37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 006
CONTENTS
Monday, February 5, 2001
1100
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Financial Consumer Agency
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Division Deferred
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Second reading
|
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1105
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1110
1115
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1120
1125
1130
1135
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1240
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1245
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1250
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1310
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1315
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1340
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1400
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
| ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE
|
| Mr. Serge Marcil |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
|
| Mr. James Rajotte |
| SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
1405
| ROAD TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| QUEBEC EAST
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| PORTNEUF
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
| ENERGY
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
| MÉLANIE TURGEON
|
| CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
|
| Ms. Hélène Scherrer |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1415
| EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1430
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1435
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1440
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1450
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PARKS CANADA
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| INTERNATIONAL AID
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1455
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| WATER QUALITY
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL PARKS
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1500
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
|
| Bill C-6. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CLEAN INTERNET ACT
|
| Bill C-210. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1505
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-211. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
|
| Bill C-212. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-213. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT
|
| Bill C-214. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1510
| AERONAUTICS ACT
|
| Bill C-215. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
|
| Bill C-216. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-217. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-218. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1515
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-219. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
|
| Bill C-220. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-221. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-222. Introduction and first reading
|
1520
| PETITIONS
|
| Breast Cancer
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-2. Second reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1525
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1530
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1555
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1600
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1625
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1630
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
1650
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1655
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. André Harvey |
1720
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1725
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. John Herron |
1730
1735
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1740
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1745
1750
| Mr. John Bryden |
1755
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
1800
1805
1810
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1815
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1820
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 006
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 5, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
FINANCIAL CONSUMER AGENCY
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been
discussions among the parties and I believe you would find
unanimous consent that a division be deemed to have been
requested on government orders Ways and Means Motion No. 1 and
that the said division be deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 6.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development) moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing)
Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
1105
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our parents
always equated work with health. Our Prime Minister often tells
us work is dignity. Meeting our own needs and those of the
people who depend on us is also a source of pride, self-esteem
and hope in the future. That is why this government has worked
so hard, and continues to work so hard, to sustain the economic
health of this country. We are very much aware that prosperity
creates jobs, many jobs.
Since our government was first elected in 1993, more than
400,000 jobs have been created in Quebec. As a result, there
has been a five point drop in the unemployment rate, to a 25-year
low.
[English]
We are proud of Canada's economic performance. There are 2.1
million more jobs today than when we took office in 1993. We
know that all Canadians benefit from this economic growth in one
way or another. However we also know that they do not all
benefit from it equally.
Therefore it is our collective responsibility to help those who,
through no fault of their own, have difficulty providing for
their needs. For this reason we have dynamic and effective
social programs such as employment insurance.
[Translation]
The old employment insurance system was in need of updating. We
therefore organized a broad consultation in all regions of the
country. Then in 1996 we carried out an indepth reform of this
program, which is one of the cornerstones of our social security
system.
We are all aware that the labour market is constantly evolving.
As technologies develop, markets become globalized and new forms
of work are developed, change is taking place more rapidly than
ever. We therefore wanted to ensure that our employment
insurance program can effectively meet any shortages in the
labour market.
[English]
Given the extent of the reforms, we promise to monitor the short
and long term effects very closely. For this reason we included
an annual evaluation mechanism that enables us to identify and
correct certain provisions that are not having the desired
effect.
This mechanism is very useful. In 1997 we used it to correct
certain deficiencies by introducing the pilot project for small
weeks.
[Translation]
One of the objectives of our employment insurance reform was to
encourage people to work. In order to better achieve that
objective, we introduced the short week pilot project and we
have made various adjustments along the way. Today, we are
continuing in the same direction with this bill, which seeks to
ensure that the program is fair and effective.
[English]
As members will recall, Bill C-44, an act to amend the
Employment Insurance Act, was introduced last September. This
legislation was at second reading at the time of the election.
Canadians supported the legislation and gave the government a
clear mandate to advance the proposed changes. Bill C-2 is the
same bill with an additional minor amendment concerning EI
fishing regulations.
Members will recall that enhanced EI parental benefits came into
effect on December 31, 2000. Payment of similar benefits to
self-employed fishers requires an amendment to the EI fishing
regulations. However, because of the election, amended
regulations could not be approved by the House in time for
December 31.
Amended regulations were tabled by the Minister of Human
Resources Development and are being considered by the House. Bill
C-2 would make these amendments retroactive to December 31, 2000,
so that fishers can have access to the same types of benefits as
other Canadians. This is the fair thing to do.
[Translation]
We want to provide additional help to those who are looking for
work. We also want to correct certain provisions that are less
effective than anticipated.
1110
[English]
First, we are going to eliminate the intensity rule. The
purpose of this rule, introduced in 1996, was to reduce the
reliance of frequent claimants on employment insurance and to
encourage work efforts.
Over time we have noted that this intensity rule did not produce
the anticipated results and is instead seen as a penalty on
workers living in communities where job opportunities are
limited. Therefore we are correcting the situation.
[Translation]
Moreover, in those regions where seasonal industries are major
economic catalysts, we will closely co-operate with the
communities and with all our partners to help them diversify
their economy and create jobs.
The bill also amends the criteria governing the clawback
provision. That measure was introduced in the late seventies to
deter high income earners from frequently relying on employment
insurance.
[English]
The clawback will not apply to first time claimants and
claimants collecting special benefits, namely sickness, maternity
or parental benefits.
[Translation]
Moreover, this clawback provision should reflect today's
economic reality. Therefore, we want to ensure that it targets
only taxpayers with higher than average incomes.
[English]
Therefore the net income above which benefits must be paid back
by repeat claimants would increase from $39,000 to $48,750. The
maximum repayment would be limited to 30% of net income above
this clawback threshold.
The government places a high priority on the welfare of
families. Therefore, we have taken into consideration the case
of parents returning to the labour market after having taken an
extended time off to care for their children.
[Translation]
The regulations governing re-entrants' eligibility for
regular benefits will be amended to ensure that parents of young
children who return to the labour market are not unduly
penalized because of their absence.
This measure is in addition to the higher parental benefits that
have been in effect since December 31, 2000.
As members know, since that date, all Canadian families that
have a new child can enjoy much longer and much more flexible
maternity and parental benefits. Thanks to these new measures, a
large number of parents will be able to spend more time with
their young children.
[English]
The bill improves our employment insurance system even further.
It benefits parents and Canadians in all regions of the country
who are looking for work. It also demonstrates our commitment to
carefully scrutinize the effects of this very important social
program.
We are also extending until 2006 the mandate of the Canada
Employment Insurance Commission to continue closely monitoring
the effects of the program.
[Translation]
I am very pleased that the economic situation in Quebec and in
Canada has greatly improved. The amendments proposed to the
House today will better help those who live in regions where
seasonal work and unemployment are higher than average.
Our ministers travelled throughout Quebec and Canada. They met
with workers and they found out for themselves that some
provisions of the employment insurance program were not
producing the anticipated results.
[English]
This is why we are proposing these amendments today. These
amendments are improvements to the former law.
[Translation]
Our government promised to act. It is fulfilling that
commitment.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, are there not any
questions and comments?
The Deputy Speaker: The first three speakers on this bill
will have a maximum of 40 minutes without questions and comments.
That could only be addressed through unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
humbly request unanimous consent to ask the parliamentary
secretary a few questions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1115
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your
appointment to the chair.
Bill C-2 was known in the last parliament as Bill C-44 and is
known more by its unofficial title of the Liberal Atlantic Canada
re-election strategy. The parliamentary secretary has explained
some of the details of the bill so I will not go into them.
However, I will say that the official opposition does not support
the approach the government is taking on these amendments.
We are not alone. There are people and organizations across the
nation who feel that this is not the right direction to take:
the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the St. John's Board of
Trade on the east coast, the Vancouver Board of Trade on the west
coast and probably all the boards of trade in between. Even the
Canadian Federation of Labour has problems with the bill.
When the bill was first introduced last fall, this is what
Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, had to say:
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 also have the International Monetary Fund report. Last week
the finance minister was bragging about how the IMF supports
Canada's economic incentives and economic and fiscal policies and
said that he had received high praise from the IMF. However, he
chose to ignore paragraph 8 in the report, which I should like to
read into the record. It states:
Comprehensive reforms enacted during the 1990s to the Employment
Insurance (EI) system and to social assistance programs and the
introduction of the National Child Benefit have enhanced the
flexibility and efficiency of the labour market, boosting
employment growth and helping to reduce structural unemployment.
Pressures to ease the impact of some of these
reforms—particularly the 1996 EI reforms—have intensified as
they have become more binding. The Government has mitigated the
intended effects of some of the reforms and has proposed to
rollback others. In particular, the IMF staff sees the proposed
elimination of the intensity rule, which was designed to
discourage frequent use of the system, as sending the wrong
signal. Frequent use of the system, along with the provision of
extended EI benefits for high unemployment regions for a
prolonged period of time, has had adverse effects on the
behaviour of both workers and employers, has significantly raised
reservation wages in high unemployment regions, and has reduced
labour mobility. In addition, the recent experience in the
United States suggests that labour market flexibility is an
important factor in fostering the rapid adoption of
productivity-enhancing new technologies. Therefore, the IMF
staff continues to endorse the implementation of new measures to
reduce the frequency of EI use (such as experience rating of the
EI premium rate, which would tie the rate for individual firms
directly to the use of the system by their workers) and the
elimination of regional extended benefits.
This quote is from the International Monetary Fund, which the
finance minister seems to think is highly supportive of
government policies. This is one area in which it has
recommended and suggested to the government that the change in
direction is not in the best interests of the economic future of
our country.
If IMF support is so important in all other areas and if its
recommendations are so valid in all other areas, why does the
government turn its back on the recommendations that the IMF put
forward on the EI insurance program?
1120
The question is, with this coming from the IMF, why would the
government go in this direction which retreats from the very
policy that the IMF claims is having a beneficial economic impact
on Canada.
We in the official opposition feel that it is extremely
important to get the bill before the standing committee on human
resources so that the committee can hear witnesses and have an
indepth study to look at the EI program and the benefits and lack
of incentives that are being proposed.
We would like to put Bill C-2 before the House of Commons and
have the government, which said it was in favour of parliamentary
reform, let the bill pass through to committee in a very real and
meaningful way.
Let us see whether the government will seriously listen to all
aspects of the discussion from witnesses who have a lot to say
about the legislation. Let us see whether the Liberal government
will actually allow committees to do their job, to listen to
witnesses and to come up with recommendations to change the
legislation and make it more meaningful.
The Canadian Alliance would like to see whether or not the
government is willing to look at some of the concerns that have
been expressed. One concern that has been expressed is that the
legislation is taking the control or responsibility from the EI
commission and placing the rate changes in the hands of cabinet.
There is a real concern out there, not only in the Canadian
public, among workers and employers alike, but in labour
commissions and labour organizations, that the government is
trying to control this fund to a degree that we have never seen
before. Instead of having the employment insurance program at
arm's length from government, the government is reaching in and
bringing in total control over the EI program.
One has to ask oneself why this would happen. Why would the
government want to have this kind of control? A surplus of $40
billion may be all that is needed to see why a government would
want to do this. The EI fund is reaching the point of having a
$40 billion surplus. I think the government would like to see
this as its personal slush fund to use at will rather than for
the purpose it was intended.
The chief actuary for the fund has indicated that a $15 billion
surplus is all that is required in the program. I would like to
look at last year alone. EI premiums last year were $18.511
billion. That is money coming in. EI benefits paid out were
$9.3 billion. That leaves a $9.211 billion surplus in this fund
which the cabinet wants to control. I suggest that is the wrong
direction for the country to take. It is wrong from the employer
point of view and from the employee point of view. It is wrong
from every way we look at it for the cabinet of a government to
have control over that kind of money, which was put in place for
a specific reason.
I am sure the poor working person who is paying employment
insurance premiums does not want to continue paying an inflated
amount of money so that the government has access to a huge
surplus fund to use whenever it wants. When these surpluses were
brought to the attention of the government, what did it do? It
reduced premiums by 25 cents, a small, piddly amount.
1125
The reality is that every worker could stop paying EI premiums
for two years and we would still have the surplus in the account
that is required, according to the chief actuary, to have a
stable fund. We could go two years without any premium payments
and the fund would be where it should be.
We must ask ourselves why the government is so intent on keeping
employment insurance premiums to a level that gives it surpluses
every year, to the point of building a surplus fund of $40
billion. The reason is so that the government can balance its
books. It is balancing its books on every working person and on
every business person who provides jobs for working people. That
is not fair. It is not right and it has to stop.
In its August 1999 unemployment insurance bulletin, the Canadian
Labour Congress states “The UI fund must be separated from the
government accounts, and the authority and autonomy of the UI
commission must be strengthened”. That needs to be brought
before the committee of parliament. It needs to be reasoned out.
We need to find a way of strengthening the EI commission, of
putting it at arm's length from government and taking control of
it away from the Canadian government and cabinet.
This is only a drop in the bucket for the government, which
takes things out of the public eye, away from commissions that do
business up front, and puts them behind the doors of a cabinet
meeting. It puts things beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians
to understand or to know what is going on.
It is distressing to me to see that we will be continuing this
direction with a government that has told Canadians it will be
more transparent and more open. We see that the very first
legislation to be introduced in the House of Commons is doing
precisely the opposite. The government is taking something that
is open and transparent and putting it behind closed cabinet
doors.
More than anything else, the thing that distresses a lot of
Canadians and me personally is the importance that the government
places on making small amendments to the employment insurance
legislation rather than looking at creating an environment of
long term permanent jobs for Canadians across the country from
coast to coast.
Five years ago the Liberals announced changes to EI. The Prime
Minister stated “we wish to provide an incentive for people to
work instead of receiving social benefits”. We have to wonder
why the government is turning away from that challenge.
The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources
Development and the Prime Minister have said that the best way to
help unemployed people is to put them to work, to give them jobs,
to have jobs created so that they can find employment. I suggest
that the government has done little to create any employment. The
parliamentary secretary claimed that there were 400,000 jobs
created in Quebec and 2.1 million jobs created across the
country. I challenge her, in that it was not the federal Liberal
government that created those jobs. The small business community
and the business community created those jobs.
The Minister for International Trade pointed out last year that
85% of these new jobs were created due to trade. Most of the
increased trade is due to the free trade agreement and NAFTA, and
let me remind Canadians of elections past when the Liberals
opposed the free trade agreement and NAFTA. They violently
opposed free trade and NAFTA until they formed the government.
There are some things that the government could do. The first
is to substantially reduce personal income tax.
1130
By leaving money in the hands of consumers, the government could
have increased the purchasing power of Canadians. It does not
take a rocket scientist to know that by increasing the purchasing
power of Canadians one increases jobs. There are provinces that
have shown that this works. There are provinces that had the
courage to do what had to be done and they saw the benefits. The
federal government did not have the courage.
If the government really wanted to do something concrete,
something that would benefit the economy, it could have developed
a vision for a national transportation infrastructure strategy
program.
I am amazed that the government has such little insight and
foresight and such little incentive to place the country in a
position where we can compete in the North American marketplace
and compete internationally.
The Liberal government is not even paying lip service to the
development of a national transportation strategy. While our
economy has grown, we are still relying on a transportation
system that was built almost a half a century ago. We think the
system should be adequate enough to service our people and our
goods. In many places, the movement of people and goods is in
total gridlock while the government sits back and does nothing.
The port of Halifax is a very good example of what could have
been. Two years ago Halifax was bypassed as this continent's
Atlantic super port. Halifax has an excellent port. It is much
more convenient to Europe. Why was it bypassed? It was bypassed
because there was no adequate infrastructure to move the goods
from the port to the North American trade market, to the cities
and towns that would be using the materials brought in. There
was no adequate railroad access to the market. Why did New York
get it instead of Halifax? It was because there was no adequate
infrastructure program in place to support the Halifax bid.
Think of the jobs that the transportation infrastructure
strategy would have created, not only in Atlantic Canada but in
the north, long term jobs that would have benefited the future
economy. Where is the strategy, the planning and the insight?
The strategy is not there. The vision is not there.
The government wastes money on grants and all kinds of things,
but it does not put money where it would have a meaningful impact
on the growing economy of our nation. It is not just Atlantic
Canada and Quebec, it is also the north. The north has the
capacity and the potential of some major developments and
megaprojects. The north is an area of traditionally high
unemployment and it is waiting for something to happen.
The aboriginal community in the Northwest Territories is
prepared to negotiate for the Mackenzie River pipeline. There is
also talk of a gas pipeline from Alaska coming down through the
Yukon to join the existing pipeline network that currently
extends as far as northern Alberta. Alaska is also seeking a
rail link from that state to join our northern rail lines that
only go as far as Fort Nelson and Dease Lake in northern B.C.
People in the Northwest Territories are also talking about
extending the Mackenzie Highway from its current northern
terminus at Wrigley all the way to Inuvik. The extension of this
highway would assist in opening up the vast untapped mineral
reserves of the Northwest Territories.
Let us not forget our new territory, Nunavut, which would like a
road link with the rest of Canada. While these projects would
undoubtedly cost billions of dollars, they will also return
billions of dollars to the federal government coffers through
taxes and royalties. Equally important is that they would
provide hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of man years of
employment, good paying long term employment.
1135
If the Liberals were truly interested in an employment strategy
for the country, they would be in extensive negotiations with the
territories, the western provinces, the American and Alaskan
governments, northern aboriginal communities, environmentalists
and the business community on how they could develop our north.
However there was not a passing reference to this kind of
development in the Speech from the Throne, not even a mention of
developing the north.
Instead of co-ordinating projects that would employ thousands of
individuals, they tinker with the EI bill by making minor
amendments. They are more concerned about keeping people on
employment insurance than they are in providing them with good,
long term, full time employment.
Nevertheless, because of the Liberal's lack of vision we are
limited to debating a handful of amendments to the EI act. There
is no vision of moving forward in a strong dynamic way by making
great changes and great projects. We are talking about minor
changes to an existing bill that does not address the serious
problems of employment.
We will not spend a lot of time on the details of the bill at
second reading. We want to move the legislation before a
committee. We want to see whether the Liberal government is
intent on opening up the process of reforming parliament to allow
real discussion and real debate on employment insurance and what
it should be doing and what it is doing. We want to see whether
things can work differently and better.
We want the first bill being debated in the House of Commons to
go to committee. We in the opposition will make a commitment to
go there with an open mind. We hope the government will go there
with an open mind as well, so that we can hear witnesses and
people who specialize in this area and, if necessary, make
changes to make the legislation better. I would like to see the
bill serve as an indication of the willingness of the House to do
things differently for the good of all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the
occasion of the start of debate on Bill C-2 on employment
insurance.
From the start it is important to establish clearly the point
we have reached in this debate. In January 1997, the reform of
the employment insurance plan took effect. It was supposed to
attune the plan closely with the realities of the labour market
and enable people to return to work quickly.
However there is a major flaw in the system. Under cover of
the reform, which was to improve employment insurance, the plan
started pumping money to the Minister of Finance of Canada.
It became one of the best tools in the fight against the deficit
on the backs of the unemployed, workers and employers.
The federal government wondered how to go about collecting as
much money as fast as possible and as quickly as possible, and on
the backs of whomever would be the easiest. It turned toward
society's most disadvantaged, the unemployed, people who were
not necessarily solidly organized in social terms, and imposed
the employment insurance plan on them.
I will provide an example for members. The employment insurance
plan is based on contributions by employers and employees, and
benefits are paid. In 1994 the surplus was $2.3 billion; in
1995 it was $4.3 billion; in 1996, $5 billion; in 1997, $6.7
billion; in 1998, $7.3 billion; in 1999, $6.5 billion; and in
2000, $5.6 billion.
The surplus is approaching a total of $30 billion to $31
billion.
Accordingly, the federal government, since imposing the new
employment insurance plan, has taken $31 billion more from the
pockets of employers and employees than it has paid out to the
unemployed as benefits.
1140
I will not use the word that we would use back home because it
would be considered unparliamentary, but the government has
plumped up its coffers by making employers and employees pay
excessively high premiums and by tightening the screws across
the board.
First, it looked for a way to reduce benefits to a bare minimum.
One thing it came up with was the intensity rule. For the past
three or four years we have been telling the government that
this rule has to go. Finally it listened to us and
introduced a provision to that effect in Bill C-44.
The intensity rule is federal bureaucracy at its best. The
federal government is saying that our seasonal workers are
unemployed because they want to be, because they simply do not
want to work. The idea is that it will give people 55% of their
average earnings the first time they draw EI benefits and bump
them down to 54% the next time around. It figures this will
encourage people to get out and work.
Let us take someone earning $600 a week. This is not
astronomical—it amounts to $30,000 a year. If such a person
worked 18 to 20 weeks, at $600 a week, his employment insurance
cheque would normally be $330 a week. The intensity rule would
lower this to $300. This means that the government has pocketed
the $30 difference, a loss that is keenly felt at this income
level. The federal government has siphoned off quite a bit this
way.
The demands for changes to this rule of intensity, which the
government has finally decided to change, are nothing new. They
have been around for a very long time.
The government imposed a program that would collect as much
money as possible to battle the deficit. I have already given
some examples of the amount of money it has generated. As a
result, the program no longer has any credibility.
Today, about 40% of the unemployed qualify for benefits. If
this were a private insurance plan, no one would subscribe to
it. When we pay premiums for a car, a house or other kinds of
insurance, we expect to get some benefits in the end. This one
is a mandatory program to which everyone contributes. The
Liberals changed the rules in 1997 and now everyone pays into
it.
Young workers start contributing as soon as they start to work,
even if they do not work the 910 hours required to qualify.
Women returning to the workforce contribute as soon as they
start to work. If the young worker has not accumulated 910
hours, “so long”. No question of paying him or her any
benefits. Although the worker has contributed, there is no
entitlement to benefits. Today's bill does nothing to correct
this.
