I had better get up before the hon. member does
himself some damage. Canadians agree that we need to protect the
integrity of Canada's water resources. It is our strategy, as
indicated by the hon. House leader, to prohibit bulk water
removal from major drainage basins in Canada.
It is my understanding that the new premier of Newfoundland has
simply said that he is thinking about the issue and he will not
do anything about it until the fall. This gives us time to
confirm through the legislation our position on behalf of all
Canadians. We are working on behalf of all Canadians, on this
water issue. We will continue to do so and I am sure—
The Speaker: The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have for the Deputy Prime Minister some straightforward questions
about the handwritten document the Prime Minister claims to be a
bill of sale.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us: Did both parties sign
that document at the same time? In what town or city and
province was that note signed, and were there any witnesses?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the document speaks for itself.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the document is as silent on that issue as the government has
been in answer to legitimate questions from all four parties in
the House.
In the Vander Zalm case Mr. Justice Ted Hughes' finding of a
conflict of interest was based on his judgment that Mr. Vander
Zalm “had retained an interest in the financial well-being of
his company”. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that to be
an adequate basis for a finding of conflict of interest?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot comment on Mr. Vander Zalm, but I can say that
the Prime Minister did exactly what the hon. leader of the fifth
party said in a scrum on March 13:
The way the Prime Minister could settle this is to lay upon the
table of the House of Commons the agreement of sale between
himself and Jonas Prince.
He has done that. Why should he question our doing exactly what
he asked us to do? I guess he lacks confidence in himself at the
end of the day.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what two sophisticated
lawyers can draw up that causes even more confusion than it
clears.
Here is another question for the Deputy Prime Minister to evade.
We know that J∾ holdings supposedly owned a 25% interest in the
golf course, yet the bill of sale only deals with “approximately
22% of the shares”.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister shed any light at all on what
happened to the other approximately 3% shares of the golf course?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agreement in 1999, I believe it was in September,
between Mr. Prince's company and Mr. Michaud's company made very
clear that Mr. Prince's company sold to Mr. Michaud's company all
the shares he had purchased from the Prime Minister in September
1993.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I suggested there would be an evasion
and there was because that was not the question. The question
was not about what Mr. Prince sold. It was about what Mr.
Chrétien sold, which was approximately—
The Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member
knows that she cannot refer to other hon. members by name. I
would invite her to comply with the rules in that respect.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, what happened to the
other approximately 3% of the shares that were not in this
agreement drawn up by two sophisticated lawyers? Could the
Deputy Prime Minister shed any light on that question?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agreement between the Prime Minister's company and
Mr. Prince's company was intended and did cover all the shares
owned by the Prime Minister.
The agreement between Mr. Prince's company and Mr. Michaud's
company in turn sold those shares to Mr. Michaud's company. There
is no missing 3%. It is a figment of the hon. member's
imagination.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
just so everyone understands, I will provide an example.
If a person sold his house in 1993, he has no interest in its
resale six years later, unless he held the mortgage, a lien, or
some interest in the property.
Is the Prime Minister, because of his involvement in the 1999
sale, not confirming in writing the fact that he still had
interests in the Grand-Mère golf club in 1999?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, about 1 o'clock today fire trucks pulled up to the
building and we all left the building. As it turned out the
incident was like question period. There was neither smoke nor
fire.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
that is the sort of response that would do well in a fire sale.
The Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions in the
House that he had not owned shares in the golf club since 1993.
1435
In 1999, by being party to the agreement, he acknowledged he
still had an interest in his shares of the Grand-Mère golf club.
How does he explain the obvious contradiction between his word
and his signature?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has had no interest in and no
ownership of the golf course since November 1993. What he did
have was an interest in being paid for the shares that he sold in
November 1993. What his agent achieved in 1999 was payment for
those shares.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday that
his lawyer, Debbie Weinstein, was “my trustee with another
person because we all have two trustees for managing our
assets”.
Will the government tell us the name of the second trustee and
what his or her role was in the Grand-Mère golf club deal?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all those questions have been dealt with by the ethics
counsellor who, on behalf of members of cabinet and 1,400 public
officials, manages all confidential information on behalf of all
those who are required to file with the ethics counsellor.
We are not going to get up in the House and start going through
every file of every official, including the Prime Minister,
simply because questions are being asked.