A system has been created, a way of doing things that works to
the detriment of the people in our society who are the worst
off. It has, however, been realized that the surplus
accumulated over the years has to be put back into the system
one day in the context of the present legislation. There was a
provision that the government could decide to use this money for
other purposes within one economic cycle. That it has done.
At the end of the economic cycle, it should put these
surpluses back into the system but it does not want to do that.
Making lower income earners contribute has worked just too well.
For example, people pay premiums on their income up to $39,000.
Someone earning $100,000 pays premiums on the first $39,000 but
not on the difference between $39,000 and $100,000.
Similarly, someone earning $45,000 pays premiums on the first
$39,000 but not on the additional $6,000. This is assuming that
person contributes to the employment insurance program, because
many people do not. During his last mandate, we even informed
the Prime Minister that he was not contributing to the
employment insurance program. After 30 years as a member of
parliament, he did not know that. We informed him of that fact.
There are others who do not contribute, including all the
professionals who work but do not pay EI premiums.
This means that these people did not do their share in the fight
against the deficit.
When there are surpluses, as has been the case in recent years,
people expect lower taxes. For some, it is the way to get
something back for helping to fight the deficit. However, those
who do not pay much tax, those earning $15,000, $18,000, $20,000
or $25,000 per year—and there are many who earn such salaries and
even less than that—do not really need a significant tax
reduction but rather an acceptable and adequate employment
insurance program that will provide them with a decent income
when they find themselves between jobs. The bill still does
not provide such a program.
This issue was the subject of a major debate during the previous
parliament.
1145
The debate was so important that during the election campaign
the Prime Minister was obliged to recognize that a lot of errors
had been made in the reform. He said, for example, on November
4, 2000 “We realized that it was not a good decision in that we
should not have done it”. He was talking about the cuts to the
employment insurance plan his government had imposed.
The Prime Minister himself has recognized that the
government made a mistake.
Bill C-44 had been introduced before the election campaign and
people were rightly saying that it was not enough. It was in
reaction to this position that he said “It is true, we did make
major mistakes”.
The problem today is that the bill before us is
the same one we had before us prior to the election. During the
election campaign, the Liberal Party noted very clear messages
on this. It told the public that significant changes would be
made.
For example, I quote the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport,
who said during the election:
Once a Liberal majority is elected, we will reinstate the
process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet
the needs, for the most part, of the people of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Canadians as a whole.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is
also responsible for Quebec, also supported the arguments in
favour of changes to the employment insurance plan. The
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport continued, speaking as well
for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, “The
government is open to discussion”.
There is a problem in this government, because we did not know
who speaks on its behalf, except that now we know, the bill has
been introduced.
On the subject of this bill, the remarks of the Secretary of
State for Amateur Sport and the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, who is also responsible for all of Quebec,
were rebuffed by the government.
Once again with the administration of the employment insurance
account, it would appear that it is not those who want
improvements who have won but the Minister of Finance. Money
must continue to flow from the pump for him because he needs it and
he is still getting it the way he always did.
This attitude is unacceptable. Politicians cannot expect to be
taken seriously by public opinion if the government keeps acting
this way.
If one makes a promise during an election campaign and,
immediately after winning the election, one forgets one's
promise, this fuels frustration and cynicism toward politicians.
The Liberal Party is truly responsible for that.
There is even worse.
Cynicism does not stop people from eating. It is something very
difficult to bear and very damaging to democracy but today we
have a situation where Canadians expect significant corrective
measures, a situation where people going through hard times
expected much more than what they are seeing.
It has been proposed that the intensity rule be abolished. It
would be interesting to increase the average benefits from 50%
to 55% for everyone. However we have seen that 55% is not
enough. The thing to do would be to increase this percentage to
a higher level, something like 60% of the average salary. Thus
the unemployed could count on a decent income between two jobs,
which was the intent of the employment insurance plan.
Even if economic growth is optimal, some seasonal jobs will not
reap the benefits. Economic growth is important because it is
essential to job creation and is part of the fight against
poverty.
In forestry, agriculture and tourism, the fact that the economy
is in good shape does not necessarily translate into a
significant increase in benefit weeks or hours of work. As we
have pointed out, the jobs in these seasonal industries are also
seasonal. These workers are therefore entitled to a minimum
acceptable income.
There is also the whole issue of maternity and parental leave.
After much lobbying, the government reduced the number of
qualifying hours from 700 to 600. It may interest members to
know that before the reform, however, a woman needed 300 hours
to qualify for maternity leave.
If the government had just stuck with the requirement in the
1997 regime—20 weeks of work at 15 hours a week, or 300 hours of
work—nothing would have changed and more women would have been
able to qualify.
1150
At the time the federal government took advantage of the
situation and raised the requirement to 700 hours, or 20 weeks
at 35 hours. That is many weeks. The result was that far fewer
women were able to qualify. For five years, we were stuck with
a regime that was divorced from the conditions workers actually
face.
I will give an example. In 1989, before all the reforms, 82% of
unemployed women qualified for benefits. We saw this percentage
drop dramatically as soon as the Liberals introduced their
change. In 1994, benefits had dropped to 59% of earnings. The
downward trend continued, and in 1999, 38% of unemployed women
qualified for EI.
This behaviour is totally unacceptable especially because, with
the increase in precarious jobs and part time jobs, the number
of people contributing to employment insurance but not eligible
for benefits has increased. This is the ideal clientele for the
Minister of Finance. On the one hand, he collects the money and,
on the other hand, he does not give it back.
The same thing has happened with young workers. In 1989, 98% of
young people between the ages of 20 and 24 were eligible. In
1999, only 24.9% were.
This means that only one young adult out of four is eligible. In
Bill C-2, there is no provision in this respect. They have
decided not to change their tune. I have already asked questions
on this and I received the same answer as when I asked about the
intensity rule “This rule has been put in place because people
are unwilling to work hard.
If we cut their income, these people are going to go back to
work”. This is the point of view expressed by the Prime Minister
himself when he referred to the unemployed as beer drinkers.
This is the bureaucracy went by for four years. People were
systematically penalized. They were told they would
lose benefits because they did not want to work. We realized
that after three years of studies on this matter. During that
time, a lot of people lost money and could not afford to meet
their mortgage or car payments or to raise their families. This
is unacceptable.
Today the government is proposing that the measures be
retroactive to last October. These people should benefit from
retroactivity back to the date the plan came into effect
because it is inhumane.
Canadian workers are being treated like economic guinea pigs.
It is totally unacceptable.
The conception that people are a little lazy and do not want to
work is being applied to young people. The minister herself told
me “If we take away the discrimination toward young people, they
will all drop out”. That is the exact same conception as for
seasonal workers.
When young people drop out, it is not because they do not want
a job but rather because they have a problem. We see nothing to
that effect in the new bill. It is as if the new bill would not
change anything. This is not acceptable to me.
We have in front of us a system that does not function well.
Everybody contributes from the first hour worked.
There is a dramatic drop in the number of contributors who
qualify. We have seen it with women and young people. There are
those who earn more than $39,000, as I was saying previously, and
women who just do not qualify any more. More and more women could
not qualify for the employment insurance system.
Average benefits also dropped considerably. The tables have been
changed. Instead of being eligible for 40 weeks of benefits
after a certain number of hours of work, people now qualify for
only 32, 33 or 34 weeks, which means less income, and the
creation of what has been known as the spring gap. People will
live through that again this year.
Last summer there was an attempt to change the regional map. In
my area, people applied for unemployment benefits between July 9
and September 17.
Because the minister had changed the regional map without
reasonable consultation having taken place prior, 565 hours were
required to qualify instead of 420 hours previously. Instead of
being eligible to 32 weeks of benefits, they were given 21.
1155
We should remember what happened as a result of public protests.
It was a few months before the election. The federal government
was paying a lot of attention to these things. It decided to
correct the situation. On September 17, it said it would return
to the old rules: 420 hours to qualify and 32 weeks of benefits.
However it cannot correct the situation that it created with the
summer gap between July 9 and September 17. These past few
weeks there are people in my region whose benefits are running
out. It did not correct that situation, while it would have the
opportunity, in legislation such as the one we have before us,
to say it made no sense to create for two months sub-citizens,
sub-unemployed, people who do not have what is required to
qualify.
Some people came to my office. They were two friends who worked
in the same business. One said “I submitted my request on
September 15 and got 21 weeks of benefits”. The other said “I
went on September 18 and for the same length of employment I
got 32 weeks of benefits”. Where is the justice in this?
At the time, when this correction was made, the minister told us
that it would take a legislative change. The legislation would
have to be changed. Legislation cannot be changed like that.
Changes cannot be retroactive.
Today the legislation is being changed.
This would be an excellent opportunity to amend the act and to
restore the dignity of an EI system that would provide the
benefits that these people deserve. There is no such amendment,
even if the Prime Minister himself was made aware of the
situation.
I wrote him last December asking if there was really no way to
address the situation so as to provide these people with more
acceptable conditions. I am still waiting for an answer.
The government is now making some corrections that were
suggested as important a very long time ago, dealing with the
intensity rule, eligibility for special benefits and clawback.
According to the present system, seasonal workers who make a lot
of money, particularly in the building industry, have to give it
back when they file their income tax, when they earn more than a
certain amount.
A solution had to be found, because no one enjoys giving back
part of the money earned during the year, money used to keep the
family, and having to give it back suddenly in March and April.
I do not think we would like to live with this kind of
situation given the kind of work we are doing. If we were told
in February or March that for the purpose of our personal
income tax return the vacation allowance should be considered
as a supplement and returned to the government, we would not
find it very interesting.
We are still faced with a situation or a government approach
that is unacceptable. We have a fundamental problem that is
reflected in the spirit of the Speech from the Throne. I quote
the only sentence referring to employment insurance in the
Speech from the Throne “There was a time when losing a job also
meant immediate loss of income for workers and their families.
And so Canadians created Employment Insurance”.
That is a complacent statement.
It is as if, when employment insurance was created, we had
solved all the problems of the unemployed people who needed income
between two jobs. Rather, it is the opposite. It is unemployment
insurance that was created soon after the war in order to
provide people with sufficient income. It is only when the plan
was changed under the Liberals that it became the employment
insurance plan.
We had an unemployment insurance plan under which people,
through collective solidarity, could get a decent income between
two jobs. The name of the plan was changed and not only the
packaging but also the content were changed. It has become a
money pump for the finance minister. It has become a way to make
sure the government gets as much money as possible.
This certainly does not meet the objective outlined in the
Speech from the Throne, which was to ensure an income for
workers and their families.
I think employment insurance has been one of the main factors in
the increase in poverty in Canada over the last five or six
years. We keep hearing about concerns for children with respect
to the child tax benefit. It is not a bad program per se but
we must remember that if there are poor children, it is because
there are poor parents to begin with. If the situation were
different, if employment insurance had not been cut as it has,
many children would be much better fed every day in their
families.
1200
A lot of people would not have to resort to food banks at the
end of each month. We are talking here about money and an
insurance program, a program based on contributions. Society as
a whole, workers and employers contribute collectively to offer
those who lose their jobs some form of income. But cuts were
made to this program, which changed it into a program promoting
financial dependency. I think an important social pact that
existed in Canada was also broken.
For many decades now the resource rich regions of Canada supplied
the raw material, the basic resources our society needed to
function.
Now that we have also developed the new economy, this employment
insurance plan has put an end to an existing agreement. Under
this agreement, the resource regions that had industries, such as
forestry, agriculture, tourism and fisheries, were to develop
their resources but because these industries do not operate
all year long, the plan would provide adequate income to workers
so they could have a decent life in their own region. However
the government put an end this agreement unilaterally.
One the one hand, it has decided to apply to seasonal workers
the principle that they do not work because they are lazy and
that putting more stringent conditions into the plan will make
them work harder. Benefits will be cut and workers will have to
manage.
On the other hand, the government was supposed to invest in the
diversification of regional economies and thus counterbalance
the effects of the tightening of the employment insurance plan.
But that money never came, and when it did, it was invested
inefficiently.
We witnessed the HRDC boondoggle. A program called the
transitional jobs fund was used for electioneering purposes,
especially in 1997, to help the Liberals win more ridings. We
have never seen so much investment in Bloc ridings as we did
then. The Liberals had carefully targeted the ridings where they
wanted to get results. But this did not resolve the social pact
issue.
Right now, resource regions have to adapt, and they have had to
bear a disproportionate share of the fight against the deficit.
Now that we have surpluses, they cannot get their fair share.
I think there is a basic problem with the implementation of the
plan.
There is also another important aspect. The employment insurance
program has been in place for five years now. It is reviewed
every year. It is in its fourth year and we are waiting for the
report. We hope the report will be published soon and it would
be important to have it before the end of this debate. Maybe we
could adjust things based on the report.
Apart from the financial problems the unemployed may have, there
is a need to bring the plan in line with the labour market.
Among other things, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed that
self-employed workers be eligible on a voluntary basis.
Why not put this possibility on the table? Today, with the new
reality of the workplace, why can we not be more flexible and
find a way to make the program more acceptable, since many
people work part time and 18% of the people are self-employed?
The answer is always the same: the basic principle is not to
provide people between jobs with a decent income but to
accumulate as much money for the finance minister, so that he
can invest in all kinds of activities with the money of those
who are the worst off.
It is much easier to force a worker whose status is precarious,
a young man or a young woman starting to work at 15 hours a week
and getting a pay cheque for the first time, to contribute to
the plan. How can he or she protest and say “ It does not make
sense for me to contribute when I do not even qualify”. Before
these young persons get organized and make representations,
things will not change much.
People have learned their lesson. I am now very satisfied
with the public's reaction to Bill C-2. I just received a call
from a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des
sans-emploi du Québec.
I asked him if he had a problem with the fact that we considered it
unacceptable for the government to legalize the misappropriation
of these surpluses and, as a result, that we oppose the bill
even though it proposes some improvements we have been asking
for a long time. He answered that he did not because the
association thinks that the bill is a disgrace. The government
ought to be ashamed of trying to use blackmail by saying “I stole
$100 from you and I am giving you $8 back, so you should be
delighted”. When someone takes $100 from me he owes me this
sum and he must give me back $100, not $8. Otherwise it is
unacceptable to ask us to be delighted because we are getting
$8 instead of the $100 owed us.
1205
I think that in this regard we are on solid ground. Unions and
other representatives of the workers and the unemployed know
very well that we stand for social equity. This is what the
population wants and it needs no explanation. We are going to
defend social equity and I am ready to debate our position at
any time.
People know very well that if we just agreed with the bill, the
$30 billion surplus would just disappear into the system.
The unemployed would never benefit from the surplus. All the
sacrifices they had to make in the fight against the deficit
would not earn them anything while other groups would benefit
from those sacrifices.
Management of the system must appear to be fair for people who
contribute to the plan, for the employers and the employees.
Seasonal workers are at the mercy of economic cycles.
Unemployment rates are down in every region of Canada. In many
places, the 10%, 12% or 13% unemployment rates we saw a few years
ago are now 7 or 8%. However in those areas seasonal workers
do not necessarily work a higher number of weeks. For them the
situation did not change.
They need to qualify for employment insurance to get an income
for the winter months and the months when the industry they work
for slows down. When the unemployment rate suddenly decreases in
an area, instead of needing 420 hours in order to qualify, they
will need 500, 560 or 600, and in the end they will get benefits
for fewer weeks.
This has given rise to a situation where there are problems not
only in rural areas but also in cities where there has been a
big drop in the unemployment rate. There are situations where
people have to work 700 hours in order to qualify and they end
up being 7, 8 or 10 weeks without any income. It is not a very
interesting situation in which to be.
This debate is closely connected with the issue of
globalization. We must not forget that the 1994-95 employment
insurance reforms were carried out because the International
Monetary Fund and other organizations urged Canada to put its
fiscal house in order. To be productive, Canada had to create
programs that were quite similar to those of the United States.
The government tried to bring our employment insurance
system in line with the American system. Sometimes it forgets to
look at both sides of the fence.
Even in the United States, for example, for the waiting period,
there is, just like in our system, an old principle stating that
during the two first weeks, the claimant is considered to be
unemployed and, therefore, he gets no benefits. That principle
dates back to the time when workers did not start paying
premiums the moment they started on the job.
A person had to work 20 hours a week for 15 weeks in order to
qualify. Now that everyone contributes right from the first hour
worked, this archaic waiting period ought to be done away with,
but it is still in the plan.
This is another element the government should change. There is
a $30 billion surplus and the bill involves about 8% of the
annual surplus in the employment insurance fund in recent years.
If there is an annual surplus of $6 billion, that will mean
$500 or $600 million will be put back into the fund, which is
about 8% of the surplus. The government keeps the rest, which
should go to employment insurance. This is unacceptable.
The government must be brought around to changing this, and I
hope that will happen during the committee hearings.
It will be very important for all groups wishing to make
representations to come and do so. People have met with the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, the Minister of Public
Works and Government Services and probably with ministers in the
maritime provinces as well, and just about everywhere else, and
have been told changes would be forthcoming. Those people are
not very happy this morning to learn that this bill contains
nothing of what was promised to them. The only way they can get
their point across properly is in a parliamentary committee.
Members can be certain that those of us in the Bloc Quebecois will
be open to people having an opportunity to be heard, so that
amendments that reflect the points they have brought up can be
introduced.
I am anxious to see the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and
the Minister of Human Resources Development contradicting each
other on issues on which they have theoretically reached
agreement secretly during the election campaign.
1210
Somebody, somewhere, must have said “Yes, there will be changes
and here is the list”. I am eager to see, when these requests
are made public, who will win the battle going on among the
departments under the responsibility of the current Prime
Minister? Who will win in the end? Will it be those who are
seeking improvements or those who want the system to remain the
same and to continue to grab as much money as possible?
We, from the Bloc Quebecois, have the advantage of being able to
speak publicly on this subject. We do not have to hide behind
cabinet secrecy or government solidarity.
I can assure the House that we will fully assume this responsibility.
We were expecting much more since the Prime Minister had
admitted that it was a bad reform.
Why is there an extension of the evaluation period of the
system? We learned in the bill that the annual evaluation, which
was to apply for a five year period, would go on for many years.
The message is aimed at those who are waging a trench war to
obtain improvements to the system. We will have to fight for the
issues that we raised on a day to day and year to year basis.
There are encouraging signs. We have long said that we are
against the intensity rule and finally the government has
decided to do something about it.
Our arguments are just as strong on many other issues, including
discrimination against young people and women. In the end I am
convinced that the government will have to act.
We do not have an election every year and this
government's sensitivity is lower following an election. It
seems to diminish until the next election gets close. That is a
reality with which we have to live but we still believe that
the soundness of the arguments and strength of the people who
come to tell us what they are experiencing will allow our views
to prevail.
In recent weeks I also spoke to Françoise David from the
Fédération des femmes du Québec. Mrs. David wishes to make
representations to the parliamentary committee reviewing these
issues, as do the union representatives and officials from the
Associations de défense des chômeurs. I am convinced that in
the end we can arrive at a positive solution.
I would like to refer to a release issued by the CLC, the
Canadian Labour Congress. The title of the release is to the
effect that two thirds of the unemployed will still not qualify.
This morning Hans Marotte, who is the spokesperson for the
Associations de défense des chômeurs, said the same thing:
The current bill does not in any way solve the issue of
eligibility to the plan.
The current program will simply improve a number of minor
conditions for people already in the system, for example, by
abolishing the intensity rule.
However the issues of insurability and the return of the right
of access to the plan for those unemployed have not been
resolved. In view of all this, clearly we cannot vote for
the bill unless it is thoroughly changed.
The Bloc Quebecois proposed two things. First, we recommended
that the
bill be split into two bills. One would be debated later and
would cover the whole issue of management of the fund surplus to
enable it to be come an independent fund or a payroll tax. This
indepth debate would be held in the coming weeks or months.
The other bill would concern the list of improvements to be made
to the plan which we should vote on soon. We are ready every
day to do so.
The argument that the Bloc Quebecois is holding up the vote
on improvements is totally false. We are ready to vote on
improvements at any time but we will not be duped into
approving a clause that would enable the government to retain
control and legalize the misappropriation of surplus funds. The
bill currently permits that.
The government is shifting responsibility for setting the
contribution rate from the employment insurance commission to
itself. If the bill is passed, next year, when the rate is set,
the government would not have to take the needs of current
workers into account. It would have to take the needs of labour
into account along with its own financial requirements
and this would justify anything the government wants to do.
The reason this clause is included in the bill is that we are
at the end of an economic cycle. If there is such a change, the
government would have to put money back into the system and it is
not ready to do that.
1215
What people living with the employment insurance plan
want, whether they be
employers or employees, is a system that gives value for
money. In an insurance plan, when there are surpluses, either
premiums are reduced or the terms and conditions are improved
but no third party grabs the surpluses and uses them for some
other purpose. Those who pay premiums are the ones who should
benefit.
We have before us a bill that is totally unsatisfying and
inadequate. This is a bill that would not satisfy the
unemployed, workers, employers or unions representing workers.
This is a bill in which the government is trying to make a
fool's deal with us, a deal where it would give us some little
improvement, while what is needed is a comprehensive employment
insurance reform. Such reform would ensure that the plan would be
administered by the people who pay into it and give dignity back
to it, so that it can really serve the unemployed and not pay
for the federal government's debt.
We all have efforts to make regarding the debt. We have done
some in the past but there are people who did not get the
return on their investment that they deserved. On their behalf,
the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill as long as the changes
deemed necessary have not been made.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to wish you good luck in your new position as Deputy
Speaker of the House of Commons. I am sure the future holds
interesting promises.
Second, I wish to thank the electors of Acadie—Bathurst who have
put their trust in me for a second mandate as their
representative in the House of Commons. I have always said that
it was an honour and a privilege to represent the people of
Acadie—Bathurst.
It is also a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to
Bill C-2. This bill was long in coming. Yet, as I will explain
later, it does not go far enough. It was long awaited by those
who have to rely on employment insurance benefits because of
the EI economic region they live in.