I am surprised that we have not been asked yet today whether the
Prime Minister puts his pants on one leg at a time.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, that is another non-answer from the industry
minister. Let us try again.
The minister is responsible for the Canadian Business
Corporations Act. For over a week we have been asking him
whether the Grand-Mère Golf Club followed the rules, but he has
been dancing and evading that question. The letter from the head
of his corporations branch says that the corporate records will
have to be altered retroactively to be brought into compliance
with the act.
Will the minister simply answer my question? With regard to the
corporate registry of these shares, did the Grand-Mère Golf Club
break the law?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an examination has been completed of those corporate
records. The direction has been given with respect to the
information that must be filed. Once that information is filed
it is made public and available to everybody in Canada.
With respect to that examination, it has been carried out under
the supervision of the deputy minister of industry whose
reputation for integrity, I assume all members would agree, is
completely above reproach.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has said that the lawyers put everything necessary into
the 1999 agreement. This is true, even a clause to compensate
purchaser Michaud in the event of legal proceedings. This
guarantee of compensation was given by the Prime Minister
himself.
Since when does someone who claims to no longer have an interest
in a business intervene in a transaction offer to pay the costs
of any potential lawsuit?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that these documents represented
what lawyers felt were necessary to end the matter in a full and
final way through, what I guess lawyers call, an abundance of
caution.
This does not change the fact that the Prime Minister sold the
shares in November 1993 before he became Prime Minister and that
it was Mr. Prince who had the full ownership of all the shares
the Prime Minister owned before November 1993, who in turn sold
them turn to Mr. Michaud. Those are the facts of the matter.
[Translation]
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear
about this.
In 1999, the Prime Minister signed an agreement stating that he
would pay any compensation arising out of any proceedings. If
he agreed to such a clause, it is because he was still the owner
of the shares. He was not just acting out of the goodness of
his heart.
Do we not have here one more proof that the Prime Minister was
still an owner in 1999?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member says “Let us be clear, the Prime Minister
signed an agreement in 1999”. The Prime Minister did not sign
an agreement in 1999. Madam Weinstein, acting on behalf of the
Prime Minister, with complete authority to act independently of
the Prime Minister, negotiated and concluded that arrangement and
informed the Prime Minister after the arrangement was concluded.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the junior minister of multiculturalism has scoured the
country looking for cross burning incidents to justify her
slander of British Columbia's cities. There was one, but it was
not done by the KKK or by racists. No, it was members of a
radical feminist organization, supported by the minister, who
burned crosses on the steps of a Roman Catholic cathedral last
March.
1440
Why did the junior minister not speak up about that real hate
crime, not the invented one that she has been speaking about
recently?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will have some order so
we can hear the minister's response.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have laryngitis so I
apologize if my voice is not heard.
I do not know what the member is alluding to and therefore I
cannot make any comments.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, these cross burnings and desecrations occurred at a
place of worship in Montreal in March 2000 on International
Women's Day. The junior minister used taxpayer money for these
women to take action “collectively”. In her press kit she said
“every action counts”. Action happened that day in Montreal,
that is for sure.
Why does she not accept those real cross burnings and denounce
the ones that are imaginary?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I will not
make a comment on something that I know nothing about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We are losing time in
question period.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
various police forces carried out arrests and searches relating
to biker gang members and premises.
Since the opposition has not had the time for several weeks to
deal with any real questions on matters of great public concern,
we in the Liberal caucus have heeded the urgings of the various
police forces and the people in our ridings for further action
to be taken in the battle against organized crime.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us what measures the government
plans to take in response to these urgent pleas from the public?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree in
the House that the decisive action of the Sûreté du Québec, the
RCMP and other police forces yesterday speaks to how effectively
law enforcement agencies and government can work together to
combat organized crime.
While it is clear that our anti-gang legislation is working
successfully, we all know there is more we can do.
Let me congratulate the all party subcommittee on organized
crime for the work it has done. The government is considering
its recommendations, along with consultations we have undertaken.
We will be introducing new legislative changes to provide police
and prosecutors with new tools to break the back of organized
crime.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Royal Society of Canada came
out with a report the other day regarding the concerns they have
expressed over genetically engineered or transgenic fish. Many
commercial fishermen and their coastal communities are very
concerned if this type of fish ever hits the commercial market.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. What is
the government doing on the recommendations in the report of the
Royal Society? What is the minister and his department doing to
protect the interests of commercial fishermen and the wild salmon
stocks in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me inform the House that I had
announced yesterday that for the third year in a row our exports
of fish and seafood products are at $4.1 billion.