As we know, legislation was passed in 1996, which may even be
responsible for my getting elected in 1997, because of changes
that the Liberals had brought to employment insurance. Members
will remember that my predecessor, Doug Young, introduced
changes to employment insurance and described people back home
as lazy and do-nothings, people who did not want to work. He did
not defend the interests of our region.
We ended up with a bill on employment insurance similar to the
one before us today, which needs to be amended.
Bill C-2 now before us is an unfortunate one. In May 2000,
through a motion that I had introduced in the House of Commons,
I made a request to change employment insurance. My colleague
and neighbour, the hon. member for Miramichi—there did not seem
to be any problems in Miramichi—asked that changes be made to the
EI plan rather than to the legislation.
The House passed my motion unanimously. All members present in
the House of Commons supported my motion requesting that changes
be made to the employment insurance plan. In October, with Bill
C-34, we proposed changes to the EI plan. Why was it not passed?
Because the Liberals preferred to wait till the last minute,
because they knew that the Canadian Alliance was against all
changes to the plan.
1220
The Canadian Alliance had its leader come to Bathurst, New
Brunswick at the Keddy's Hotel to meet the Alliance candidate,
Jean Gauvin. The day before, the Alliance leader had said
in western Canada “No changes to EI. There should even be more
cuts”. Once in New Brunswick, he told Jean Gauvin, his
candidate, that if the Canadian Alliance were elected it would
save EI and help Atlantic Canadians. He was speaking from both
side of his mouth.
The next day, in Hamilton, Ontario, he said “EI will be cut in
Atlantic Canada. These people have to be put back to work. They
do not want to work and are dependent on employment insurance”.
Again this morning, we heard what the Canadian Alliance member
had to say.
[English]
The Canadian Alliance does not understand our country. It does
not understand working men and women. It does not understand the
jobs in the country. It is time it got out of Alberta and B.C.
and came down to the Atlantic.
I hope that we go to committee. I hope the parliamentary
committee travels across the country. I will invite it to come
to my home area. I hope Jean Gauvin will have the guts to sit in
the hall and listen to the Canadian Alliance's feelings on
employment insurance.
That party's leader said it would not change EI and that if
elected it would protect the working people. The Alliance is
two-faced. It was two-faced when it said that if elected it
would refuse the pension plan. Now its members must look at it
again for the good of their families. That is what they are
saying now.
That party's leader said he would never take up residence in
Stornoway because it was a grassroots party, and he moved into
Stornoway. He said he would never use a limousine and he used
one. I am sick and tired of listening to how the Alliance feels
about our country and especially how it treats working people.
I will now switch topics because I do not want to spend more
time on the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals are the ones who
made the changes. They listened to the Reform too much when it
was in the House of Commons.
We have the example of Hamilton, Ontario, right now. Workers
went on strike. When the strike was over the company decided the
workers had nothing to do with the strike and wanted them to
return to the 85% level of production needed. They punished them
by not allowing them to collect employment insurance.
The Liberal government supports Stelco which is against
steelworkers local 5328. That type of program is against working
people. It is not acceptable.
[Translation]
The surplus in the employment insurance fund is $32 billion and
all of it was taken right out of the pockets of workers without
their permission. I have put it this way because I am not
permitted to use the word that comes to mind, although according
to the definition in the dictionary, it is stealing. That is
what it is; $32 billion was taken from men and women who have
lost their jobs, the least well off in our society, who have no
means of defending themselves, who cannot afford big name lawyers
to take their case to court. These people cannot defend
themselves.
It is a disgrace what the government says in the throne speech:
Now Canadians must undertake another national project—to ensure
that no Canadian child suffers the debilitating effects of
poverty.
It is a disgrace because 1.4 million children do not have enough
to eat. These children are hungry today. What does the
government say in the paragraph just before this one? It says:
There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of
income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created
Employment Insurance.
1225
The government should have gone on to say that these people were
robbed by the Liberals. It should have said so in its throne
speech because that is what happened. What the government did
was a disgrace.
In October, not long after a motion to make changes to the
employment insurance plan was introduced and approved in the
House and the Liberal government said it would amend Bill C-34,
it called an election.
With all due respect, the members from Madawaska—Restigouche,
Beauséjour, Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and my opponent, Bernard
Thériault, all said “We want to be in the Liberal Party. We want
to be in the governing party because we want to be part of the
government so that we can change things”.
Bill C-2 is exactly the same as the one introduced before the
election. This is a disgrace. It really is disgraceful to hear
candidates like Bernard Thériault say to the population in the
Caraquet area that when the Prime Minister came for a visit in
Belledune, he did more in five minutes than I had done in three
and a half years.
The people from the Acadian peninsula and Acadie—Bathurst did not
believe that. This is why he did not get elected. People woke up
and decided they would not be bought for 5%. This is what
happened in my area.
How many times have I said in the House
that there is a big difference between a seasonal worker
and somebody working in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. The
situation is completely different for a seasonal worker.
The Liberals must realize that it
is impossible to find cod under the ice in Chaleur Bay in
February. They must realize that blueberries cannot be picked
under the snow. They must get this into their heads.
It is about time the Liberals understood that we cannot cut
Christmas trees in July. This is the way the industry works in
the region. Given the quotas imposed by the government, we
cannot cut wood in winter in our region, in New Brunswick and in
Atlantic Canada.
As I have said many times already, the people in major urban
centres are always happy to receive our 2x4s to build their
houses
but people in my area have no choice. When the fishing season is
over, it is over. There are no other jobs. Putting the cart
before the horse is not the way to go. Let us put the horse in
front of the cart and be sensible about the way we work at
improving the economy so that people can find work. Do not take
away their last resort, the only way they have to put food on
the table.
It is totally unacceptable that in 2001 children are going to
school on an empty stomach. The throne speech tells us that the
government wants to put an end to child poverty but it is the
Liberals themselves who made them poor. This is a fact.
They say they want to help people get an education so that they
are better trained but they penalize people who work in the
construction industry.
Nowadays people who go to a technical school or a community
college are penalized. Before they were not penalized when they
received unemployment insurance benefits to finish school or
improve their training. Now there is a two week penalty. In the
meantime they have no income.
For someone who works 12 months a year, this makes no sense.
[English]
People working in the industry, for example, who wanted to become
better in their trade and obtain more knowledge, were being sent to
community college and did not have a two week waiting period for
employment insurance.
The first day they entered community college they are paid.
1230
Today what do people get? People feel they are finished because
they have no money to buy food or provide for their families.
Employment insurance was not meant to hurt working people. The
$32 billion does not belong to the Minister of Finance to balance
his budget on the backs of people who lost their jobs. The
billions of dollars in the fund was to help individuals who did
not have jobs. The throne speech said that Canadians chose to
have employment insurance, but the Liberals chose to take it away
from them. That is not right and it is not fair. It is totally
unacceptable.
[Translation]
Back home, in the Acadian peninsula, in the Bathurst area or in
Gaspé, we have jobs in various sectors. Some people work in the
forest industry, others in the fisheries, while others work in
tourism. Back home there is no more work after August 15. All
the visitors are gone. Work starts on June 15 and ends on
August 15th.
All those who work in the tourism industry have a problem. As
for the fisheries, the lobster season starts May 1 and ends
June 30th; herring fishing starts August 28 and goes until
around September 15 or 20.
After, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. Does it mean we
should close down the Atlantic fisheries, that we should lock it
up? We will have to close it down and it will be all over. It
is a pity.
Yesterday, a lady in Moncton called me from Albert county. She
had called the new Liberal member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. I
do not know if there is a word to describe this member. I will
not say his name in the House. She told him she had a problem
with her employment insurance. He said that all the members are
from Ontario and that we are too small a number to bring about
changes to the employment insurance, we are on our own.
He should never have run if he feels he is too small and on his
own. He should be in politics to speak up for the people of his
area, this is what the campaign was all about.
I invite the new members from our region who are very familiar
with the issue of seasonal work to help their Liberal colleagues
acquire a better understanding of this issue.
Whether in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, the
situation is the same as in northern Ontario, Manitoba or
British Columbia. A logger without a job is just that. One
cannot change a logger into a cook. That is the problem.
The same thing goes for plant workers. We need those workers.
Hopefully we will not fight when the bill goes to committee.
Today, I tried to describe the real problem facing our regions.
Families are being destroyed and people arev killing themselves because
they do not have anything to eat. Heads of families call to say
they have nothing to give their kids during the spring gap, from
February to May. They have nothing left.
What is the solution: work, employment insurance, welfare? No.
We need a better system. The only way we can have a better
system is by sitting down and talking like civilized people and
by listening to the problems of Canadians, of workers across the
country. Workers are workers, whether they are in the Gaspé
Peninsula, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, northern
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the
Yukon or the Northwest Territories, and we must understand them.
It is not easy for those people who are struggling in an
industry that is very dear to us. People in Ottawa love to eat
fish and lobster but there is no lobster in Lake Ontario or in
Lake Huron.
1235
There is, however, in Chaleur Bay in the Atlantic Ocean and
in the Pacific Ocean as well. An understanding of and an
openness to our seasonal industries is required.
Once again, and I will keep on repeating this, it should be
possible to speak to one another and find solutions. It is not
a question of considering Bill C-2 again and passing it as
quickly as possible. The people concerned are tired of being
studied. Action is required now.
I urge the parliamentary committee to visit my riding to see
what it is like for men and women who work in fishplants and
for woodcutters. I invite them to pay us a visit and get the
whole picture.
Perhaps then they would understand the situation.
[English]
The leader of the Canadian Alliance drew up the plan in half an
hour in Bathurst. He understood that changes to the employment
insurance were needed. The only problem was that when he left he
forgot that the Atlantic provinces belonged to Canada and said
that we should cut them again. That is how fast he forgot.
I hope the Canadian Alliance is willing to work for the better
of Canadian men and women and that it has an open mind, not just
for big corporations, but for the little guy and the little woman
who works day after day to try to make a living.
[Translation]
I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak about the
problems in our region. I can, if necessary, provide further
details. What we need are real solutions that make EI
accessible to those who need it.
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given what we were told about the employment insurance bill, it
is obvious that it will be detrimental to Canadians.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has eloquently described the
negative impact the Liberal policy has had in his riding.
I would ask the hon. member if his constituents are
aware of this negative impact and how far they are prepared to
go to get some respect.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member
for Terrebonne—Blainville for her question and to congratulate and
welcome her to her first term in the House.
Regarding how far the people back home are prepared to go, I
would say they have been holding demonstrations since 1988 when
the first changes were made. That is when the Conservatives
under Brian Mulroney began to change the EI program. In 1986,
when the government took employment insurance funds to add to
the consolidated revenue fund, the people kept right on
demonstrating.
Will they have to hold demonstrations all of their lives? There
were 2,500 to 5,000 of them taking to the streets. The same
question is being raised again this year.
Will the men and women in the crab fishery be allowed to have a
solidarity fund? Fishers do not have any money to invest in the
fund and the government says that it cannot force them to put
money into the fund. Afterward, these workers will slip into a
so-called gap.
Here is what happened. The people back home took to the
streets not because they wanted to but because they had to
ensure that the changes that were so crucial to them would be
made. I am sure the people will fight to the end, until the
right changes are made.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for pointing out
some of the many shortcomings in Bill C-2 and itemizing how it
fails to help the people, at least in the riding of
Acadie—Bathurst.
We have many similar problems right across the country with EI
system that has ceased to become an employment insurance system.
How can we even call it an insurance program any more when it
does not provide benefits for unemployed people who need them?
1240
Could the hon. member expand on some of the specific problems
with Bill C-2? The government changed the clawback provisions.
However, even though it tried to change the intensity rule, it
failed to touch on the way the benefits are calculated or what we
call the divisor rule. Under these new rules workers who make
applications now are getting $130 or $200 a week on their first
paycheques, instead of $430 which was common in the old days.
It is not difficult to see why there is a huge surplus in the
fund. First the government makes it more difficult to qualify
and if people are lucky enough to qualify, which is like winning
the lottery, it will gouge the actual benefit they receive by
using the divisor rule and calculating the dead weeks.
Could the hon. member itemize those shortcomings in the way the
benefits are calculated?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, that is another place where
the workers are being hit very hard, both men and women.
I have an example of a working woman in my riding who should
have been allowed to collect employment insurance based on 52
weeks. She was not making much money; she made $2,736. She had
the hours needed to qualify for employment insurance. However,
according to the employment insurance rules, it only went back 26
weeks to calculate the money. In that 26 weeks the woman made
$629 and received $34 per week in employment insurance. It is a
real shame. If the benefits were calculated the right way then
she would have received $150 instead of $34.
I have another case of Mr. Réginald Raîche called me yesterday.
He had worked and earned wages of over $350. Because the
calculations were based on 26 weeks, instead of all his hours of
work being calculated, he is receiving only $74 instead of
receiving over $200.
That is the type of case where we have to have an open mind and
make changes. That will not encourage Réginald Raîche to work
more. He had a hard time getting 10 weeks. He was trying hard,
even calling my office to ask for help to get some hours. He
said he did not want to be on welfare. He wanted to work but
there are no jobs in his riding during the winter. There are
probably no jobs in some parts of the riding of my dear colleague
from Winnipeg or in the ridings of some of my colleagues from the
Gaspé coast. There is no work and that is the reason some
changes have to be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member
on the three specific examples he gave us of all that needs to
be changed in employment insurance and the need for an indepth
reform of the system, which serves more to accumulate surpluses
for the government than as a true employment insurance plan.
I would like to ask him a question about the fate of older
workers. The program for older worker adjustment has not been
in effect since 1995, when it was set aside. The government has
programs for active measures.
Today, workers aged 50, 51, 52, 53 or 55 do not necessarily
have the skills for retraining in another field. Jobs in
different sectors do not necessarily correspond either.
I was expecting the federal government would do something in
this regard. Employment insurance money could be used or a way
found to establish a bridge with old age pension benefits.
Does he agree with me that it would be relevant with respect to
the surplus in the employment insurance fund, in the case of
people who have contributed for 15, 20 or 25 years, to have
something added to the bill so that older workers could have a
proper program and so there could be something to help carry
them over to their old age pension?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Bloc
Quebecois member for his question. Yes, something could be done.
1245
What is going on now is regrettable. I did not say much about
the divider. One can work 420 hours over a 12 week period and
divide by 14. Again, we are stuck with the divider. Bill C-2
should eliminate the divider rule.
As for those aged 50 and over, it is
not easy—and I am sure you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker—with the
new technology, to go back to a community college and try to
learn how to operate a computer and become an expert in the new
technology.
We need a program to help these people.
Back home, there are plant workers who tell us “We have worked
for 35 or 40 years in a fish plant; give us our pension, do
something”.
For example, in the case of those over 50 and out of work, we
had a system whereby they would work for six months and then let
someone else take over for six months. That program worked well
but only lasted five years. It had a positive effect in my
region. People felt useful to the community. They felt useful in
today's world and they did not find themselves with nothing at
all.
Perhaps the bill should include such initiatives to help those
who lose their job at a certain age because of the new
technology or cuts. We must help them upgrade their skills or
find something else. An employment insurance program should be
in place to help these people.
We now find ourselves with something that makes no sense.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I am not sure
whether to chastise you, criticize you, or promote you. During
the last parliament you were the government whip. I guess I am
giving you some credit because it was a very tight majority. You
never lost a vote in that three and a half years.
Although it is difficult for us on this side of the House to say
it, I think you did an extremely good job. Despite our political
differences, I think your colleagues recognized that. I wish you
the best in the chair. Being a former NHL referee, as has been
mentioned many times, it comes naturally to you. This is
probably a tougher forum than some of the ones you have refereed.
Bill C-2 is a replacement for Bill C-44 which died on the order
paper when the election was called. It was to address some of
the difficulties the government incurred following its draconian
moves on the EI file in 1996. At that time The government
inflicted a lot of punishment on seasonal workers.
It really revolved around the intensity clause, which meant that
if one collected employment insurance over a period of years, one
would lose 1% of the benefits, up to 5% if one collected over
what is called a 20 week cycle over a five year period. In other
words if one was a claimant for five years, one would lose 5% of
the benefits. That would bring it down from 55% to 50%.
That does not seem like a lot of money to any one of us in the
House, but my colleagues and I have done a quick calculation
based on a minimum wage worker. Many workers in New Brunswick
and other parts of Canada are earning minimum wage. In some
cases it is as little as $6 an hour, or $240 a week before taxes,
before EI premiums, CPP and all other deductions are taken off.
With a $240 paycheque, how much does one have at the end of the
day? It is not very much. I suggest in the order of $200 with
any luck.
1250
When our jobs ran out what did we do? Was there a safety net?
There was, and it was called unemployment insurance. The name
has now been changed to employment insurance. I guess it is a
more positive name. No one wants to use the word unemployment.
Employment insurance is the instrument we would look at for some
protection and support when we are unemployed.
The intensity rule meant that a minimum wage worker would be
entitled to $120 a week in employment insurance. That is what
their benefit would be if they were unemployed. It would be 5%
higher, somewhere in the order of $126, maybe $130 tops, if one
had not claimed employment insurance at all. Basically, that is
the straw that broke the camel's back.
The government was not being very responsible or responsive to
its citizens at the time. I know some of the ministers in
Atlantic Canada simply played hardball with the seasonal workers.
They basically told the workers to get off their rear ends and go
to work not realizing that work does not come that easily in some
parts of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada. I am still
surprised at my colleagues from the united alternative, formerly
the Reform Party, when they talk about lazy Atlantic Canadians.
They have made that statement more than once. In fact it hung
them in Atlantic Canada in the last election. They were out
campaigning hoping to get elected while calling the people lazy,
the very people they would have been representing in the House of
Commons.
Seasonal work is not the type of work that most of those people
would prefer. They would prefer full time jobs, 52 weeks of the
year, but unfortunately that is not possible in some parts of the
country.
When the government brought this in, it received a lot of
criticism. In fact, that criticism was borne out in the election
of 1997 when the Liberal Party lost 19 seats in Atlantic Canada
because the feeling was that the government was not being
responsive to the people it represented.
Atlantic Canada is the poorest part of Canada. We do not have
oil in the ground at $40 a barrel. If we did there would be a
big difference. We do not have a car manufacturing capacity and
the benefits of an industrialized society. We will give all
levels of government credit for making advancements but there is
still a long way to go.
We still have fish plant workers and fishermen. We have
woodworkers and people employed in the tourism sector. All of
those are seasonal workers, workers who can only make a living
part of the year and at the end of the year they are left to draw
employment insurance.
When the government realized that it had lost those 19 seats in
1997, it decided it would do something about it. On the eve of
the election last fall, it brought in a bill that would address
this issue. In other words, it would eliminate the intensity
clause. It decided that it had made a mistake, that the 5%
punishment on seasonal workers was too much and that it was going
to change it. I give the government credit for doing that.
Unfortunately, the legislation was held up in the House by the
united alternative party because it does not believe in that.
There was just too much generosity in the package for minimum
wage workers for members of that party to swallow, despite the
fact that they have swallowed themselves whole on the pension
issue. They made a career of attacking big government and the
generosity of government, and destroyed many political careers in
the process, only to find out that every single one of them will
eventually jump on the pension bandwagon which they chastized,
criticized and condemned for the last 10 years of their lives.
What else would we expect them to do on this bill? What do they
do? They attack little people.
The government can be attacked on this as well because it is
addressing the intensity clause. In so doing, it has eliminated
the commission.
1255
The commission is the body set up by the government to determine
what the rate will be. Currently employees are paying $2.25 into
EI. That is their premium. The employer is paying 1.4% above
that. Effectively the employer is paying over $3 and the
employee is paying in $2.25.
What has the government now done? By stealth, it has limited
the capacity of the commission to establish the rate because the
rate is too high. The rate could be set at $1.75 for the
employee. That is borne out by the auditor, the chief actuary of
employment insurance premiums. He states in his report:
It is likely that a rate as low as 1.75% could also be set for
the year 2001 and kept for the indefinite future. Although this
rate would contain a smaller margin of safety, the current
surplus would still make it a reasonable option.
The government has simply eliminated the ability of the
commission to set the rate because it is sitting on a $35 billion
surplus in the fund. This is expected to grow to $50 billion in
the next two years while the commission is suspended.
The rate could go down to $1.75 because the interest on that $35
billion today has to go back into the fund. That helps keep the
rate lower. The reason the government will act in stealth is
that the EI surplus is just a bookkeeping entry. The government
even wants to eliminate that, because once it eliminates that
entry it will be free to cash in the $50 billion and use it as it
so desires. In fact it already has; this is just a paper
transaction.
This will effectively allow the government to keep the rates
higher. If it does not have the $35 billion, the interest on
which helps to keep premiums lower, it will then have the ability
to sneak premiums up when necessary. This is why the entire bill
has to be revisited. The ability of the government to suspend
the commission has to be eliminated.
The government has a history of acting in this way, especially
on this file. Who else but this lonely group of us at this end
of the House of Commons will stand to defend the lowly, seasonal,
minimum wage workers? I give the NDPers credit. They
consistently support the little guy, and that is what we are
doing. We cannot leave it up to the government to do it because
it has a horrible history of ignoring the little people.
What happens when those safety nets disappear which we see
happening at the municipal, provincial and federal levels? What
do the little people have to fall back on? We are not talking
about the generosity of government. We are talking about a fund
that they have paid into, expecting it to be there when they need
it. It is called insurance.
How many times have we heard about people being duped by
insurance companies where they pay in but cannot collect? It is
pretty well the same. The government wants them to pay in. It
wants them to pay premiums higher than they should be, but it
does not want them to go to the fund when they need help.
For example, we have government departments acting in collusion
to hit little people who cannot defend themselves.
1300
I refer to an article that appeared in Saint John's
Telegraph-Journal on Friday, February 2. The headline
reads “Tax case against auctioneer thrown out” and is subtitled
“Justice: Revenue Canada unfairly targeted businessman, judge
rules”. The article about a businessman says that “Saint John
auctioneer Tim Isaac's tax evasion case has been thrown out after
a judge ruled that he had been unfairly targeted by Revenue
Canada”.
Isaac survived this witch hunt only because he had the financial
wherewithal to hire a lawyer to defend him. The judge came down
hard on the Department of Revenue, which is now called the CCRA,
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The better words for that
would be “Revenue Canada”. That is what we used to call it.
Now we find the same thing happening to the lowly clam digger.
What do clam diggers do? They go out right now in sub-zero
weather—they go out in summer as well—to harvest clams in the
mud flats by digging them up by hand. It is back breaking labour.
These people are the working poor, there is no question about it.
They average $6 an hour, maybe $8 an hour if they are lucky
enough and strong enough.
I have just found out that there is another witch hunt underway,
but this time it is Revenue Canada, now called the Canada Customs
and Revenue Agency, working with DFO, the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, and HRDC, Human Resources Development Canada, to take
a look at some of these clam diggers' claims. They will also
take a look at some of the buyers of these clams, because somehow
they feel that the tax man is being cheated. This morning HRDC
officials confirmed that they have had numerous third party
reports concerning claimants drawing EI who have not worked, who
did not dig enough clams to actually claim the benefits they are
claiming. That is the long and short of it.
What are third party reports? Are they hearsay evidence? We do
not know. No one knows. These are rumours, the same kind of
rumour that allowed the tax people to go after Mr. Isaac. He
hired a lawyer and the government was chastised severely by the
judge in that case.
In this particular case we have 33 to 36 interviews by
government officials—interview is basically another word for
interrogation—of the lowly little clam diggers to determine
whether or not they dug clams. They had no counsel in the room
with them. They had no one representing them. Not one of them,
and probably not all 36 of them pooling their resources together,
could afford a lawyer.
Is this the type of government we have?
When people get desperate they do desperate things. One of the
things that people want to do when they get desperate is to feed
and clothe their children, particularly when it is the kind of
winter that we are having now in eastern Canada.
We will never know what goes on in that room when two government
officials interrogate the lowly clam digger. That is digging to
the bottom of the barrel when one goes in and violates people's
rights or, as our justice critic says, the charter of rights. Do
the government officials read the clam diggers their rights when
they go into the room and interrogate them? My feeling is no,
the officials probably do not, because they know that they can
kick the bejesus out of these little people, get away with it and
have a minister sitting right over there defending their actions.
In fact, it was government orders from right here in Ottawa that
caused them to do this.
1305
I am not criticizing the local HRDC officials, because if they
do not carry out their actions, they are gone too. The
government does not have any compassion for its own workers and
has even less compassion for the disenfranchised, which is what
these people are.
That is why when we stand up in the House we defend the little
guy, because no one else is going to do it. The little guys
cannot afford a lawyer or a consultant and there will be no one
on that side of the aisle to come to their defence, and very few
of us on this side. That is one of the few things I can give the
Bloc credit for as well. It is not very often I defend the Bloc.
They will defend their lowly woods workers and fishermen. The
NDP will defend the little guy as well. So will we. The
majority in the House will not do that.
This type of harassment of little people has to cease and
desist. If the ministers involved had any respect at all for
human life and human dignity they would get together, share the
information, consult with the members on this side of the House
and find a better way of doing this. In the middle of winter
when it is damned hard to be make a living as a clam digger, what
is now being done is wrong.
We will be proposing amendments to the EI bill. We are prepared
to support it with some amendments. We do not want to go back to
the old days of what they called the lottery, of working 10 weeks
and loafing for 40. There must always be a balance between a
system that is too generous and one that is too miserly and too
hard on the workers. That is the type of balance we want to
strike. That is the reason we will support anything that comes
in to help the little guy, but we do not want to flip-flop too
much the other way and make the system too generous.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I extend my personal
congratulations and thanks to you in recognition of your
appointment to the chair.
I also wish to thank the great people of Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia for giving me the honour of
being their representative twice in a row.
I have a question for my hon. colleague from New Brunswick, who
lives in a very beautiful part of the world. An awful lot of
people were hurt by the EI changes, not only working people but
small business people. We all know that if a business were to go
into a certain community and say that it would drop $20 million
there, both federal and provincial governments would bend over
backwards to do anything they could to get that business in
there. Yet communities like Saint John, New Brunswick, or St.
John's, Newfoundland, had almost $100 million ripped out of the
local economies because of the changes to EI. It meant
devastation for small business, families and workers in those
areas.
Could the hon. member please elaborate on why the Liberal
government would take away that money from those hard working
people and then give it away in tax breaks for major
corporations?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the
complete answer, but it is the history of this particular party
to do that. I do not want to make it sound as if big business is
the enemy, because it is not. We have an economy that is
chugging along pretty well and hopefully we will be able to
survive the downturn in the American economy, which has hit the
United States much worse than it has Canada.
It is not simply them versus us and governments always
supporting big business. We must have big business and I have
big business owners in my riding who are very good corporate
citizens. However, if I am right about the direction the member
is taking in his question about grants going to big business,
which is that maybe some of the money should go to Canadians who
really need the help, I do not think most of us would disagree.
That is the balance governments have to strike: governments
must not only do good but appear to be doing good. That is
always difficult. I know that when we talk about loan guarantees
to companies such as Bombardier and so on, it is easy to
criticize them, but even though Bombardier is a large corporation
and a very successful one, in the marketplace those types of
guarantees are sometimes important for corporations.
Sometimes governments have to make them. Oftentimes, if they had
their druthers, they would rather not, but there is
globalization. I know that the NDP's view of globalization is
not quite the same as our party's, and I think some of their
concerns are justified, but on balance we need to have
corporations, big and small.
1310
My belief is that if all corporations, big and small, were
healthy, we could do without some of the things we are actually
talking about here today. Unfortunately that is a perfect world
and we do not live in a perfect world.
The bill we are talking about today is about support for little
people when they need it, and I think that is one area we can
agree on.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my
colleague's speech and I noticed that he was aware that on
this issue his arguments were often those of the Bloc
Quebecois.
There is a matter of equity that goes beyond the various
positions members may have on the national issue. Obviously we
have created a monster with our employment insurance program.
That monster has killed social equity, particularly the pact
made with Canada's and Quebec's resource regions.
The member talked about amendments he would like to make to the
legislation. I would like to know if these could be brought
in quickly so we could vote on two bills as suggested by the
Bloc Quebecois and so people could benefit from
improvements to the program as soon as possible. There would be
a first bill aimed at improving the program, and a second bill,
which we could debate later on, on the issue of the employment
insurance fund surplus.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned in
the House, perhaps the whole EI file should go to committee, not
just the specifics in the bill.
One of the points I did not make, which is not part of the bill,
is about the EI boundary situation. Every four or five years
these boundaries are changed, based on census data and so on. It
is almost like redistribution in a political district. Some of
those changes have imposed a lot of hardship in rural New
Brunswick.
In my own riding it has, because we have fishing communities now
lumped in with bigger areas like Saint John and Fredericton that
have higher levels of economic opportunity or, in other words,
lower unemployment. Seasonal workers in those larger areas are
brought into these higher areas of economic development, which
means they have to work longer hours for fewer benefits. The
numbers are very much distorted by some of these bigger centres.
I would like the committee to take a look at how we could fine
tune some of those districts to take into account some of the
difficulties that are brought in when the larger centres put
these rural areas at a disadvantage simply because the
unemployment rates in those areas are lower. It becomes very
complex. Once one part of the equation is changed, it all has to
be changed, but it is one thing I would like to see discussed.
Last summer I personally organized public meetings in my
constituency on that very matter, and the government did change
those boundaries. Even though it is a five year process, the
government said I was right, that these people were being treated
unfairly. The government said it would be changed and did put it
back to where it was over about a four year period. It is just a
temporary fix.
The whole question of EI should be viewed by the committee in
the hope of improving it from top to bottom, including the
boundary situation, which is very unfair to rural seasonal
workers.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several
times during the debate today I have heard members of the
opposition make reference to the bill going to committee.
1315
I want to clarify a point. As members of the opposition know,
we are now at the second reading stage of Bill C-2, after which
the bill will go immediately to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities. I am clarifying this because members of the
opposition all day have been suggesting that it might not go to
committee. The bill will, in fact, follow due process like any
other bill.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of
that, but what we are referring to is the bigger picture.
Obviously the bill deals with only some parts of the EI file. The
boundary situation is not even mentioned in the bill. We
understand that it will go to committee where we will have a
chance to put forward amendments, which I think most of us will.
My party regards the bill's failure to mention boundaries as one
of its errors. We have a solution or at least some ideas that
might be workable if some attention is given to the bill. I
think this can be done best via committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will keep my comments short and ask one very specific question.
Would the PCs support an amendment ensuring that workers in the
trade school component of their apprenticeship have no two week
waiting period for EI? These people are not unemployed. They
are still attached to the workforce. They are simply in school
doing their annual six week school component.
Would the Tories support such an amendment?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, all my advisors tell me
that we would support that. In all fairness, I have not looked
at that but it is an idea that sounds intriguing. My colleagues,
whom I always depend on, tell us that we could. Given that, I
think we probably could do that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was interested in the remarks by some of our colleagues in
trying to portray themselves as the only ones who fight for the
little guy.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Substance this time.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: There will be a lot of substance if
the hon. member would care to listen. What they actually fight
for is a little caucus, just to set the record straight.
However, there is a reason I have made that point. It is curious
that members from eastern Canada come here and fight the changes
to the Employment Insurance Act, when in fact the message came
through loud and clear, through 19 Liberal seats in the
maritimes, that they wanted change.
One must also remember that our government monitored the changes
made in 1996 and realized that they needed an additional review.
That is what this is about. Contrary to the negativity that
tends to come from across the floor, they should be saying that
they are pleased the government is listening.
Some members may be surprised to hear that there are members on
this side of the House, myself included, who would support
additional changes that may come out of committee, such as the
apprenticeship issue mentioned by my good friend from Winnipeg.
It makes a lot of sense.
What is employment insurance? It reminds me somewhat of the
definition of life insurance. One pays a premium to a company
betting that one will die. The company accepts the premium
betting the client will live, and the client hopes they are
right.
Employment insurance is very similar. The employees pay a
premium along with the employer. In doing so, the employees are
betting that they might need the use of the fund. They are
betting that they could lose their job.
The employment insurance commission bets the employees will not,
and the employees hope it is right.
1320
EI is an insurance program and not a social program which, with
all due respect to my colleagues in the NDP, is how they view it.
It is an insurance plan based on studies and actuarially sound
financial data. The premiums are adjusted up and down as the
economy functions.
Members of the Conservative Party say that the premiums are too
high. It was not too many years ago, under former Prime Minister
Mulroney, when the premiums exceeded $3. Under this Liberal
government the premiums are down to $2.25. Let us not speak of
premiums being too high, or of the surplus that my friends on the
opposite side so eloquently discuss.
I would like to take the members back in a time machine about 10
years and have them tell me what the surplus was. Was there a
surplus at all? In reality there was not. There was a deficit.
Let us look at the history of the unemployment/employment
insurance program. At the end of the day it is the government of
the day that is responsible for ensuring that EI money is
available to workers at 55% of their earned income. It is the
government's responsibility to provide the money in good times
and in bad. Ultimately the government of the day, whatever
party, is on the hook.
How was the surplus created? It is not rocket science. More
revenue is being generated in total premiums, both from workers
and from corporations, than is being paid out in benefits because
the unemployment rate is low. Therefore not all the money is
needed.
What happens if the economy turns? Are we naive enough to think
that we will keep rolling along, that there will never be a
change, a bump in the road or a downturn? We already see it
happening.
Employment insurance is not, with all due respect, just for
Atlantic Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Members can get excited if they want
but they should talk to some of the auto workers and steel
workers. Employment insurance is there to give all Canadians
some security. It is there so workers will know that when there
are problems on the car assembly line in Windsor or in Brampton,
an insurance program is available for them.
Members opposite chirp about seasonal work as if there were not
four seasons anywhere but in their ridings. What about the
construction industry? Do we not have construction workers
working through all four seasons? We all know the difficulty of
pouring concrete in freezing weather and doing other jobs.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: How would you know?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asks
how I would know. I know quite well that it is extremely
important to recognize that employment insurance is not a
regional insurance program but a national program for all
Canadians. It is there to help the fishers in Newfoundland and
on the west coast, the construction workers in Ontario and all
those across this great land.
The changes being made in this bill are based on the fact that
the changes that were put in place in 1996 were in some instances
punitive, although they were not meant to be.
It takes courage for a government to admit its mistakes. The
intensity rule reduced EI premiums for repeat claimants from 55%
down to 50%. The Liberal government found that eliminating the
rule did not significantly change the number of claimants, and so
it questioned the benefit of ever having introduced it.
The government said that it was punitive to workers who needed
the employment insurance fund perhaps more than those in other
parts of the country.
1325
Members opposite talk about the economic status of parts of the
country. It is true that the economy in some parts of Canada is
not as strong as it is in other parts. We have certainly
experienced a boom since 1993 when the government came into
office. Certainly that has been the case in Ontario. I do not
deny that.
We also know there have been problems in the maritimes where
employment insurance needs to be adjusted to ensure people in
that part of this great country are treated more fairly. We are
eliminating the intensity rule. Let us be clear about that. We
have said it was punitive and that we put it in for a specific
purpose.
I remind members that one of the reasons we put it in place was
to stop large corporations such as General Motors, Ford or
others, from quite legally using the employment insurance fund as
an economic tool. They could shut down the assembly line for
weeks while they retooled to switch to another vehicle, simply
lay off the workers and allow them to go on UI or EI. Once the
retooling was done they could bring the workers back.
We saw that as corporate manipulation of an employment insurance
program which was put in place to provide insurance to replace
income loss due to job loss. It was not for large corporations
to use as an economic tool.
We put it there for a good reason, but recognized that it became
punitive to those people who consistently had to rely on
employment insurance. Let us also recognize that they continue
to pay the premiums. The intensity rule is gone.
Let me talk about the clawback. This is one of the areas where
workers in Ontario will benefit most in terms of their income.
When workers attain a combined annual family income of a certain
level, at income tax time the government starts clawing back the
employment insurance benefits they may have received.
When Mr. Mulroney was Prime Minister I believe the level was
somewhere in the neighbourhood of $64,000 or $65,000. Workers
at that time could be on employment insurance for a couple of
months, work for the balance of the year, exceed $65,000, and
Revenue Canada at income tax time would claw back their benefits.
It seemed to us that was too high. The changes we made in 1996
reduced it to $48,750, and then again reduced it to $39,000. In
some ridings one may be able to live with a family on $39,000 and
have EI clawed back although it is not a lot of money. However,
if a worker lives in the GTA, works in the construction industry
and has an income of $39,000, at which point the government
starts clawing back benefits because he or she was unemployed for
four weeks or eight weeks or something in that nature, it is
definitely too low a threshold.
It was members of this caucus who fought and spoke passionately
about returning the clawback level to a more reasonable $48,750,
so that if second or third repeat EI claimants are off for a
period of time they would see when their incomes exceed
$48,750—by the way, first time claimants are exempt from any of
this—a clawback of benefits to a maximum of 30% of the income
over and above.
It seems to me members opposite, supposed champions of the
little guy, should stand and applaud that kind of recognition of
economic reality.
It is an extremely important position.
1330
I will speak briefly about apprenticeship training. The member
for Winnipeg Centre asked the Tories if they would support
eliminating the two week waiting period for apprenticeship
trainees. I think that makes a lot of sense.
I intend to work at seeing that happen in committee. If it does
not happen, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
We should continue. I believe it is a sound argument and a fair
argument because we do not give enough recognition in my view to
apprentices.
I had a private member's bill, and the member for Winnipeg
Centre had one that mirrored mine, that would have provided
national standards for apprenticeship training from sea to sea to
sea. We recognize high school diplomas and university degrees
anywhere in the country regardless of where they are obtained. We
recognize them without a problem.
Why then do we not recognize the qualifications of an apprentice
in every corner of Canada? I know we do in some instances. With
the red seal program some 44 apprenticeship programs are
recognized nationally, but not all of them are covered.
It seemed like a very logical bill that should have been
supported by all sides of the House. I really thought there was
a chance for unanimity. The problem that arose was that there
were two particular parties in the House more dedicated to
provincial authority, provincial responsibility and the delivery
of programs at the provincial level than they were to supporting
national standards.
My bill would not have changed the delivery mechanism for
apprenticeship training. In Ontario we have a wonderful system
through our community colleges supported by the provincial
government. In Ontario we would continue to deliver the
apprenticeship funding and the programs at the provincial level,
but it would allow for national standards to be put in place that
would have no impact on provincial governments.
Unfortunately, the way things work around this place, my bill
was not allowed to be votable. It was not allowed on the floor
of the House for a vote of all members because the Canadian
Alliance and the Bloc had provincialism as their top agenda. They
are more concerned about that than they are about nation
building.
I challenge every member of the House to strive to help young
people, apprentices, to develop. It is fine for us to say that
we would like all our kids to be doctors and lawyers, but the
reality is that we need plumbers, bricklayers, pipefitters and
carpenters. As a matter of fact my youngest son starts a week
today as a carpenter's apprentice. We need all those trades to
help build the nation. We should be supporting them and we
should be proud of them.
In the interest of moving the debate along, I conclude by saying
that the government has shown a lot of courage. We have adopted
fair wage. I have not heard anyone from the New Democratic Party
applaud the government for doing it. A worker's wages can no
longer be used as the determining factor in awarding a contract
if it is led by the government. We have adopted fair wage as a
policy. We have adopted changes to the Income Tax Act that will
allow for the tracing of contracts given out so that all the
proper taxes are paid, that the unions have a chance to know who
is doing the work and where it is being done, and that the
workers are being paid properly.
We have also put in place a program of changes to employment
insurance. Here is the construction trades list: repeal the
intensity rule, which has been done; fix the small weeks problem,
which has been done for claimants in some areas; fund
apprentices, which has not been done yet; adjust the clawback,
which has done and change the re-entrant rules, which has been
done.
We are not only listening to the people in the maritimes who
rewarded us with a substantial amount of confidence in returning
a large number of Liberal Party members to the House of Commons.
That should have sent a message to both the New Democrats and the
Tories, but apparently they did not get it.
We are progressive. We want these changes to go through. I
hope to see additional changes made at committee which will
benefit the men and women in the hardworking families that help
build this great nation.
1335
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to much of the discussion today. As numerous
opposition members were speaking I saw a lot of baffled looks on
the government's side, as if they were being enlightened by all
the employment insurance problems.
I wonder if the Liberals paid any attention to all the people in
Canada who were complaining for over a couple of years that they
were suffering and could not afford to feed their families. They
just did not listen. Then, shortly before an election they tried
to move the bill along, making promises all over the country. My
colleague mentioned that they received a great victory down east.
We all know of the employment insurance promises that were made
down east by the Prime Minister.
An hon. member: Economic blackmail.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Absolutely. Blackmail is a term
that often gets used for that kind of thing. When employment
insurance first came into being there was a vision. We had to do
something to help unemployed workers to be able to put money into
their pockets. The vision was there.
When money goes into a successful program and the program
develops a surplus, most insurance plans would enhance the
program. What does the Government of Canada do? It wondered how
it could cut back on the program to see how much money it could
save or maybe it wondered how much money it needed to cut down
the debt or deficit and decided to get the money out of the
employment insurance fund.
Instead of having a vision for improving the lives of Canadians
and unemployed workers, improving training not just in the
Atlantic or the north but throughout the country, building unity
in the country and providing national programs that benefit
everyone, the government did nothing. It piecemealed every bit
and figured out how much money it would keep, how many dollars it
could shaft from workers and not give back to them.
My hon. colleague mentioned all the wonderful things in the
bill. Is he willing to look at having the employment insurance
program operate separately? Is he willing to have the money not
become part of the government coffers but go strictly for the
improvement of training and employment of unemployed workers?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question.
I knew she would get there eventually. The reality is that the
auditor general recommended that the so-called surplus from more
cashflow in than we are paying out in good economic times should
go to general revenue. We simply adopted the auditor general's
recommendation.
Let me be clear. The member overlooked one point I made in my
speech. Let us take ourselves either 10 years back or maybe 10
years ahead to a point where there is less money coming in from
employment insurance premiums than we are paying out in benefits
and when the plan is in a deficit.
If that plan is left to stand alone, does that then mean the
plan is unable to live up to the commitment or the benefits that
will be needed at a time when the economy takes a downturn? Or,
does that mean the government will write a cheque, which I know
is the NDP way having served under Bob Rae for five years,
whenever it goes down below the break even line?
We cannot have it both ways. Employment insurance benefits
workers, but it is also paid for by companies and employers as
well as the workers. It is a bilateral payment agreement that
ensures the money will be there when it is needed. We cannot
have it both ways, like the NDP would, by simply spending it into
oblivion and putting it in a place where it is no longer
financially sustainable.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from Mississauga West talked about life insurance and
employment insurance. I think he does not understand that
workers did not adopt a life insurance plan.
The Liberal throne speech says that there was a time when losing
one's job also meant immediate loss of income for workers and
their families. Therefore Canadians created employment
insurance. It was not life insurance. I think the member is
smart enough to know that it is an employment insurance program,
not life insurance. He should get the record straight.
He also talked about feeling bad about people making $39,000 a
year and how it was difficult to live on that amount. I would
like to see him in my area where people work for $8,000 or
$12,000 a year.
1340
I would like to have his opinion on that. Is he ready to
recommend changes when people lose their employment insurance by
the month of February because the fishery only starts in May and
the woodcutters only start cutting in June?