As the hon. member knows, the Government of Canada asked the
Royal Society to look at some of these important issues on
transgenic and food biotechnology. We want to make sure that we
review that very closely with all government departments and make
sure we respond. This is an issue that is very important for all
Canadians.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today the Financial Post advertised jobs at a
Vermont hospital, offering Canadian nurses a $2,000 sign on bonus
and other benefits.
1445
In Canada, where the nursing shortage is critical, there is no
national strategy, not even recognition of the problem. Witness
the recent words of a Canadian immigration official who said
unfortunately the occupational demand for nurses is zero.
When will the government get a grip on reality and address the
critical nursing shortage in Canada today?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the training of
health personnel is mainly a provincial responsibility, but it
is also an area of federal-provincial co-operation.
A committee meets regularly to address these questions, and this
was given as a major area of concern at all levels during last
September's federal-provincial conference. The various levels of
government are, therefore, working together to deal with such
problems.
* * *
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
as we enter into the urgent negotiations with the United States
on softwood lumber, we now have at least four or five completely
divergent positions in Canada.
The fact is the Minister for International Trade has failed to
get consensus from the industry. Yesterday top industrialists in
Canada pleaded with the minister to convene a meeting of all the
softwood lumber interests to try to get consensus.
Will the government and the minister agree to that request by
the industry and convene a meeting to try to get consensus, even
at this late date?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague
knows, earlier today the member for Ottawa Centre tabled a report
in the House from the subcommittee on trade, endorsed by the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
which calls on the Government of Canada to appoint an envoy. The
envoy would have the opportunity to convene such a meeting as the
member describes.
I am a bit surprised by the member's question because he was a
full participant and supported the committee's decision
yesterday.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Washington based coalition for fair lumber import into the United
States has excluded Atlantic Canada from the impending
countervailing duty charges to be launched by the U.S.
government. The exclusion is in recognition of the lumbering
practices of Atlantic Canada, and at least 72,000 woodlot owners.
In the event that the Canadian government imposes an export tax,
will the government provide the same recognition and exclusion
for Atlantic Canada and those woodlot owners as the Americans
have?
Mr. Pat O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the Minister
for International Trade announced that we will be implementing a
monitoring of all exports of softwood lumber to the United
States.
Effective April 1, there will be the use of export permits which
will allow us to collect some very important data to once again
validate the case that Canada has demonstrated several times in
the past, that we do not subsidize exports in softwood lumber.
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in denial of the disgraceful
conduct of his Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. Every
major newspaper in the country, anti-racism activists, the mayor
of the city she slandered, and even members of the Liberal caucus
have said that her forced half-baked apology is not good enough.
Why does she not recognize that she simply cannot continue to
function in her position, that she does not have any credibility
left, and just resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. secretary of state confirmed she made a mistake
in the things she said. She apologized fully for the mistake.
I do not see why we do not follow the usual conventions dating
back 100 years in the House, that when a member says he or she
made a mistake and apologizes it should be accepted.
The hon. secretary of state is fully committed to fighting
against racism and discrimination. Let us all join with her in
this necessary fight.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the odious remarks of the junior minister for
multiculturalism are nothing new.
How could the Prime Minister have confidence in a minister whose
job is to promote tolerance when she has a track record of
promoting intolerance and division? The only thing she needs to
know is that she must resign.
1450
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend did not listen. He does not have the
courtesy to say why he and his party are not willing to follow
the same conventions they expected us to assume when the member
from Calgary misled a radio station in the way he did.
My hon. friend should be willing to accept the conventions of
the House with respect to the secretary of state in the same way
he and his party expect us to do with respect to the person who
apparently thought that running a coffee shop was more important
than his duties to the House.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
the 1993-1999 period, neither the Prime Minister nor Jonas Prince
wants to assume responsibility for the shares in the golf club.
The Prime Minister claims that he had sold his shares, while Mr.
Prince contends that he had not bought anything.