What is his solution? Is it welfare? Is that how he wants to
treat the workers in Timmins, Hearst, White River and Wawa,
Ontario? Is that how he wants to treat the people in Ontario who
have the same problem and whom I have visited personally? Would
he suggest that those people are not the real workers of the
country who participate in good economic development? Is he
saying that those people abuse the system all the time?
He also mentioned the Atlantic provinces. Is that how
disconnected they are? Do members know why sometimes people vote
for the Liberals? It is because 35 days before the election they
look like a bunch of NDP but the day after the election they
become Liberals again. In Acadie—Bathurst, the people woke up
and said to the Liberals that there was no place in the House of
Commons for the Liberals. They put back another NDP and members
know his name.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I guess by extrapolation
what the hon. member is saying is that everybody else in the
country except the wise people of his riding are stupid. I would
think that is a pretty unfair analysis from that perspective.
I will clarify something. When I used the example of life
insurance I made the point that people were paying a premium on
the presumption that it was there to protect them. With their
employment insurance premium, they are betting they will lose
their jobs and the insurance company is betting they will not.
Obviously the workers hope the insurance company is right and
they will not lose their jobs.
I know it is a hard concept for the hon. member to understand
but maybe if he has a chance to read it in Hansard with a
highlighter he will figure it out.
In this bill the government has recognized that the intensity
rule needs to be changed, which is part of the problem the member
talked about when he talked about seasonal workers. It does not
matter whether they are from Timmins, Ontario or from
Acadie—Bathurst. It is a national program for all Canadians.
We have recognized that some of the changes that occurred in
1996 were punitive against the workers. I would have expected
that member in particular to stand and applaud the government for
having the courage to recognize that and making those changes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, can the member please tell us where
the $30 billion to $35 billion EI surplus go? The surplus
belonged to businesses and workers in the country. Where is the
surplus?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly where the
auditor general suggested it should go. It went into general
revenue. When it goes into general revenue it is used like all
sources, whether it is GST, income tax or corporate tax, it is
used for all sources of the government's priority.
The real question for the member opposite would be, what does
the government do when the insurance plan takes a dip, when the
economy goes down and unemployment goes up? They live in never
never land. They think it will never happen, that things will
just carry on.
I have some news for them. The United States economy is
experiencing some severe trouble and there will be some impact.
We are already seeing it in some areas of this country. What
this government has done is made sure that the employment
insurance program, which will benefit workers and the little guy
they pretend to represent, is sustainable and will be there to
support those people who need it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I sat here listening to this debate
and I am dismayed that the government would actually cater and
pander to a vision of the future for this country that is less
than what it can be.
1345
I know, and every member in the House knows very well, that
seasonal workers do not want to work only part of a season. They
do not want to make minimum wage. They do not want to make less
than what others make. They want to maximize their potential.
They want to work full time and all year long. They want to give
their children a better future than they have had.
It is unfortunate that in the context of the employment
insurance bill the government is catering to an old way of
looking at things. Our party and our party critic have for a
long time been putting forth ideas to ensure that the employment
insurance plan in the country is fair.
At the end of the day this is a question of balance. It is a
question of ensuring that seasonal workers and people who are
unemployed through no fault of their own can be taken care of in
their time of need. It is also a question of balance for the
people who pay into the program, the employer and employee.
We have always striven for, and indeed the government would be
wise to look at this, an employment insurance plan that strikes
that balance. That is a true insurance program to make sure that
in time of need a person will have enough money to live on. They
will not be hard done by as members of the NDP and the
Conservative Party have mentioned throughout the debate.
It is also a question of ensuring that money is there in the
future. The member from the Liberal Party mentioned that. We
want that too. However, it is unethical and unfair both to the
employer and the employee that the government takes $10 billion
out every single year, which is more than what they use. That is
nothing more than another tax on the employer and the employee.
Rather than that money going into general revenues to be spent as
the government sees fit, we feel it would be better to use that
money specifically to ensure that those seasonal workers and our
workforce as a whole have a better chance to compete in the
changing economy in which we live.
We hear very little from the other side about the complex nature
of our changing economy, both nationally and internationally. We
live in a globalized structure. Information is passing back and
forth much quicker. Political and economic shocks are felt very
rapidly and quickly by nations around the world because of
greater linkages. We also feel them. As a nation, we depend
very much upon our ability to export and our ability to export
determines our standard of living at home. These shocks affect
the pocketbooks of Canadian employers and employees.
We hear very little about the ability for us to maximize our
niche as a nation. We hear very little about our ability to deal
with the demographic changes of our aging population and
immigration. All these things are going to have a profound
impact upon our ability to be competitive in a more globalized,
more linked international community. As a nation, we are not
only competing with the people next door to us, the people down
the street, the people in the next province, we are also
competing with countries from around the world.
It is incumbent for us as a country, and indeed everybody in the
House, to ensure that the employees and employers of the country
maximize their potential. Maximizing potential is what I am
going to refer to today. My colleague, the critic, has done an
excellent job of articulating our position on this view and my
other colleagues will do the same.
I want to address a few specific issues that my party and many
other members of the House have addressed before. How do we
maximize our economy? First, we need to put the EI program on
firm fiscal ground. We need to ensure that the moneys paid by
the employers and employees are less. This will lessen the tax
load. For example, if we lessen the tax burden on the employers
and employees, employers would have more money to train their
employees. Employers would have more money to hire people.
The Liberal member who just spoke mentioned some ideas on how we
could maximize our educational abilities. This is an issue I
will get to in the future and which is very important.
Unfortunately, there are huge issues that have not been dealt
with by the government to this day.
1350
I am going to talk about the issue of taxes. A lot of people
are not investing in Canada because we have a far less desirable
environment because of high personal and the high corporate
taxes.
Some would criticize us and say that we just want to lower taxes
for the rich. That is nonsense. An intelligent tax reduction
strategy, which is what we have been trying to get, ensures that
all people, particularly those in the lower socioeconomic levels,
have more money in their pocket. In fact, we have been
articulating plans to ensure that those in the lowest
socioeconomic groups pay no tax. Why? Having a job is the
greatest social program we can have in this country today. I
know those seasonal workers out there who are listening would be
rather be working full time than have some income supplement
program, some gift from the government or some cheque in the
mail. They would rather earn it themselves. They could then
provide for themselves and their family.
We have been trying to articulate plans for lower personal and
corporate income taxes to enable our citizens to be competitive
in the global economy. We know the Prime Minister is visiting
the president of the U.S., Mr. Bush. We know they are going to
talk about some economic issues. Mr. Bush has decided to lower
taxes even more. That is going to increase the gap between us and
the U.S. which will cause a huge imbalance. Some people would
say so what it is just one country. The fact of the matter
remains that our nation does 86% of our trade with one country,
the U.S. So it matters a whole lot what Mr. Bush does. In many
ways it will determine how we adapt to that.
As a nation, we should be getting together to streamline the
complex morass of rules and regulations that choke off the
ability of the private sector to maximize its ability. In my
province of British Columbia repeated business summits have said
that rules and regulations are one of the top three reasons why
companies cannot maximize their potential. To put it into
concrete terms, it means that those companies cannot hire people.
They cannot make money. If they made money, they could hire,
train and employ people. They could give people a better future
than they would have on government assistance.
I would like to talk briefly about the notion of how we can deal
with education. I know there has been some mention of it. It
goes to the heart of enabling people in underdeveloped areas of
our country to work.
As an example, let us look at Ireland. A few years ago Ireland
was in a bit of an economic backwater. It eventually said that
it was not going to put up with it anymore. It said it was going
to maximize its potential as a small nation. What did it do?
It lowered taxes, eliminated useless rules and regulations and
made an effective investment in education.
The government has been pulling money away from the provinces
for education for a long time. We know we are getting into a
crisis situation. Not only is there a gap between people who are
graduating from high school, and not enough graduating from high
school who are literate, there is also a number of students who
are graduating from university without necessarily getting
some of the skills to be competitive in our economy.
The previous hon. member alluded to a program which I think is
very effective. I will cite an example of where it works very
well. Germany has taken a very profound long range look at
linking businesses with the educational community. Students will
have real time opportunities to learn skills in school, be it
trades or others, and get real time experience in those areas.
By linking up the private sector and the educational sectors,
students will have an opportunity to not only develop real time
work experience but also have real skills that they can take into
the employment sector when they graduate. This works very well.
We also have a lack of infrastructure in schools and trained
people to teach our students. With the aging population in our
universities, we know there will be an enormous gap in professors
who can train the youth of today.
We have made proposals about EI. One is to give enough money to
businesses so they can to train their employees. Businesses have
repeatedly said that it will be up to business in the future to
train and retrain their workforce.
1355
It is not always up to the government. If we do that, people in
the workforce today and tomorrow will be able to continually keep
their skills upgraded and be competitive in the ever changing
global economy I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. They
can only do that if employers have the money in their pockets.
There should also be a review of barriers to trade. It is
extraordinary that in this day and age, in the 21st century, we
have more barriers to trade east-west than north-south. How
could that possibly be so? It speaks to a complete lack of
action of the government since it was elected to deal with one of
the major problems for trade and commerce, interprovincial trade
barriers.
The government should immediately strike a task force with
business to see how it can eliminate those barriers to trade. The
provinces must be brought into that and the government must work
together with them. If it does that, it will eliminate one of
the most profound and useless impediments by ensuring our
employers have the tools to be the best they can be.
Another area we can talk about is ensuring that the government
of the day works with the provinces to deal with not only land
use issues but labour and employment policy. We have to take a
long hard look at the employment and labour rules under
provincial jurisdiction to ensure that they are not barriers to
trade.
The Liberal member spoke about the unfair situation where
individuals trained in certain skills could not take their skills
across the country. That is a major impediment to individuals
and is a barrier to the movement of manpower across our nation.
It is another impediment to the nation maximizing its abilities.
In closing, for years our party proposed solutions to ensure
that we were able to strike a balance in the employment insurance
plan. That balance not only protects workers against
unemployment through no fault of their own, but it ensures that
employers can have the tools and the money to train workers and
be competitive internationally and nationally. If we do not do
this, employers will only be catering to the lowest common
denominator and to a level of mediocrity. That would be a shame.
There is much more that we can do.
The Speaker: I would like to advise the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that he has seven minutes remaining in
his time when the matter is brought next before the House, which
I suspect will be later this afternoon.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to
recognize that the year 2001 has been proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly to be the International Year of
Volunteers.
Volunteers are individuals who donate their time and act for the
well-being of their neighbours, their communities, their country
and society at large. In times of crisis, volunteers offer much
needed relief on a local, national or international scale.
Volunteers have contributed significantly to the welfare and
progress of both industrialized and developing countries alike.
I encourage all Canadians to involve themselves locally,
nationally and internationally. The service that volunteers give
is called for more than ever to tackle areas of priority concern
in the social, economic, cultural and humanitarian fields. They
do us all a great service.
I ask the House to join me in celebrating the International Year
of Volunteers and in recognizing the tremendous contributions
these people have made not only in Canada but to the world at
large.
* * *
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, last week's shutdown of a Department of Immigration
building was just a wake-up call. The probability of a
biological or chemical attack may seem low, but the consequences
can be very high.
According to Emergency Preparedness Canada “There appears to be
a general sense of complacency with regard to biological risk on
the grounds that legislation guidelines are seen as both
sufficient and respected”.
Does the government have a comprehensive plan to deal with both
chemical and biological terrorism beyond a normal emergency
response, which Emergency Preparedness Canada has indicated would
not be feasible?
Even former president Bill Clinton admits that he stayed awake
at night worrying about the risk of biological terrorism. He
even asked congress to spend $2.8 billion to beef up security and
research.
In closing, protecting the people of the country is the
government's job. Does the government have any strategies to do
that in the face of potential chemical and biological terrorism?
* * *
1400
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Natural Resources recently informed me that
Renaissance Fallsview Hotel, located in my riding of Niagara
Falls, has joined Natural Resources Canada's Energy Innovators
Initiative.
As an energy innovator, this hotel has made a long term
commitment to the use of energy efficiency to reduce costs and,
most important, to slow the growth of Canada's greenhouse
gas emissions.
Today, while I congratulate the Renaissance Fallsview Hotel for
its voluntary commitment to energy efficiency, I would like to
invite other businesses in my riding and across Canada to make
these same decisions so that they become part of the solution to
climate change.
It is through the leadership of energy innovators, such as the
Renaissance Fallsview Hotel, that important goals, which will lead
to a better environment, will be realized.
* * *
[Translation]
ORDRE DE LA PLÉIADE
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out that Her Excellency the Governor
General, Adrienne Clarkson, will be awarded the Ordre de la
Pléiade today at Rideau Hall by the Canadian section of the
Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.
The Governor General will receive the médaille de Grand-Croix,
the highest distinction of the order, reserved for heads of
state and former speakers of the Assemblée parlementaire de la
Francophonie. Madame Clarkson's medal will be presented by
Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.
The Pléiade is an order of the Francophonie and of the dialogue
of cultures that recognizes the outstanding merit of
individuals, such as Madame Clarkson, who have distinguished
themselves in their service to the ideals of co-operation and
friendship of the Assemblée parlementaire of the Francophonie.
On behalf of all members of this House, I wish to offer my
congratulations to the Governor General.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for a number of months now, Canadian consumers have been asking
the same question as they fill up. They do not know the gross
price of gasoline at the pump, on signs and invoices, without
tax.
I am today going to introduce a bill on retailers' displays of
the prices of gasoline.
Why are the Canadian oil companies afraid of posting the gross
price of a litre of gasoline?
* * *
[English]
CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian,
Carol Anne Letheren.
Carol Anne had been chief executive officer of the Canadian
Olympic Association since 1994 and had served as a member of the
International Olympic Committee since 1990.
Colleagues remember Carol Anne for personifying the Canadian
Olympic values of excellence, respect, fairness, teamwork, fun
and leadership. Her life embodied a commitment to the benefits
of sport, from its value in developing a sense of fair play to
its role in the nation's health.
During her career, Carol Anne worked tirelessly to increase the
role and level of participation of women in sport, not only as
athletes but also as coaches and administrators.
She will be remembered as an energetic, courageous leader with a
clear vision, who encouraged and inspired others to follow her
lead.
I ask all parliamentarians to join me in expressing our sorrow
to Carol Anne's family and friends and in honouring an
exceptional Canadian sports ambassador.
* * *
[Translation]
SOIRÉE DES MASQUES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the seventh
Soirée des Masques held last evening in Montreal was an
opportunity to see and to celebrate the remarkable talent of our
hardworking artists.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to draw
particular attention to some of the awards which are evidence of
the diversity of theatrical production. The great man of
Canadian theatre, Robert Lepage, earned the masks for best
original script, best staging, best Quebec production and best
set design for his play Face cachée de la lune; the théâtre du
Nouvel-Ontario was awarded the mask for the best franco-Canadian
production for Du pépin à la fissure; best English-language
production was awarded to the Centaur Theatre Company for The
Beauty Queen of Leenane. and best female performance was awarded
to both Viola Léger and Linda Sorgini for their parts in Grace
and Glory.
1405
In closing, I would call upon this assembly to join with me in
thanking all of the award winners at the Soirée des Masques for
their essential contribution to the development of the arts in
Canada, to the links that unite our communities, and to cultural
diversity.
* * *
ROAD TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a member of
the Liberal government has succeeded in getting elected three
times, twice provincially and once federally, on the promise of
the same bridges for the same highway.
“Our commitment is firm. It's official for the bridges”,
according to the publicity by the new member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry. Three hundred and fifty-seven million
dollars were even promised by the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and the President of Treasury Board within
days of the election.
Almost immediately, the story changed. According to the
Minister of Transport, it was “no longer a promise but a degree
of commitment”.
A promise is a promise.
The government must not play with words. It must get down to
it. Two bridges were promised, and two bridges will be built;
the people have the opposition's word on it.
* * *
QUEBEC EAST
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Quebec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
beautiful riding of Québec East is part of history in more ways
than one. First, it has been in existence since the beginning of
Confederation.
Over the course of time, the riding of Québec East has been
represented by two great Liberal Prime Ministers who left their
mark in our country's history, namely Sir Wilfrid Laurier and
Louis Saint-Laurent.
Québec East was also represented by Ernest Lapointe, a prominent
Quebec Lieutenant Governor under Prime Minister Mackenzie King
and Minister of Defence during World War II. Finally, my Liberal
predecessor, Gérard Duquet, held this seat for over 30 years.
I therefore thank the constituents of Québec East for putting
their confidence in me at the last general election. They can
rest assured that I will do my utmost to be a worthy successor
to my predecessors and to serve their interests to the best of
my ability.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend my riding of Red Deer suffered another serious
disaster. This one involved rail cars carrying anhydrous ammonia
that jumped the tracks near the northwest corner of the city of
Red Deer. This past July we had the deadly tornado that swept
through the Green Acres campsite at Pine Lake, killing 12.
As a result of the derailment, one man is in serious condition
and numerous others have been treated for exposure to the
ammonia. We hope and pray for a speedy recovery for those
individuals who have taken ill due to this accident. As of last
night the evacuation order was dropped and people have been
allowed to return to their homes.
I extend special thanks to the emergency services personnel, who
have once again proven how valuable they are to the people of the
Red Deer constituency. Firefighters, police officers and medical
personnel have done an excellent job of bringing this serious
situation under control. I must also recognize the many
volunteers who have contributed greatly to help make this whole
experience a little less stressful for those involved.
* * *
[Translation]
PORTNEUF
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take
this opportunity to thank all the residents of Portneuf for
putting their confidence in me on November 27. I am all the
happier because these people are Quebecers and they chose a
Liberal candidate to protect their interests and those of Quebec
in the House of Commons.
We have a common project, which is to further strengthen our
economy and create even greater opportunities for Canadians from
all regions of the country.
I am very pleased at the idea of co-operating with my colleagues
in the House of Commons and my constituents of Portneuf to
achieve that project.
Together, we will continue to build stronger, safer and more
prosperous communities, and to give businesses, families,
seniors and young people an opportunity to make their dreams
come true.
* * *
[English]
ENERGY
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
millions of Canadians have been frozen out of the Liberal
government's energy rebate program. There is something wrong
with a program that gives nothing to millions of people
struggling with skyrocketing home heating costs but sends cheques
to prisoners in jail. It is time for the Liberal government to
admit that the program is flawed and to fix it.
One would think the finance minister would have taken a look at
who was paying for heat and who was not before he started signing
the cheques. Why does he not admit that the program was nothing
but a cynical vote buying scheme announced just before the
election and that it has misspent over a billion taxpayer
dollars?
Worse yet, the Liberal government has done nothing to address
the root causes of skyrocketing energy prices. Even if it had
not mismanaged the winter's rebate program, it would only have
been a short term solution.
1410
On behalf of my New Democratic Party colleagues, I call on the
Liberal government to work with the provinces in establishing a
national energy strategy to bring energy prices under control.
We call on the government to stop sending cheques to prisoners
and start sending them to the people who need them. Let us get
to work on a national energy strategy.
* * *
[Translation]
MÉLANIE TURGEON
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec is taking the world by storm. The ability of its
enterprises to outdistance their competitors and the talent of
its artists and athletes have put it on the map as never before.
Recently, we scored another international success: I am
referring to the achievement of the most well known resident of
Beauport, skier Mélanie Turgeon.
We were familiar with her strength of character, her
determination and her talent. And now so is the rest of the
world. This year has been Mélanie's best yet on the world cup circuit.
She began the second half of the season by setting a new record:
two medals in one day. Since then, each competition has
confirmed her place among world-class athletes.
In my riding, which includes Mont Sainte-Anne, the loveliest
mountain in eastern North America, skiing is an important part
of our social and sports life. Because of Mélanie, the whole
community takes a more than ordinary interest in this sport.
Mélanie will be in the starting gate in Austria again tomorrow.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish her good luck. Whether
she wins or not, she will still be a champion.
* * *
CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know
that you will join with me in extending our most heartfelt
condolences to Michael Murnagham, the husband of Carol Anne, and
to her entire family.
It is with terrible sadness that I inform the House today that,
with the death last week of Carol Anne Letheren, CEO of the
Canadian Olympic Association and member of the International
Olympic Committee, Canada has lost a great friend and a great
representative of sport.
Mrs. Letheren lived out her passion for sport by devoting her
entire life to sports at the community, national and
international levels, as an athlete, official trainer and
administrator. In addition to her work with the Olympic
movement, Carol Anne was directly involved, as a volunteer, in
gymnastics, archery and volleyball.
Mrs. Letheren was a member of many volunteer boards of directors
in the fields of education, culture and sport. She taught at
the University of Toronto and York University and worked as a
strategic management and marketing consultant.
She defended the cause of amateur athletes and devoted herself
to promoting Olympic values and helping the Olympic movement to
spread in Canada and internationally—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Shore.
* * *
[English]
FORESTRY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is in the United States today talking with the new
president. Maybe he could clarify Canada's position with respect
to the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement which expires on
March 31, 2001.
Certainly the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs have had a hard time doing so. One publicly says that
Canada wants to renew the agreement while the other says the
opposite. Which one are Canadians supposed to listen to?
The lumber export industry to the U.S. is worth $11 billion to
Canadian producers and represents 30% of the softwood lumber
market. Why is the government sending mixed signals to the
United States on such an important issue? When will the Liberal
government defend Canada's access to this market?
The United States claims that Canadian subsidies have forced 100
mills to close. A new U.S. trade representative, Robert
Zoellick, has been appointed and will be defending the U.S.
position. When will the Prime Minister stand and defend—
The Speaker: The hon. member for York West.
* * *
CAROL ANNE LETHEREN
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure
everyone will join me in offering our most sincere condolences to
Carol Anne Letheren's partner, Michael Murnaghan, and to her
family. It with great sorrow that I join my colleagues on both
sides of the House today in stating that Canada lost a great
friend of and advocate for sport when Carol Anne, chief executive
officer of the Canadian Olympic Association and member of the
International Olympic Committee, passed away last week.