If the Prime Minister did indeed sell his shares in 1993, how
does he explain that article 2.3 of the 1999 agreement provides
that it is the Prime Minister's company, not Jonas Prince's
company, that waives any recourse should the transfer of shares
not be approved? How could the Prime Minister waive something in
1999 if he was no longer in the picture after 1993?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at the agreement dated September 29, 1999,
between Prince's company Park Inns and Michaud's company,
Placements Michaud, it starts out saying that Akimbo Development
purchased from J∾ all the shares in consideration of the terms
set out in the agreement. When it talks about all the shares, it
refers to the agreement of November 1, 1993.
The hon. member and his party said that if the agreement of
November 1, 1993, was tabled it would end the matter. Why do
they not live up to their own words?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
because it is full of contradictions. The Deputy Prime Minister
should take a look at the 1999 agreement.
Article 2.1 provides that the Prime Minister waives his
ownership rights over the shares. This means he had to have them
in order to sell them. Under article 2.2, he provides the
seller's guarantee. Again, something must be sold in order to
provide such a guarantee. Under article 2.3, he waives his right
to any recourse, while in article 3.6 he says “I will pay if
there are legal proceedings against Michaud”.
In other words, his friend Michaud is saying to him “I am
prepared to give you money, Mr. Prime Minister, but I am not
prepared to pay for your mistakes”.
In light of all this, how can we not conclude that a conflict of
interest exists?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the agreement of 1999 also said that Akimbo received
legal advice that Akimbo “retained legal title to the shares
since November 1, 1993”.
If the hon. member wants to read the document, let him read all
of it. Let him also live up to his commitment that if the sales
agreement were tabled he would drop the matter. Where are his
ethics? Why does he not live up to his undertaking?
* * *
MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, senior government officials
have been quoted as saying that the discredited Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism was forced by the Prime Minister's
Office to make her half-hearted apology to Prince George for
fabricating cross burnings there.
We now know that she held back on that carefully scripted
statement as long as possible while her staff frantically tried
to get the police to justify her outrageous comments, but she has
never, I repeat never, apologized for saying that crosses were
being burned outside Kamloops. Nor has she attempted to explain
those comments.
I have given the minister four opportunities to explain herself
and apologize—
The Speaker: The hon. the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, when I referred to a member from Calgary running
his coffee shop, I should have mentioned a member from Edmonton.
Second, if the member gave the hon. secretary of state four
opportunities to say something about what she did, she did not
listen four times when the hon. secretary of state certainly
confirmed, as did myself and the Prime Minister, that she
recognized she made a mistake and she apologized.
Four times in a row the hon. member has shown no sense of ethics
when she refused to live by the conventions of the House that
when a member says she made a mistake and apologizes we should
all accept that and move on to doing the business of the House.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a ministerial position is
far more important than the person who happens to hold it at any
given time. It is a position of trust.
When the behaviour of a minister is reckless, intolerant and
apparently without ethics, the House should rise as one to
condemn the behaviour and demand the resignation of the offending
minister. That is to protect the integrity of the House.
1455
I ask the Prime Minister to heed the call of my constituents and
the minister's own constituents to remove her from this very
sensitive multicultural position.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the House should rise as one and chastise the
hon. member for not accepting the conventions of the House that
when a member says he or she has made a mistake and apologizes
all sides of the House accept that.
Where are her ethics? Why does she not rise and apologize for
not living by the traditions and conventions of the House?
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while
stem cell research can potentially provide useful therapies in a
wide variety of health conditions and diseases, there are
extremely difficult ethical and legal issues surrounding the use
of human embryonic and fetal tissue in research.
In the absence of meaningful policy questions from the
opposition, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health what the government is doing to address Canada's lack of
guidelines in this important area.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just today, a working committee of
the health research institute released a paper on stem cells of
human origin.
This is a major step forward. This document will help
researchers and will also serve as a discussion paper in the
coming months. This will allow us to move forward in a more
cautious and informed manner in the public dialogue that we are
beginning today.
* * *
[English]
MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the Deputy Prime Minister's
response he has in fact accepted and condoned the shame and
embarrassment that the junior minister of multiculturalism has
brought upon her office, the government and the House of Commons.
It is revolting for the Deputy Prime Minister to accept that.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues demand the
firing of that minister of multiculturalism today instead of
waiting until the summer?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not condone any questionable conduct from any
member on any side of the House.