Ms. Letheren's passion for and dedication to sport was
illustrated by her lifetime of involvement as an athlete, coach,
official and administrator from the community level to the
national and international levels.
In addition to her work with the Olympic movement, Carol Anne
contributed directly as a volunteer in the sports of gymnastics,
archery and volleyball. She was a champion for amateur athletes
and a leader for Canada. She devoted herself to the promotion of
Olympic values and the development of the Olympic movement in
Canada and internationally. She was also intimately involved in
Canada's Olympic bid efforts for Toronto in 2008.
* * *
1415
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government ignored dispatching
Vancouver's search and rescue team after earthquakes in India, El
Salvador, Turkey and Taiwan.
The first priority following an earthquake is saving lives, and
the Vancouver team is always ready at a moment's notice. They
should have been sent. Those nations needed our expertise and
lifesaving technology.
The Liberal government's excuse was that it was not asked. Were
other countries asked before they sent their teams? If yes, then
why was Canada not asked? If no, why was Canada waiting
to be asked?
A major earthquake is due in the lower mainland of British
Columbia and the Liberals have closed CFB Chilliwack. The
Liberals are preventing our Vancouver search and rescue team from
getting firsthand earthquake experience. Why does Liberal
government ignore emergency preparedness?
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not mind, and I hope
you will not, if I use up some of my valuable seconds to
acknowledge the healthy return of my colleague, the member for
Calgary Southwest.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, in my remaining 10
seconds I would like to reflect on the fact that Canadian lumber
exports to the U.S. are worth more than $10 billion annually and
account for thousands upon thousands of jobs. On March 31 the
softwood lumber agreement will expire and the lumber trade will
revert to NAFTA rules.
I understand the Prime Minister will be meeting for 20 to 30
minutes with President Bush before they go for dinner. Does the
minister responsible know how many minutes of that half hour will
be spent fighting for the Canadian softwood lumber industry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I should state that the Prime Minister will not have
only a half hour meeting with President Bush before dinner. The
whole dinner, for over two hours, is a working dinner at which
the president and our Prime Minister will discuss a whole range
of issues of concern to our two countries, domestic, hemispheric
and international. I am sure that the lumber issue will be among
the many important topics to be discussed, although it will be up
to the president and the Prime Minister as to exactly what they
will discuss and how much time they are going to take.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I hope that is true, and we sincerely
support the Prime Minister in his efforts to speak for Canada. We
say with sincerity that we hope it goes well.
Let me quote the industry minister, “The renewal of the
existing agreement will be part of the mix when we sit down at
the table”. That is 100% contrary to the position of industry
and labour and it is 100% contrary to the international trade
minister's position. Which minister's position will the Prime
Minister be representing today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to reply in the spirit of his question, I hope what he
said in his question is true. This is a reflection on how we
characterize my answer.
Canada will work actively to protect the interests of all the
stakeholders in this important matter. The government will be
speaking and is speaking with one voice in its commitment to
all the stakeholders in this key Canadian industry.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I also hope it is true because it is
the position in the statement of one of his ministers. I would
think that it would be true. I am surprised to hear him
contradict or question one of his ministers. However, I will ask
further.
Softwood lumber is one of the major trade issues and it was
recently confirmed at the hearings with the U.S. trade
representative. Both the trade representative and President
Bush are under enormous pressure to impose countervail duties
against Canada when this agreement expires.
Which of the ministers has the responsibility of telling us
today the specific steps in place now to deal with countervail
measures, or does anyone care?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not questioning any of my colleagues, I was
questioning the Leader of the Opposition. I think I should do
so again for the mistaken premise of his question.
There is no threat or action on countervail against Canada on
this matter. He is well ahead of himself on this subject. We are
going to have useful and constructive discussions.
Canada will be speaking with one strong voice on behalf of all
the stakeholders and all Canadians on this very important matter.
1420
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have great concerns when I hear the Deputy Prime
Minister say there is no threat. I do not know what he has been
listening to, but if it has been the U.S. Senate, this was one of
the number one issues at the confirmation hearings of Robert
Zoellick. I do not know where he has been. He says that Canada
is speaking with one voice. If he had read the papers last
week, I do not know how many different voices there were but
they were coming from his cabinet.
This is a very important issue to every single Canadian.
Thousands and thousands of jobs are at stake. The industry wants
to know the Government of Canada's position. Canadians want to
have some confidence but they are getting mixed messages from the
industry minister and the international trade minister. What is
their position?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada's position is that Canadian
lumber interests produce a quality product, pay fair stumpage and
should have free and clear access to the U.S. market. If the
member has a different position, we would like to hear it.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I could quote the hon. member because in fact his
position was 100% contrary to that last week.
The forest industry across Canada is united in wanting free and
unfettered access to U.S. markets. Is the government prepared to
assure that it will stand up for all Canadians and will not
settle for anything short of free trade on lumber with our
friends to the south?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, at no time last week did I take any position other than
that the Government of Canada believes that Canadian lumber exporters
produce a quality product, that we pay fair stumpage and that we
should have free and clear access to the U.S. markets. That is
in fact what I said all week, what the Minister of International
Trade has said and, I am sure, what the Prime Minister will be
saying in his discussions with the U.S. president.
We happen to believe in this industry. We will work hard for
this industry. We want to see this industry succeed based on
quality, competitive pricing and a market where we think we have
an advantage.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, access
to employment insurance is constantly deteriorating, to the
extent that only four out of ten unemployed people have access
to it.
The situation is all the more serious when one realizes that
there are billions of dollars of surplus in the fund and the
bill introduced last week does nothing to improve the plan's
accessibility.
Does the minister agree that her bill includes all measures
necessary for getting her hands on the surplus, but nothing,
absolutely nothing, for responding to the underlying problem,
which is access to the plan?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we did consult Canadians on the
need for change in the employment insurance bill. We coupled that
with our own research. We believe that we have presented a
balanced package that speaks to the concerns and the needs of
Canadians.
I am sure, as the bill makes its way through the process here in
the House and in the Senate, that the hon. member and his party
will participate fully in the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has most certainly not consulted the young people who
are leaving the regions because they cannot accumulate the 910
hours they need to be eligible. Only one in four young workers
can qualify, even though all four pay into it.
Can the minister explain to us just how the few changes proposed
in her bill are going to do anything at all to improve the
situation for young workers?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from our point of view, the best way to
help youth is to ensure that they stay in school and get an
education to build a strong career.
The hon. member might be interested to note that youth
have enjoyed the most significant job growth since 1990. Their
employment rate today is 12.5%. In 1999 about 80,000 full time
jobs were created.
From our point of view, benefits are only one piece of the
puzzle. Getting a job is the most important.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his ministers made
commitments during the last election campaign to major changes
to employment insurance, in order to remedy their past errors.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that
she is back again with the same bill, which gives the unemployed
only 8% of the $6 billion annual surplus?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we promised to the Canadian public
was that should we be elected we would reintroduce these
amendments as quickly upon our return as possible. The bill was
introduced on Friday. The debate continues today.
Canadians had the opportunity to look at those amendments. What
did they do? They returned a Liberal government in greater
numbers to this place.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the bottom line, is the government going to
acknowledge that the only purpose of this legislation is to
legalize, without improving access to the program, the
misdirection of the surplus in the employment insurance fund
into the pockets of the government?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the Employment
Insurance Act is comprehensive and speaks to Canadians in the
best possible way.
From our point of view, we did consult Canadians. It was called
an election, and the results are clear today.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question for the government has to do with what the Prime
Minister might be saying to President Bush when they have their
meeting this evening.
President Bush is in favour of a continental energy policy. The
Liberals have gone some way down that road, considerably so, by
signing on to NAFTA. My question is: How deep is the Liberal
desire to mimic the policies of Brian Mulroney?
The Minister of Industry has already apologized to the former
prime minister. I want to know if that is a sign of things to
come. Has the Prime Minister gone down there to agree to a
continental energy policy or will he be standing up for a made in
Canada energy policy, insofar as that is possible within the
NAFTA?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know who my hon. colleague is trying to mimic
but I do not think his question is getting anywhere.
The purpose of the meeting between our Prime Minister and the
new U.S. president is not to reach deals. It is a “getting to
know you” type of meeting. It is a meeting to exchange ideas on
a whole range of subjects. I am sure our Prime Minister will
speak strongly on behalf of Canada's interests, whether it is
with regard to energy or any other subject.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one would think that on the first date the Prime
Minister could at least indicate what might be permissible
behaviour with respect to energy.
While we are talking about energy and given the continuing
controversy about the fuel rebate, does the Minister of Finance
have any intention of reviewing this program in order to address
some of the inadequacies, particularly with respect to those
people who need help but who are not getting it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member asked a question on this last week and a
number of members in our own caucus have raised this matter with
me.
We stated at the time that because we wanted to get the cheques
into the hands of people as quickly as possible that there would
be flaws in the process, that there were anomalies and that we
have asked our officials to look at them.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it has come to my attention that HRDC has admitted to
interrogating 34 witnesses in an effort to gather evidence in a
Revenue Canada-DFO-EI shakedown of seasonal workers.
Will the minister explain why her departmental officials are
engaged in these heavy-handed tactics? Incidentally, the workers
are not given the benefit of legal counsel.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the hon. member
in his new role as critic to the files in my department. If he
would like to share the details of that with me, I would be glad
to look into it further.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this morning in the House and later on today we will
continue to debate Bill C-2, the reforms to the EI system.
The minister's officials, who were here this morning, know full
well the issue. It is hard to believe that they have not
informed the minister at this point of some of the infractions
going on in the fishery community where seasonal workers, the
disenfranchised, are being abused by her officials.
Will the minister act and act quickly on the abusive behaviour
by her officials?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such undertakings in my
department. Again I would ask the hon. member that if he wishes
to bring that information forward I would be glad to look into
it.
* * *
1430
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada community investment plan was a red book
commitment to improve access to venture capital in remote
communities. A $600,000 grant went to guess where? It was
Shawinigan, after it was named “the most eligible community in
Canada”. However that screening panel included several good
Liberals who said “the panel was sensitive to regional and other
political considerations”.
Why money was funnelled to supporters of the Prime Minister in
Shawinigan, two of whom are now charged with embezzling in two
other cases?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has given me absolutely no notice of the
question. In any case, the notice she has served to the whole
House is that she is not interested in information. She is
interested in making accusations and allegations.
If the member has something substantive to put on the floor of
the House and to me as Minister of Industry, I would be glad to
give substantive answers. I think these questions are mere
allegations, more of the same, and more of the same answers.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I believe more of the same answers. That is for
sure.
Out of the 24 communities applying for this investment money
from the Canada community investment plan, Shawinigan was rated
number one by a screening panel that included two failed Liberal
candidates in Quebec and a prominent Liberal from Saskatchewan.
Surely that one is not a surprise to him. Surely he is up to
speed on his department.
Is that what the red book really meant, that the government
would manipulate departmental programs to funnel money into
Shawinigan?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unless and until the member gives me some notice of the
question and allows me to look into the matter properly, I cannot
give her a more detailed response.
The only information or knowledge I have about funnelling of
money is the member making an investment in her pension plan.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
part of its family policy, the Quebec government is about to
establish its own parental leave program, which will be much
more comprehensive and will include all new parents.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Will the federal government finally see the light and negotiate
with Quebec, so that the federal funds available for parental
leave can be added to those of the Quebec program, as provided
under section 69 of the act, this in the best interests of young
parents in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government realizes that workplace
family challenges can be dealt with through appropriate
legislation. One of those is recognizing that a great percentage
of families are two working families.
We are very proud to have been able to double parental leave for
all Canadians, including Canadians living in Quebec, within the
very short period of time of one year. The program is now in
place and all Canadians are eligible to benefit from it.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development does not understand
the real issue. Her attitude is detrimental to young parents in
Quebec.
Is there anyone in this government who can tell me if he or she
realizes what is meant by a true parental benefits program for
all parents without exception?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the government
understands the challenges that young families face while they
work to try to ensure that they are self-sufficient and caring
for their children.
We have taken dramatic action by doubling parental benefits for
all Canadians. As we said earlier, if the province of Quebec
wishes to do more, we encourage it to do so.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry says he needs more information
on the particular subject so let me tell him a little.
In order to qualify for the Canada community investment program,
one-third of the money must come from the private sector. That
was not so in the case of A-R-C of Shawinigan that qualified for
a $600,000 grant.
In fact, an audit last April revealed that one-third of the
private sector contribution actually came from the LaPrade fund,
another federally funded agency.
Industry Canada's contribution was found to be a 99%
overpayment. How much money did Industry Canada put into this
and how much has been recovered?
1435
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for the specific question, more
specific information versus the allegations we heard earlier.
As I understand it, there is now an agreement to recover all the
funds in question.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is very good news. I am glad the minister found
his briefing on it.
It begs the question how did this happen. In 1998 the
Canada Economic Development Agency for the regions of Quebec
wrote the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier,
notifying him that the federal controls over the LaPrade fund in
Shawinigan were being relaxed. Shortly after, A-R-C of
Shawinigan used LaPrade's money improperly to leverage a $600,000
grant from Industry Canada.
What levers did the Prime Minister pull to get the grant in his
riding just prior to the 1997 election? What was the role of the
Prime Minister in his part of the leverage of this grant?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say again that what we are seeing is a series
of questions that are not designed to elicit information. They
are designed to be part of a continuing program of allegation by
members of the Alliance.
This kind of smear was attempted during the last election
campaign. This kind of smear was judged during the last election
campaign. It did not work then. It will not work now. I would
suggest members get on the real issues that are of concern to
real Canadians, not just smear tactics in the House of Commons.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a report by experts on the approval of GMOs,
commissioned by the government and presented today, sounds an
alarm on, and I quote: “the conflict of interest created by
giving to regulatory agencies the mandates both to promote the
development of agricultural biotechnologies and to regulate it”.
Is the minister aware that the Canadian food inspection system
lost all credibility with the presentation of this report and
that it is putting the health of the people of Quebec and Canada
at risk?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first
and foremost, I would like to thank the Royal Society of Canada
for this important report. I note that it raised no concerns
about genetically modified foods already on the market.
Naturally, the safety of our food and of the public is of the
highest priority for this government. We will examine this
report carefully in the process intended to strengthen the
system.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will quote from this report:
The precaution principle the government adheres to must be
better applied...new technologies should not be presumed safe
unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them
safe.
Could the minister tell this House whether he intends now to
apply this principle and confirm that no product will be
authorized until the government is satisfied it represents no
danger to the health of consumers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, public
safety must remain the top priority of all the ministers of the
government.
Last year, we spent $90 million on consolidating the food
regulatory system. My colleagues and I will study the report
closely. I hope to have the opportunity to meet some of the
members of the panel of experts. We will continue to protect
public safety.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 the Liberals promised to overhaul the Young
Offenders Act and did nothing. Upon retaining power in 1997, the
minister said that youth justice was her top priority, and again
nothing. Now we hear her in 2001, and as usual the media was
informed before parliament.
We anticipate that the minister will introduce legislation
today. Does she intend to merely rehash her previous attempt or
will she get it right this time?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we
consulted widely with interested Canadians, with provincial and
territorial governments, and in fact with all those interested in
this subject in the opposition.
1440
When the hon. member sees our new youth justice legislation this
afternoon, I hope he will be able to support it as the vast
majority of Canadians do.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, will the Minister of Justice admit that her youth
criminal justice act in the last parliament was a fatally flawed
piece of legislation from its inception? It tried to be all
things to all people and wound up a hopelessly complicated
failure.
Will her next attempt truly reflect the wishes of most citizens?
Will she lower the age of application from 18 to 16? Will she
guarantee that all killers and rapists go to the adult system, or
will she just ignore Canadians once again?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our youth justice legislation
is based on three fundamental values of paramount importance to
Canadians. Those values are: first, that one prevents crime
before it happens; we do not need more victims; second, that when
crime happens there are meaningful consequences for those who
hurt others; and, third, a strong commitment to rehabilitation
and reintegration of young offenders back into the society and
communities from which they came.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. As of today 71
countries have signed the United Nations biosafety protocol
emanating from the convention on biological diversity, but not
Canada.
Could the minister indicate to the House whether Canada will
sign the protocol on biosafety before the deadline of June 2001?
Mrs. Karen Redman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the
Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is committed to the
aims of the Cartagena protocol which sets international framework
for the protection of biodiversity and biosafety. It is a
complex and demanding instrument.
Currently affected Canadians, provincial and territorial
governments, as well as industry, are being consulted. The
minister recognizes the significance of the signing on June 4 and
will be taking these consultations under consideration and
meeting with his caucus colleagues.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Health on the
issue of GM foods and a study released today by the Royal Society
of Canada.
I hope the minister will reread the report because it is a
scathing condemnation of the practices of the government on the
question of food safety. The report says that Canadians do not
know if genetically modified foods are safe because the process
of approvals by the government is so flawed and problematic.
Given the concerns identified, will the minister at least do
what we in the House and Canadians have been asking for many
months and put in place a process of mandatory labelling of all
genetically modified food so at least Canadians will know what
they are eating?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me repeat how grateful we are to the Royal Society of Canada
for its very complete report that was received today. Let us
remember that the government, the ministers of the environment
and agriculture and I as Minister of Health asked the royal
society to undertake this work.
Canadians have the safest food system in the world. We want to
keep it that way and we want to make it even better. I am happy
to see that the royal society raised no question about the safety
of GM foods already on the market. I am happy to see that it has
added to many of the recommendations made in other countries.
We will be looking carefully at the recommendations. We have
set aside $90 million to strengthen the regulatory system. We
will look closely at this report as we do that work.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the report calls for government action, not just more
fuzzy words from the Minister of Health. The report actually
says that the government approval process seriously compromises
the confidence society can have in knowing whether or not
genetically modified foods are safe.
Will the Minister of Health do a couple of things that Canadians
want and deserve? Will he put in place a process of mandatory
labelling of genetically modified foods, and will he put a
moratorium on the approval process for any new genetically
modified foods until this mess is sorted through?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I hope the hon. member and her colleagues want the government to
do the responsible thing, which is to go out to a body of experts
at arm's length, independent of government, show them what we are
doing and ask them if they have any recommendations on how it can
be done better. That is exactly what the government did.
1445
We have now received the report, and I am here to tell the House
that as my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
the Minister of the Environment and I set about making our system
better, we will carefully take this report into account. I look
forward to an opportunity to meet with representatives of this
special expert panel.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Departmental officials at foreign affairs were highly criticized
about the recent letter of apology to Russia. When Canada
apologizes to a country like Russia, does it not require the
approval of a minister, or can just anybody apologize? Did the
minister approve this apology specifically?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our primary concern is the
safety of Canadians. As soon as the Minister of Foreign Affairs
returns from Washington, the deputy minister will be making a
full report to him on the circumstances leading up to the tragic
events of January 27 of this year, including recommendations and
positions in principle.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, surely the minister does not need a briefing on whether
or not he authorized a letter. Who authorizes letters of apology
on behalf of the Canadian government?
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I just said.
The deputy minister has been asked to look into the matter and
make a report, and as soon as the minister returns from
Washington, he will receive that report so that we can begin
implementing its recommendations.
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government House leader is responsible for
negotiating the work of the House of Commons, including things
like parliamentary budgets, standing committees and the day to
day business in the House.
The House leader of the fifth party claims that our budgets may
be affected by questions we ask in the House. He claims that the
government House leader has said “If you lay off the Prime
Minister, I could make things a little easier for you”. In all
the years I have worked with the government House leader I have
never ever heard him use language like that in my presence.
Could the government House leader confirm if he did or did not
say the words that were attributed to him? Will he confirm that
questions in the House do not affect resources to members of
parliament?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think those who know me know
that I do not usually operate in a manner that could be
considered threatening. I do not work that way. Actually I do
not think if I did it would be very successful.
In terms of benefits afforded to members, since the last
election there have been improvements in our constituency office
budgets and other initiatives like that. I am also pleased to
announce that in the throne speech there was a commitment from
our government to increasing research budgets.
To the extent that I can work together with my colleagues to
increase other benefits to members, I will always do so because I
think members around here work very hard and are deserving of
services so they can do their job better.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in talking about the Liberals, the leader of the fifth
party went on to say that they are extremely nervous about this
and they are doing everything they can to stop the legitimate
questions and facts being known.
The House leader of the fifth party claims that the government
House leader said “If you lay off the Prime Minister, I could
make things a little easier for you”.
I have never heard the House leader say anything like that ever
in my presence. Could he confirm whether he did or did not use
these words in the House of Commons? Will he confirm that
questions in the House of Commons do not affect resources
allocated to members of parliament?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I were to conclude that
questions in the House affected budgets in a negative way, I am
almost tempted to say that the research budgets would have
literally disappeared for many people across the way. Obviously
such is not the case.
I can confirm to the entire House that it is my intention, as it
has always been, not to be threatening toward other House leaders
and to continue to operate in a manner that obtains as many as
possible benefits to which we are entitled for all our colleagues
to do the good job we are called upon to do.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the last session of the last parliament, all parties voted in
favour of the shipbuilding bill I introduced. Everyone admits
that the Bloc Quebecois bill was the solution. Even the present
Minister of Industry, when he was Premier of Newfoundland,
agreed.
Will the minister undertake to speedily introduce a bill to give
this country a real shipbuilding policy?
1450
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would certainly be happy to recognize that the member
opposite has been talking about shipbuilding. With other
colleagues on all sides of the House he has been trying to raise
the issue of the state of shipbuilding in Canada. I congratulate
him in that regard.
However to say that I endorsed at any time, in any role I have
ever had, the bill that he put before the House is more than he
or I can say because I have never been part of the study of that
bill although I know members on all sides have studied it.
With respect to his specific question he asked it a few days ago
last week. At that time I told him I was awaiting the report of
the task force which would in the middle of February.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister perhaps did not have enough time. I repeat my
question: Does the minister intend, in the near future, to
introduce his own shipbuilding bill?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to do what the government undertook to do,
which is to name a task force and await for its report before we
decide what we will do. It is the way we operate over here.
* * *
PARKS CANADA
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is open season in Canada's
national parks. Three separate reports recommended the issuing
of side arms to park wardens engaged in law enforcement duties.
Now HRDC has issued a stop work order for their law enforcement
duties.
Why has the Canadian heritage minister waited for this crisis to
develop in our national parks when her department knew this
ruling was imminent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke on her arrival in the House and her
first question.
I assure her that the first priority of the government is
ensuring the safety of all parks employees and all parks
visitors. That is why we have acted very quickly on the
directive to make sure that the RCMP assumes all peace officer
duties in the parks.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister chooses to ignore the
fact that national park wildlife has been put at risk by her lack
of action.
Why is the minister refusing to take responsibility for her
indecision?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the labour board direction came out last week. I
immediately directed the chief executive officer of Parks Canada
to ensure that all peace officer duties be carried out by the
RCMP.
That is exactly what he has done, because first and foremost
safety is the important issue in parks: safety for the warden,
safety for the employees and safety for the public. The RCMP is
in a position to deliver that safety.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL AID
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of a recent earthquake in
India hundreds of thousands of families are homeless or have lost
family members, leaving many children orphans.
What does the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship propose to
assist families and orphans of this tragedy?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in
doing what he can and what we can in assisting the families of
those who are grieving loss and worry for their relatives in
Gujarat province in India.
We are expediting all visa processing from the earthquake zone.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada is giving priority processing
to all family class, visitor and assisted relative applications.
Immigration officers are being encouraged to use broad discretion
in processing applications and a Canadian immigration team will
visit—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we are all puzzled and concerned about the mysterious
case of a Canadian, William Sampson, who was arrested last
December and has now apparently confessed on Saudi TV to a
bombing that resulted in one death and numerous injuries. Under
Saudi law that confession could mean the death sentence.
Could the government assure us that this confession was freely
given and that this Canadian citizen's full legal and human
rights are being monitored and protected by our officials in
Saudi Arabia?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Canadian embassy in
Riyadh followed up with Saudi Arabian authorities immediately
following the detention of Mr. Sampson in mid-December.
1455
The Canadian ambassador to Saudi Arabia is supposed to meet Mr.
Sampson in the coming week. We have pressed the Saudi
authorities, both here and in Riyadh, the need to respect
international norms in terms of consular access and the treatment
of detainees.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. I
would like to follow up on the recent case involving the drunken
Russian diplomat who took the life of an Ottawa woman and injured
another.
Nine days have now gone by since that incident. Could the
government explain why as of today no charges have been laid in
Russia against this diplomat? Why has the Prime Minister not
directly phoned Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, to
impress upon him the need to prosecute this case to the fullest
extent of Russian law?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has taken action under our mutual legal
assistance treaty with the Russian federation.
All the documents have been transmitted to the Russian legal
authorities. I am confident our embassy is pressing the
authorities to take the appropriate action under the treaty and
in light of the documents.
* * *
[Translation]
WATER QUALITY
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, federal
government de-icing operations at the Sept-Îles airport have
seriously contaminated the water supply of the residents of the
des beaches area. Since its responsibility has been clearly
established, the Minister of Transport has come up with nothing
better than to supply my fellow citizens with bottled water.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the bottled
water solution is only a temporary one, what is the minister
waiting for before he remedies the problem his department is
responsible for by constructing a new drinking water system for
this sector of Sept-Îles?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I answered that question last week.
I said that the permanent solutions proposed by Transport Canada
are safe and appropriate. I spoke of four solutions: an ion
exchange treatment device, a reverse osmosis treatment device,
bottled water delivery and the payment of a sum for the purchase
of bottled water.
Two residents of the region are using one of these solutions and
we are discussing them with the others.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
other members have noted, the Royal Society of Canada released an
important report on genetically modified foods today and the
minister has identified some of the issues that it has raised.
Specifically with regard to scientific capacity, could the
minister assure the House that Canada's scientific capacity is
sufficient to deal with the increasing complexity of regulating
this ministry into the future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Burlington raises an important point. In fact one
of the reasons the ministers of the environment, agriculture and
health appointed an arm's length panel to look at the whole
question of regulating GM foods is to know how the government
could equip itself with the scientific capacity to handle the
volume of requests we will receive in the years ahead.
This report gives us some important guidance on how the
regulations should be carried out and puts us in a position to
know what scientific capacity to put in place. It is one of the
reasons we are so grateful to the Royal Society of Canada for its
work.
* * *
NATIONAL PARKS
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, further to the heritage minister's
response that the RCMP will pick up the slack in our parks, how
many more RCMP officers have been trained and outfitted for their
extra workload?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously Parks Canada has had an historic agreement
with the RCMP for a number of years. What we will be doing over
the next number of weeks is assessing the need for specific
requirements as they relate to the duties of a peace officer
being carried out by the RCMP.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1500
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(3) of the
Employment Insurance Act, I am pleased to table, in both official
languages, two copies of the annual employment insurance
monitoring and assessment report for the year 2000.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WATERS TREATY ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, an act to amend the
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act
in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and
repeal other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CLEAN INTERNET ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-210, an act to
prevent the use of the Internet to distribute material that
advocates, promotes or incites racial hatred, violence against
women or child pornography.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take over
the bill that was first introduced in the House by my hon.
colleague, the former member of parliament for Halifax West, Mr.
Gordon Earle, himself being an African-Canadian.
1505
The purpose of the bill is to protect those citizens in the
country who are vulnerable to attacks through the use of the
Internet. We are hoping that, with the co-operation of all
parties and once the bill has been carefully studied, it will be
enacted into law in the very near future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an act to
amend the Income Tax Act (herbal remedies).
He said: Mr. Speaker, again I bring sweeping legislation to the
House of Commons in the fact that as we become an aging
generation, millions of Canadians are looking for alternatives to
cure their many ailments.
One of those alternatives could be a herbal alternative. Quite
simply, the bill states that if a licensed physician prescribes
to an individual a herbal alternative in lieu of a prescription
drug, the individual should then be able to claim that herbal
alternative as a medical expense.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to
prevent the use of the Internet to distribute pornographic
material involving children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing a bill that I
introduced two years ago in the House. As a father of two young
children, it is extremely imperative that we as legislators in the
House of Commons do everything we can to protect our most
valuable resource, our children.
Through the inadequacies of the Internet and the danger that it
poses for our children, I believe that once the bill is carefully
reviewed by all political parties, it will sweep into legislation
and protect our most valuable resource, our children.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-213, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate you on your position as Speaker of the House.
This bill is one that I am following up on for the hon. member
from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. It would lower the
voting age to 16. I think Canadians were greatly surprised that
our voter turnout in the last federal election was at probably an
all time low. We have a very apathetic group of Canadians with
regard to the electoral system. People just do not have faith in
the democratic system any more.
This is an opportunity for young people who are still in school
and still learning about our electoral and parliamentary systems
throughout the country to be active participants in the electoral
system. We often hear colleagues suggesting that 16 year olds,
even 10 year olds sometimes, should be treated as adults through
the adult court system. Certainly if anyone can suggest that
young people be treated as adults through the adult court system,
then young people should be given the opportunity to vote in
federal elections. This is the time for it and Canada needs to
address the issue.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to establish the
Holocaust Memorial Day.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce this bill
and to place again before the House the idea of an act to
establish the Holocaust memorial day.
Many of us in the House have been touched in different ways by
the horrors of the Holocaust. When I first introduced the bill
in the House last spring, I had just returned from a pilgrimage
marking the 55th anniversary of the liberation of Holland and a
visit to Camp Westerbork, where the Dutch Jewish population was
sent en route to the death camps.
In total, 6 million Jewish men, women and children perished as a
result of a deliberate and planned state sponsored persecution
and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their
collaborators between 1933 and 1945.
1510
The bill proposes to establish a national annual Holocaust
memorial day to be called Yom ha-Shoah. I urge all members to
consider the importance of this initiative, which will ensure
that a sorry chapter in the history of the world is never allowed
to repeat itself.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
AERONAUTICS ACT
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-215, an act to amend the Aeronautics
Act (automatic defibrillators).
She said: Mr. Speaker, as you know, when a person suffers
cardiac arrest, time is of the essence. The bill ensures that
commercial passenger services in Canada with flights over one
hour carry automated external defibrillators, providing
passengers and crew with life saving technology. This would
place in law a practice that many airlines in the world,
including American Airlines, Qantas, British Airways and Canada
3000, are already following.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an act to amend the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (prevention of private
hospitals).
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reintroduce a bill
that I had placed before the House last spring in light of a growing
concern around privatization of our health care system. The bill
is in response to that critical situation and in particular to
the threats posed to universal public health care by Alberta's
bill 11.
The specific purpose of the bill is to control the entry of
private for profit hospitals into our public system. It amends
the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide that
provinces be financially penalized if they allow public funds to
be used for the provision of insured services in private for
profit hospitals.
The bill ensures that the principles of medicare and the spirit
of the Canada Health Act are absolutely and unequivocally
reflected in the letter of the law.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an act to provide for the
taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons
administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to
amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reintroduce a bill
that I had introduced in the last parliament. The bill would
allow judges to order a blood sample to be taken when the judge
believes that there is a strong case for either hepatitis C or
HIV infection to a good Samaritan, a frontline emergency worker
or someone who is helping those people do their jobs.
In the last parliament the bill passed unanimously through the
House on second reading and was sent to committee. Unfortunately,
the election got in the way and it died on the order paper. I do
hope that members will again support the bill wholeheartedly. I
have over 70 national and provincial organizations behind the
bill. I do hope all members of the House of Commons will be
able to support it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-218, an act
to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to reintroduce the bill that I
call the MP floor-crossing bill. Basically it tells all
Canadians that in order for us to reform parliament, we have to
first reform ourselves. The intent of the bill is to state quite
clearly that a member of a sitting party cannot cross the floor
and join another political party during his or her term of
office.
1515
When members have a falling out they must quit, run in a
byelection where they can be nominated by a new party, and allow
the people of their constituencies to decide their political
fate. That is probably one of the finest pieces of legislation
ever to hit the floor of the House of Commons.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an act to
amend the Employment Insurance Act (persons who leave employment
to be care-givers to family members).
He said: Mr. Speaker, my last bill for the day basically states
that any person who gives care to an infirmed relative or a
relative in palliative care should be able to collect employment
insurance and have job protection while caring for the individual
at home.
The bill would allow those with serious illnesses or under
palliative care to avoid becoming institutionalized. It would
allow them to stay at home for the remainder of their lives and
to die with some sense of dignity.
It addresses financial concerns and would give remuneration to
thousands of caregivers throughout Canada while they care for
their loved ones at home and prevent their institutionalization.
In addition, it would save millions of dollars in our health care
system.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
FUEL PRICE POSTING ACT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-220, an act respecting the posting of fuel
prices by retailers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under this bill, when a fuel retailer
causes a poster, label or sign to be posted indicating the
selling price for a fuel, the price must be indicated without
regard to any taxes imposed on the consumer under an act of
parliament or an act of the legislature of a province.
Presently in Canada oil companies are afraid to show what the
price of one litre of oil is before taxes. It will have to be on
the bill, but the price of a litre of oil before taxes will also
have to be posted. The oil companies are afraid to do so.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-221, an act to amend the Transfer of Offenders
Act (removal of foreign offenders).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my private
member's bill that would seek to make amendments to the Transfer
of Offenders Act.
The bill was developed in conjunction with amendments to the
Immigration Act. Its goal is to facilitate the deportation of
non-Canadians convicted of crimes. The bill would assist the
crown in its removal of such criminals.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-222, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act (deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools
required in employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to permit
mechanics to deduct the cost of providing tools for their
employment.
For the benefit of my colleagues, I should point out that during
the previous parliament, this bill passed second reading,
members supported it by a vote of 180 against only 11. So, my
purpose today is to ensure that this bill is deemed adopted
immediately, if possible.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1520
[English]
PETITIONS
BREAST CANCER
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 36 it is my pleasure to
present to the House a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions and signed by numerous Canadians.
Whereas Canada has the second highest incident rate of breast
cancer in the world, the petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation to establish an independent governing body to
develop, implement and enforce uniform mandatory mammography
quality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 36 it is my pleasure to
present to the House a petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions and signed by numerous Canadians.
The petitioners condemn the Government of Canada's participation
in the Yugoslavian war which they feel is against international
law.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your
selection as Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to introduce a petition from 440
concerned residents of Alberta. These petitioners speak in
unison as they express concern for the firearms bill, Bill C-68.
They ask parliament to refute Bill C-68 and to redirect those
millions of wasted dollars into reducing crime and adding more
police on the street. A great number of Canadians agree with
these petitioners.
* * *
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.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an
act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment
Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the
floor since your election as Speaker. I join my colleagues in
congratulating you. As was reported in the papers, you are the
finest selection of Speaker in the last quarter century. We look
forward to working with you over the next few years.
The government had an opportunity to change employment insurance
into a true insurance plan. As it stands today, the government
is taking $10 billion out of the pockets of employers and
employees. We feel this is nothing more than a tax.
The government should be trying to strike a balance on this
sensitive issue. Certainly it must be able to reduce the amount
of moneys that employers and employees pay so that there will be
enough money for those who are unemployed through no fault of
their own.
When the government takes excess money from employers and
employees, that is a tax. It prevents businesses from having the
money to train their people, invest in their companies and be
competitive. That excess tax acts as a lodestone around the neck
of a company, preventing it from being competitive
internationally. It is at a disadvantages because it pays more
out of its pockets as time passes.
This does nothing to help those who are most vulnerable in
society. It does nothing for those who are making the least
amount in society. It also panders to a level of mediocrity that
my party and our country are fed up with catering to.
1525
Let us talk about what can be as opposed to what is. Canada can
have a more competitive environment which lets the private sector
employ more people, have money to invest in its own companies and
have the infrastructure needed to compete not only domestically
but internationally.
These moneys should be invested in education. They should be
applied to the debt. They should be used to lower taxes and
ensure that companies and employees have the skills to be
competitive in a global environment.
We live in a very complex and changing world, one which is more
globalized and more interconnected. What happens half a world
away impacts upon our employers and employees.
We also have a changing demographic in our society that no one
is talking about. The population over the age of 65 is set to
double in the next 20 years.
Do we ever hear from members on the other side of the House what
they will do about that? Do they ever talk about what will
happen to old age security, guaranteed income supplements, GIS?
Do we ever hear about what that will do to CPP? Do we ever hear
about what that will do to the changing age of our working
population?
No, we do not. It is absolutely imperative, however, that we
implement changes today so that our workforce will be able to
provide for the social programs we have come to enjoy.
When our demographic changes as more and more people retire, our
tax base will shrink unless we make effective changes in all the
areas I have mentioned. Only then can we become competitive and
have money through our tax base for a good health care system,
for OAS and GIS plans and a CPP that works.
All those things must be dealt with proactively, not reactively.
That is why many organizations do not support this bill. Ones we
might have expected to support it, such as the Canadian Labour
Congress, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and
others, do not. The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices
Association does not support the bill. Organizations in the
maritimes, many of which rely on seasonal employment, do not
support it.
Why? It is because the bill does very little to address the
concerns of people. It also does little for places that are
underdeveloped and could have more, such as the maritimes or
indeed my province of B.C. which has had the lowest growth of any
province during most of the last seven years.
The government should have taken a cold, hard, pragmatic look at
the EI plan, grounded it in true insurance principles and
decreased the amount of money paid out of the pockets of
employers and employees. It also must work with the provinces to
reduce the rules and regulations that choke off the private
sector. It needs to work with the provinces so we can have a good
education system that invests in people and lets the private
sector invest in its employees.
We also have to look at reducing other taxes because they are
hamstringing the ability of private sector employers to be
competitive, to hire people and to provide the most important
social program of all, a job.
It is incumbent upon the government to listen well and act
responsibly. If it does that and listens to members from across
party lines, we can build a true and effective EI program on true
insurance principles that can be sustained into the future.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I admire greatly the member from
Vancouver Island who just spoke, but I have a couple of concerns.
The member from Mississauga finally did admit on behalf of the
Liberal Party that EI funds were used for other purposes. That
is simply unacceptable.
I want to give the member from Vancouver Island one opportunity
and one opportunity only to apologize to Atlantic Canadians for
the disparaging remarks made by John Mykytyshyn, and by a certain
leader of his party who indicated in Acadie—Bathurst that better
EI was needed but who immediately upon leaving New Brunswick
changed his mind.
He should also apologize for comments the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill made before the last election. They were
disparaging remarks against the EI system and workers in Atlantic
Canada.
I will give the member the opportunity, being the honourable
person that he is, to once and for all apologize to Atlantic
Canadians for remarks made by the Canadian Alliance Party over
the last few months.
1530
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member's question
draws attention to a very important issue. There is not a single
member of the House who does not want to see every Canadian fully
employed. There is not a single member of the House who does not
want to see the future of the country be the best it can become.
My friend from Nova Scotia who asked the question wants exactly
the same as we in this party want. We have spoken at length about
what we want: a future in the maritimes that is better than what
it has been over the last 10 to 20 years. We do not want in any
way, shape or form the same level of mediocrity the government
has offered to the people of the east coast.
We have drawn attention to the example of Ireland. We have said
that the east coast can look at Ireland. By reducing taxes, by
eliminating egregious rules and regulations, and by working with
the federal government to reduce interprovincial trade barriers
the east coast could become an economic tiger in Canada. There
is no reason it cannot.
There are many areas and economic niches that the east coast can
maximize. Furthermore, it can maximize north-south trade. I
know the member has worked hard in this area and knows that there
is an enormous market companies on the east coast can maximize.
Why do we accept that people on the east coast want seasonal
work? They do not want seasonal work. They want full time work
and they want to make a lot of money. They also want to take
care of those people who cannot take care of themselves. That is
a Canadian sentiment. That is what we stand for as Canadians and
that is what we will strive for.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, except for today's question period, this is really the
first opportunity I have had to rise in the House in this 37th
parliament.
First, I want to thank the constituents of
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis for their tremendous support during
the last federal election. I am proud of the confidence they
have shown me and I can assure them that I will continue to make
their interests my first and foremost priority.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend my congratulations on
your election as Speaker of the House. I was very impressed by
all the comments I have read about you in the papers. Best of
luck in your new duties.
Let us now turn to today's debate. Last Friday, February 2, the
government introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment
Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing)
Regulations.
Those of us who have followed the recent election campaign of
the Liberals, mainly in the maritimes, the lower St. Lawrence,
the Gaspésie area, the North Shore and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
expected the government to show a little more respect for the
people and not to have so much amnesia.
If that had been the case, the government would have introduced
a very different bill from the one now before the House. When I
saw the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, I told him “Now we
will look for results. We have kept abreast of the promises you
made”. He answered“ Do not worry, we will keep our promises”.
1535
We are off to a really bad start. The bill we have before us
for study is, unfortunately, identical, but for a few commas
here and there, to one introduced just before the House was
prorogued, Bill C-44.
I would like to make some things perfectly clear concerning Bill
C-44. Just before the last general election was called, the
Liberal government wanted to head off to the hustings with the
advantage of Bill, C-44, which brought in a few changes to the
conditions for eligibility for employment insurance.
It therefore sought the unanimous support of all House leaders
in place at that time to help accelerate the process of getting
Bill C-44 passed.
All opposition parties refused to give this consent to the
leader of the government. The Canadian Alliance had its reasons
and the Bloc Quebecois had its own, as did all parties in
opposition.
We were mainly opposed to the outright theft of the surplus in
the employment insurance fund. We had the support of Action
Chômage and various lobby groups in the province of Quebec. They
were not prepared to trade a few meagre improvements for the
theft of billions from the fund's surplus. We therefore opposed
rapid passage of the bill.
When the government says that the Bloc Quebecois voted against
the bill, it is engaging in misinformation, disinformation and
even demagoguery, since a vote on this bill was never held in
the House. It is true that the Bloc Quebecois refused to be an
accomplice to the theft of the employment insurance fund,
because we learned at a very early age that he who holds the
loot bag is just as guilty as the one who fills it. So, we
refused to be the accomplices of this government by agreeing to
quickly pass this legislation.
Then came the general election. What happened? Every day, there
were all kinds of polls. Among other things, we heard that the
Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party
would disappear, that they would fall into oblivion, that they
might manage to save a few seats, but that they would no longer
be official parties in the House.
We also heard an increasing number of experts, analysts,
parliamentary correspondents, journalists and professors of
political science say that we seemed headed for a minority
Liberal government, something which became a source of concern
for the Liberal Party's top strategists. These people said to
themselves “We need a good cause. We should make a good sales
pitch so that Canadians will like our party and give us a
majority government. Then we can do whatever we want”. It was to
be promises during the campaigns and then arrogance, contempt
and, above all, no recollection of the commitments made.
In order to make sure the Prime Minister would get the Guinness
record he wanted so badly, that is to get a third straight
majority mandate, top Liberal strategists said “What would be
good for the Liberals would be to make people from the maritimes
and Quebec believe that if they elect us we will change the
employment insurance program”.
1540
Several ministers got down to work and travelled throughout
Quebec and the maritimes, especially in the regions most
affected by unemployment, and promised that the employment
insurance plan would be changed.
It is amazing how easily people let themselves be fooled once
again. The government has broken its electoral commitments. The
new Bill C-2 is the exact copy of Bill C-44, introduced before the
election.
The government has done exactly what it did when it promised to
scrap the GST, to use the Prime Minister's words.
We should examine what some members of the government said. It
is a very revealing exercise.
On January 17, 2001, La Presse reported comments by the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who never misses an
opportunity to make promises concerning the employment insurance
system. Unfortunately, he is not as good at it as when he makes
promises about sports. He has a better command of his own
portfolio than that of the human resources minister, who does
not seem to understand the commitments he has made on her
behalf.