In particular, I do not condone the unjustified attacks on the
hon. secretary of state after she admitted she made a mistake,
after she apologized. I do not condone his lack of ethics and
his lack of willingness to accept the conventions and traditions
of the House.
Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the junior minister for
multiculturalism fabricated a story about a cross burning
incident in Prince George and one in Kamloops. She fabricated a
response about her office not calling the RCMP looking for
evidence to back up her fabrications. She has misled the House
on three occasions.
What does it take for the Prime Minister and for his colleagues
in government to demand her resignation? How much more shame and
embarrassment is needed before they will do that?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thought the hon. member would start off by attacking
and criticizing his colleague for fabricating his radio
interview. That is where he should have started. I think he
ought to deal with that issue before turning to anybody else.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
article 3.6 of the 1999 agreement is to protect the buyer,
Mr. Michaud, against any future legal proceedings. This clause
exists because, even for Mr. Michaud, there is a limit to helping
out one's friends.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason he does not want
an inquiry is that he will have to foot the bill, which puts him
in a second conflict of interest situation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that the hon. member has no confidence in his party's
former House leader, the member for Roberval, when he says about
the record of sale “Let him provide that, and the problem will be over“.
Why does he not accept the words of his own colleague, the
member for Roberval?
* * *
1500
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of three distinguished visitors
today. Perhaps hon. members could refrain from applauding until
all three have been introduced.
The first is His Excellency Aleke Banda, Minister of Health &
Population of Malawi.
The second is the Hon. Mosiuoa Gerard Patrick Lekota, Minister
of National Defence of the Republic of South Africa.
The third is His Excellency Sandor Pinter, Minister of the
Interior of the Republic of Hungary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask the House leader what is on the agenda for
next week and the coming weeks. He has talked about water, but I
am sure there are other important things he could share with us
today.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue
consideration of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. We
will then return to the second reading of Bill C-18, the
equalization bill. That will be followed by Bill C-17 respecting
the innovation foundation.
On Friday we will consider third reading of Bill C-8, the
financial institution, and if necessary we will return to Bill
C-18.
[Translation]
On Monday, we will return to Bill C-2. If it is completed at
report stage, we will return to Bill C-18, C-17 or C-22 on the
Income Tax Act, depending on which of these bills requires
further consideration.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I believe it is the
Canadian Alliance's turn. On Wednesday, we will return to Bill
C-2. We will also try to complete third reading of Bill C-12,
the Judges Act amendments, and Bill C-9, the elections bill.
If we have the time, I will also suggest completing Bill C-4,
respecting the Sustainable Development Foundation, before
adjourning for Easter.
* * *
[English]
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege with regard
to a committee matter that is so unique and extraordinary that I
must bring it directly to the attention of the House.
My question of privilege charges the chair of the Standing
Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with contempt. This
morning at the standing committee's meeting, the chair abused her
authority by ruling out of order a motion concerning her
decisions as chair of the committee. Such motions are in order.
Referring to Marleau and Montpetit, on page 858 it states:
Disorder and misconduct in a committee may arise as a result of
the failure to abide by the rules and practices of a
committee...If a committee desires that some action be taken...it
must report the situation to the House. The House may make a
decision on disorder upon receiving such a report.
That is exactly what I was attempting to do. How can the
committee comply with the practices of the House if the chair
rules such motions out of order? What I find most objectionable
is the fact that the motion was concerning the actions of the
chair.
1505
The motion was to report to the House the matter of the chair's
rulings regarding numerous motions concerning the ethics
counsellor to the House. Her refusal to allow a motion to report
her own actions to the House is a conflict of interest and
impedes the committee from being master of its own proceedings.
I would gladly ask the committee to report this conflict of
interest to the House, but the chair, based on her decision
today, does not entertain motions concerning her decisions. As
you can see, Mr. Speaker, my only recourse is to bring the matter
to the House directly.
The House is entitled to all reports and has a duty to deal with
contempts or misconducts that occur in committee. Since that is
not possible, since the chair has impeded the committee's ability
to decide to report the matter to the House, I must submit the
chair's actions directly to the House. The chair's rulings
regarding certain motions were biased and inconsistent with the
practices of the House.
The final motion she disallowed was a motion to report her
rulings to the House. That goes to the very heart of the
question of privilege. The member cannot procedurally or
legitimately disallow a motion that might jeopardize her position
as chair. She cannot silence criticism against her authority and
refuse to implement the wishes of those who elected her.
On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a
select committee that was appointed in 1977 to inquire into the
conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any
such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House
and whether any such activities were “conduct inconsistent with
the standards the House was entitled to expect from its
members”.
I consider the chair's decisions at the Standing Committee on
Industry, Science and Technology to be conduct inconsistent with
the standards that the House and the public expect from a member.
There is a great deal at stake here. We cannot let the matter
go unresolved. The hon. member for Essex must be found in
contempt by the House. While my rights as a member of the
standing committee are immediately at stake, ultimately the
threat is to the democratic rights and freedoms of all members of
the House.
The member is contributing to the inability of the House to
resolve the matter of the appearance of a conflict of interest
regarding the Prime Minister's involvement with the Grand-Mère
Golf Club and Grand-Mère Inn.
Her role as chair is not to protect the Prime Minister but to
protect the rights of all members of the committee and to uphold
the rules and practices of the House. In that regard she has
failed, and she has no right to impede my efforts to report those
decisions to the House.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue we are referring to
occurred over two days. In the first incident some members of
the committee attempted to bring in witnesses to review the
activities of a member of the House. Obviously members know that
cannot be done. It is quite clear under our rules and under
Maingot's advice that one cannot do that. At the first meeting
the chair ruled that was out of order and that was sustained.
At the second meeting, the information I have is that an hon.
member who was dissatisfied with both the ruling at first reading
and the sustaining of the chair's ruling tried to bring a motion
to report that to the House. When that was ruled out of order by
the committee chair the ruling was appealed.
The hon. member has failed to indicate that the ruling he refers
to was appealed and that the appeal was sustained by a vote of
the committee. He neglected, either skilfully or perhaps he
forgot, that very important element. The ruling was sustained. I
suggest that this issue should not be before the House at all.
The Speaker: I do not think the Chair need hear any
more on this point. The point appears to me to be clear. I
received the letter from the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest
and have heard his arguments. I have heard the arguments put
forward by the hon. government House leader.
Certainly the committee is master of its own procedure.
The fact that the committee made a decision to uphold the
decision of its chair renders it impossible for this Chair to
intervene.
1510
If the committee, being master of its own procedure, has decided
that is the way it wishes to proceed, I do not believe it is in
order for the hon. member to come to the House under the guise of
a question of privilege and attempt to challenge the ruling of
the chairman of the committee. In the circumstances, I find there
is no question of privilege raised here.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have something to which the Chair and the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism should be made aware given the events
of last week.
I would like to table the secretary of state's press release
dated March 8, 2000. It may help her to answer a question I
asked her in question period. Her response to the question I had
asked was “I do not know what the member is alluding to”. Her
response to my second question was “I will not make a comment on
something that I know nothing about”.
We would find that hard to believe.
The Speaker: It does not sound like a point of order to
me. This sounds like an argument. The hon. member for
Edmonton North is requesting consent to table some documents. Is
there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, during question period I referenced a letter signed by a
Canadian immigration official, dated March 6, 2001, which clearly
stated “Unfortunately, the occupational demand for a nurse is
currently zero”. I would like to seek unanimous consent from
the House to table the letter.
The Speaker: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am tempting fate a little bit here, but there have been
consultations and I think you might find unanimous consent to
revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of
introducing a report from the procedure and House affairs
committee on votable items.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
presenting reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 10th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection
of votable items. In accordance with Standing Order 92, this
report is deemed adopted on presentation.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing)
Regulations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee,
and of the motions in Group No.1.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
I was interrupted for question period. This bill is so important
that I have to carry on with the debate.
However, I would like to propose a motion. Whereas the integrity
of the Prime Minister is of the utmost importance and whereas we
have been unable to obtain any answer from the government, I
move:
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1555
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Brison
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Clark
|
Comartin
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Day
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hearn
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hinton
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
|
Lalonde
| Lanctôt
| Lill
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Paquette
| Perron
| Peschisolido
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Skelton
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams
| Yelich – 98
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Allard
| Assad
| Bagnell
|
Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Castonguay
|
Catterall
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Cullen
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Knutson
| Laliberte
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Maloney
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McLellan
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Myers
| Neville
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Saada
| Savoy
| Scherrer
| Scott
|
Sgro
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Valeri – 95
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 3.58 p.m.)