Here is what La Presse wrote on January 17 “ If well reasoned and
justified arguments are brought forward, we are open to change”.
He further clarified “The public works minister and myself are
open to this kind of dialogue. We are open to discussions”.
Some openness. The government's mind is completely closed.
We are caught in the same situation we were in with Bill C-44.
The dilemma is absolutely unbearable: we are penalized if we
vote for it and penalized if we vote against it. The government
puts us in a very uncomfortable position.
The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said that if we had
good and justifiable arguments, his government would be open to
change. We have been here since 1994. We were elected in 1993
and began sitting in parliament in 1994. What have we been doing
since 1994? Day after day, all the critics for the Bloc on that
very important issue, be it the hon. member for Mercier or the
hon. member for Kamouraska—Témiscouata—Rivière-du-Loup—Les Basques,
asked questions about the issue first to Mr. Axworthy, then to
Douglas Young and to the current Minister of International
Trade.
As for the present minister, we confronted her day after day,
but to question her about a scandal so outrageous that we did
not have time to ask questions about the employment insurance
plan.
However we did question her three predecessors about their
employment insurance reforms. We reminded them of the position
they had taken when they were in the opposition and were opposed
to the changes proposed by Mr. Valcourt but that was like
talking to a wall. They all had the same answer, always the same
answer: “The hon. member did not read the documentation. He or
she does not understand and will not understand anything about
the reform”.
This is what we were told day after day. All those ministers
showed how they betrayed Canadians.
1545
They have never been able to explain the real idea behind the
reform. The government wanted to get more money into its coffers
because it needed billions of dollars to pay for its scandals,
for its expenses and to grease its friends' palms; that is why
it had to reform the EI on the backs of workers and employers,
that is on the backs of those contributing to the EI fund.
Time and again at committee stage, we put forward justified and
justifiable arguments showing the need to change that plan which
is against the young and discriminates against them.
It is so discriminatory to young people that I cannot see how it
could be constitutional.
Earlier, I heard the member opposite—I do not remember the name
of his riding, but it is close to Nunavut or Abitibi—say that
young people do not leave our regions because they do not have
jobs. Of course, they do. Over the past five years, in my
region, we have seen 700 young people aged between 15 and 29
leave.
Do you know what it means when young people aged between 15 to
29 leave? It means that the population is declining, that we no
longer have the resources we need to develop, that the
government could not care less what happens to the regions. Yet,
it is prepared to spend millions of dollars to get elected, as
we have seen in the Gaspé, while letting people wallow in
unemployment.
They are asked to work 910 hours. It is impossible for a young
person to work 910 hours. They really have to leave the region
and go to a large centre to find other jobs in order to manage,
and to work the famous 910 hours. Then, they never come back to
the region, or almost never.
I myself heard the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice,
make his promise during the campaign. He had forgotten, and his
organizers made him get back up on the stage. I saw him with my
own eyes and heard him with my own ears say “Oh yes, that is
true. I had forgotten to promise that we will rework the plan”.
What did he say? He said that they would, in February, give
money to the unemployed retroactively. “Housing costs are not
paid retroactively”, commented my leader.
How can the Prime Minister, who knows what really goes on in his
government, say that there will be retroactive measures? We
tried for retroactive measures for those who lost their job
between July 17 and September, so they would be included in the
same plan as the temporary measures proposed by the government.
The government refused to allow a retroactive arrangement for
these people. However, they will have to face the gap, as my
colleague from Acadie—Bathurst said. The spring gap is coming.
The Prime Minister will not notice, any more than will the
minister.
What was the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport saying during
the election campaign? He said “Once a Liberal majority is
elected”—ah, now the cat is out of the bag. They wanted a
Liberal majority so they could continue being arrogant with
people—“we will reinstate the process and make sure that the
changes are effective and meet the needs, for the most part, of
the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Canadians as a whole.
I have made a commitment to change the law and we will see to
it”.
1550
The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who is also a boxer,
has become a featherweight in this government since he has been
unable to include one single amendment in this bill. Not one.
Moreover, we may soon be gagged both in the House and in
committee because the government will find that too many people
are complaining about its arrogance. It makes no sense at all.
The Prime Minister added “We realized that it was not a good
decision, and that we should not have done it”. That is what he
admitted, in the Canadian Press, on November 4, 2000, in the
middle of the election campaign, on the subject of the cuts to
the employment insurance plan his government had imposed. He
recognized that it made no sense but now that he is back in
power with a majority government, it suddenly makes sense to him
to keep on being arrogant.
I could keep on quoting clips collected during the electoral
campaign, but it would remind Canadian and Quebec people too many
bad memories.
I am sure they bitterly regret now what they did on
November 27, because in other cases they did the right thing.
In my riding, 60% of the people supported me when I told them I
would come to Ottawa with a strong voice to represent them and to
defend their interests about unemployment insurance and the Young
Offenders Act. The government is up to its old tricks.
As for parental leave, the government has no idea of what makes
sense.
My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, our critic on this issue, explained very well this
morning that we will unfortunately be faced with having to vote
against the bill, not because we are against tiny improvements,
at least they are improvements.
There are some improvements. There is the elimination of the
intensity rule, the elimination of discrimination concerning the
rule of tax clawback for frequent users, the change in the
definition of new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force for
special benefits, which applies mainly to pregnant women, the
indexing of yearly insurable earnings and the reduction of the
premium rate to $2.25, which is not enough but is still better
than nothing.
What is terrible is the stealing of the fund. Never
would I have thought that the Liberal government would do such
despicable things. Once again, it has fooled the people on all
counts.
Canada made some progress when minority governments were in
office. It is very sad that there is not one this time. Imagine
how different the bill would have been if the leader of the
government had to deal with the four opposition parties to
give us a bill that fulfilled the Liberal Party's promises.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during question period
today there were questions raised regarding the new employment
insurance bill.
One of our colleagues, our critic on this issue, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, asked the
Minister of Human Resources Development why she felt justified in
reintroducing the same bill that was proposed before the general
election.
She said that the percentage of support that her party received
in the general election gave her the legitimacy to go ahead with
her contested bill.
1555
I would like to ask my colleague who defended this issue
remarkably in her speech to explain her understanding of the
situation. Did the people who voted in the last election really
say to the minister to go ahead with Bill C-44, a bill which
excludes four persons out of ten, which requires people to work
more without qualifying for employment insurance and which gives
back to the men and women who lost their jobs only 8% of the $6
billion paid every year into the employment insurance account?
I think we can explain the results of the election in a
more refined and accurate way, instead of interpreting it as
support for the bill reintroduced by the minister, Bill-C-44,
which will be discussed in committee. I would remind members that
we will invite people to appear before the committee to voice
their opposition to the minister and to tell her that the bill
is not generous enough. I would like my colleague to give us her
interpretation of the last election results.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Quebec City for her question. I would just like to make one
small correction: the number who do not qualify is six out of
ten, not four.
That having been said, according to official OECD figures, 30%
of Canadians are illiterate. We think this refers to adults.
They are considered illiterate because they are unable to read
the dosage on a bottle of aspirin.
It is with great sadness that I note there seems to be a
heavy concentration of these illiterate adults among the members
on the other side and among their handlers because they are
incapable of understanding what is going on. One of the reasons
they gave for introducing reform was that the system was costing
too much and they needed more money. They solved that rather
well. Their second goal was to adapt to the economic reality
facing the country. In my view, they are incapable of
understanding that reality and no one is able to explain it to
them. Concerning the minister's interpretation, in my riding I
told people to vote for me and we would block Bill C-44. Sixty
per cent of them gave me their vote.
The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques said the same thing. He won 60% of the vote. The fact
is that wherever there are unemployed workers, in the riding of
Acadie—Bathurst, for instance, people were more inclined to
trust the member who was there than the Liberal candidate who ran.
In certain other ridings, one would have to look at how the
campaigns were run and what the member did before and after.
During the campaign we learned about a few little things that
had gone on. In addition, in the case of the minister, there were
some little scandals in Nova Scotia. We learned about it during
the campaign. We did not know about it beforehand. I myself
heard people say “We could perhaps vote for the Liberals. They
are the ones who have the money and give it to their friends”.
These are not very good reasons to vote for a party.
The minister has it all wrong. During the election campaign,
when the Liberals talked about employment insurance, they told
people to elect them and they would make changes. Our response
was to ask people to elect us and we would do the same.
Since those for whom the public voted, whether Liberals or Bloc
Quebecois, promised change, this change must come about or some
of us will be liars.
The Speaker: The member knows full well she cannot use that
word in the House.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the speech
by my colleague who happens to represent the riding next to
mine. We live in an area where there are a lot of seasonal
workers, where people working in the forestry industry are
experiencing hardship due to a slump in the U.S. market, and
also as a result of the softwood lumber deal, which does not
permit free trade and has killed a lot of jobs.
1600
For years we have been saying that the intensity rule is a
punitive measure that had nothing to do with the reality of the
labour market. It took three years for the government to finally
admit it.
Is it not eventually going to come to the same conclusion
regarding the eligibility of women and young workers? Between
1993 and 1999, the percentage of women receiving regular
benefits dropped from 63% to 38%. For young people aged 20 to
24, it dropped from 70% to 24%.
This means that we went from a plan that used to insure a
majority of people to a plan that no longer insures women and
young people.
Is the government not going to reach the same conclusion as it
did regarding the intensity rule, namely that after having
harmed people for several years it will come to the conclusion
that this rule, aimed at tightening up eligibility, was only
punitive and in no way aimed at putting people back to work and
that we are faced with the same situation as with the intensity
rule? Would it not be better for the government to act right
away and put something in the bill that would make it easier for
people to qualify?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question.
It goes without saying that the government, if it were truly
aware of the facts, would ask itself right away why it should
wait to make changes at a later date when they are needed today.
Again, this afternoon, the human resources development
minister—and the international trade minister said the same thing over
and over again when he was the human resources development
minister before her—said that the government's measures would
help young people. On the contrary, they are hurting them. When
will they understand? It is easy to understand. One does not
have to be a rocket scientist to understand such a thing. It is
very easy to understand. The measures are hurting young people
and the women.
Some women in my riding have to work 600 hours while the guy
next door has to work only 425 hours, do you think that is just?
They have to do it if they want maternity leave. It is indecent
for the government to be so dense. It does not make sense that
the government does not realize right away that it should make
the changes right now, just as it has promised.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your
election as Speaker. We look forward to working with you.
As this is my first speech of the 37th parliament I take this
opportunity to thank the constituents of Calgary East who, with a
resounding victory, sent me back to represent them in the House
of Commons.
I also congratulate all members who have returned and those
newly elected members who have received their own votes of
confidence from their constituents and are here to represent
them. I want to go on record as stating that I strongly believe
in Canada like most of us who have been elected in the 37th
parliament. Canada is a land of opportunity. Canada has been
built over the years by creating bridges. These bridges are very
important to our regions.
I was saddened today when my colleague from the NDP started
accusing us and asking for an apology for someone else's
comments. This kind of rhetoric creates division among regions
and creates a problem in our vast country.
Let me tell the Liberal government that there is western
alienation. It should not think for a moment that it does not
exist. It exists because the government has not built bridges
over the years. It has taken the west to be its backyard and
western Canadians are saying that can no longer be the situation.
They want to be equal partners in Confederation. They are asking
for change. If the government keeps ignoring them it may have
some serious repercussions for the country.
1605
Today we are debating Bill C-2, the Employment Insurance Act.
The Employment Insurance Act is one of our social safety nets and
one that we have talked about a lot. Over the years it has
assisted many Canadians during a time when they may have had a
temporary break in their working career, which is an
understandable thing and the reason the legislation was created.
However, as time has passed something has happened.
Before being elected to parliament, I was a small businessman.
In 1985 and for the past 15 years I had my own business. With my
accounting experience, I saw this one graph line that kept going
up and up. This graph line represented the government's
increases in payroll taxes and EI, and its introduction of
service charges. These things created a heavy burden on Canadian
businesses that had a hard time meeting their payroll
obligations.
New immigrants, especially from open markets like Hong Kong, who
came to Canada to set up businesses, looked at the taxes and said
that they could not survive. They packed up and left. These
were warning signs that were ignored by subsequent governments.
In 1993 the Liberal government curtailed benefits to the EI
program but at the same time leaving high premiums. The result
was a huge surplus in the EI fund. This provided the government
with the opportunity to reduce payroll taxes and EI premiums for
both the employer and the employee. This would have provided
businesses with more opportunities to reinvest and create more
jobs.
The Bloc member spoke about the softwood lumber issue having an
impact on his riding and creating unemployment. I would like to
tell him that softwood lumber is not part of the free trade
agreement. It is tied to tariffs. It is where the market is
curtailed and Canadian companies cannot take advantage of that
market.
As borders open up there is a need for Canadian businesses and
companies to stand up and compete with everybody from around the
world. As we open up free trade agreements and our borders,
competition increases. We have to compete with business people
from other parts of the world selling the same product. How are
we going to compete?
We all know that 43% of Canada's GDP is tied to international
trade. This shows how important international trade is to Canada.
One out of three jobs is tied to international trade. Have we
realized what has happened? We are now in competition with
everybody who is trying to sell the same product. Whoever is
more competitive and selling their product cheaper will take the
market. There is no more loyalty.
1610
Every corporate business person knows that loyalty does not
exist any more. Even I as a businessman knew that. People are
now looking for value for their money. The same applies to
businesses and corporations. Therefore we have to say that we
have products at good market value, that there is good value for
what we are charging.
I have travelled with Canadian business people around the world
where they sell products in competition with others. The same
happens. Companies from every part of the world are bidding
along with Canadian companies. However, when foreign companies
come back they have to work under the conditions that exist in
our country. Those conditions include high payroll taxes and
high taxes.
Let me give a short example from Alberta. As members of
parliament we have constituents coming to our office. My cases
were concerned with EI because it is a federal responsibility.
People who did not qualify or who had problems sought the
assistance of their members of parliament. However, I have
noticed that the number of constituents looking for assistance
with EI problems has diminished dramatically. Why? It is
because today in Alberta they can find jobs. They are no longer
unemployed and fewer people are losing their jobs.
Why is there a market for jobs in Alberta? Before the Klein
government was elected, the previous government followed policies
similar to those of the present federal government: high
taxation, spending government money, pouring money into the
economy, artificially propping up the economy, and saying it will
to work. It did not work.
Then the Klein government came in and said that this was not the
way it would be. It was simple mathematics: it had to reduce
taxes and reduce the debt. It went on a cutting spree. There
were protests by the people affected but the Klein government
carried on. It has reduced government expenditures and directed
money toward the debt and toward creating an atmosphere of sound
economic principles where businesses could compete.
Many people will say that Alberta is rich because of the high
price of oil and the high price of natural gas. Let me tell the
House what just happened recently. Alberta has put its house in
order by laying a sound financial foundation. That is the reason
Alberta today is reaping the benefits. We could contrast that to
British Columbia where the situation is similar. That is the
problem, simple and straightforward.
Today the government of Alberta can reduce taxes and can invest
in health care. It is investing in more equipment.
1615
I was invited by the government of Alberta to attend a
globalization conference which was held in Banff in October.
There were CEOs from all across the nation, the key players in
our economy. Message after message came through that we had to be
competitive. If we are not, there will be clouds on the horizon.
In April this year, we are going to have a free trade of
Americas conference in Quebec City.
Now these people want to protest. It is an old policy where
they still want to go back to 30 years ago. Anyway, they are
welcome to protest. They are already detached from the Canadian
public, so it is okay they can protest. It is no problem. The
fact of the matter is that the borders are going to open up.
I am not going to say that globalization by itself unchecked is
the best thing. We have to make sure that everybody benefits
from this opening up of the market and not create fortresses.
Canadian businesses need to get into that place. They need to be
updated to grab the opportunities. The way is not to keep
taxing. The way is not to keep a burdening us. The way is not
to reduce the competitiveness of a Canadian business. It is as
simple as that.
What do we need? What did I hear from the business people? They
need a lower tax regime so that they can reinvest, not make
profit. They need to be allowed to take advantage of emerging
technologies. They need a trained workforce. They are willing
to be partners in the training of that workforce but they need to
have that room. They then said they would be in a position to
take advantage of the opening up of the market.
I said this it in the House before. The Minister for
International Trade keeps going across the world signing free
trade agreements. If we are not going to take advantage of the
free trade agreements for Canadian companies, what is the point
of signing the agreements? We can go on as many trade missions
as we want. Let us look at the result of Team Canada's trade
mission.
Yes, it is nice. Business people are going there looking for
opportunities. When they come back, they find that they cannot
take advantage of those opportunities because the economic regime
allowing the competitiveness does not exist right now in Canada.
The Minister of Industry, who is now the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, stated contrary to what his counterpart was stating. He
admitted to that. He of course had to backtrack. That was not
the government line.
I will never understand the transparency point. The Canada
Employment Insurance Commission looked at this thing. It
was independent but I do not know if it was really independent or
whether it had patronage appointments or whatever. Now that has
been taken away. Again the government controls it. We have a
massive overpayment in EI and the government does not want to do
anything about it. It does not want to clear the regime. It has
also taken the ability of somebody else to come along, an
independent commission, and make sound recommendations. The
government wants to make the sound recommendations.
My colleagues and I will talk and try to improve on the
legislation.
Before I conclude, I want to make this point very clear. Before
the free trade of the Americas meeting in Quebec City, our trade
minister is going to the USA. The appointment of a new U.S.
trade representative opened up an opportunity for us to become a
world player and sell our products. We will fail to take
advantage of all this if we do not create sound economic
principles.
1620
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Calgary East said that when we try to defend our area it
makes a division in the country.
When the leader of the Canadian Alliance was in the west during
the election he said that if he was elected he would cut employment
insurance. When he came to the east to support one of the
candidates, Jean Gauvin, he said that he would save employment
insurance. I wonder why he had two different messages. Is that
the way to bring people together?
The problem we have today is that we do not understand each
other. I am very proud that Calgary is doing well. The problem
is like being a millionaire. When one becomes a millionaire, one
becomes selfish. When a province starts to do well I do not want
it to become selfish and not do anything for its neighbours.
If we are going to be part of the country and be united, we must
look after each other. The fish plant workers did not choose
that there would be no more codfish in the Atlantic Ocean. How do
we expect them to be able to go from one season to the next? Are
we saying it is over? Are we saying it is over to the
woodcutter? Are we saying it is over to all the people of the
Atlantic provinces?
If we are expected to work together, we must start to respect
each other.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, talk about someone
building bridges. While we understand there are seasonal workers
in the Atlantic provinces, I do not understand my friend saying
that when we talk about employment insurance, it has something to
do with Atlantic Canada. It has to do with all of Canada. The
employment insurance program is for all Canadians.
He says Albertans are selfish. When his colleagues single out
one region, they forget the fact that Albertans believe in,
support and have been paying equalization payments. The last
report indicated Alberta was paying more than it was getting.
Does it bother Albertans. No, it does not.
We are making sure that every Canadian from region to region can
access the same services and have the same standard of living. We
do not want to create division.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech
with great interest. I especially noted what he said about the
Employment Insurance Commission.
The current legislation provides that the Employment Insurance
Commission will determine the level of contributions after
consultation with the government. The bill introduced by the
Liberals proposes that the government alone determine the level
of contributions.
Does the member not agree that this change would make legal the
misappropriation of the funds contributed by employers and
employees, which the federal government has been carrying on for
several years? In fact, the surplus has reached more than
$30 billion.
Would this measure not make legal such misappropriation of
funds? Would it not also turn the employment insurance system
into a payroll tax, legalizing a practice the federal government
has been developing for several years?
1625
Would such a decision not have a negative effect when in the
last parliament all opposition parties, led by the Bloc, put
forward a joint proposal to establish a separate employment
insurance fund controlled by employers and employees, that is
those who contribute to it?
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague for an excellent question. I wish the NDP could
think that deep.
The member is absolutely right. That is the problem with the
legislation. He said that it was a form of legalized tax grab. That
is one of the reasons why we have difficulty with this.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to have an opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-2,
especially following the eloquent remarks from the previous
speaker. Building from that, I will try to demonstrate that
some NDP members are in fact deep thinkers and I will share some
of those deep thoughts with the him.
We are discussing Bill C-2, which really seeks to fix what I
believe is an irreparably broken program. I believe we should
start from the basic premise that the EI system is busted. It is
broken. The wheels have fallen off it. It does not work any
more. It ceased to fill its mandate long ago. Let us be clear
that its mandate was to provide income maintenance to unemployed
people.
We now have a program where less than 40% of unemployed people
can hope to get any benefits whatsoever from the program. What
kind of an insurance system is that? What if people had house
insurance policies that they were forced to pay into because they
had no choice. However, when their houses burned down there was
less than a 40% chance of collecting any benefit whatsoever.
They would think they had been robbed. They would think they had
been fleeced by some clever insurance salesman. That is the only
conclusion they could really come to.
That is the situation Canadian workers are facing today.
Believe it or not but the figures are even worse for women.
There is a gender issue here. Unemployed women have a less than
25% chance of collecting any benefit. It is even worse for
youth. An unemployed youth under 25 years old has a less than
15% chance of collecting any benefit.
It is not as though the fund is unable to pay those benefits
out. The fund is operating at a surplus. There is $500 million
a month, not per year, being paid into the program. That is more
than is being paid out. The dollar figures are the fund paid out
$7 billion worth of benefits last year to unemployed workers and
has a surplus of $7.8 billion. Less than 50% of the revenue
generated by contributions from employers and employees goes to
its intended purpose, which is income maintenance and training
for unemployed workers. Over 50% goes into the general revenue
for the government to do whatever it wants to do.
These are pretty poor odds. A person gets better odds than that
from a VLT machine in Las Vegas. They pay out 94% and they are a
rip-off. Frankly, we are being really ripped off when we pay out
less than 50% of what we are putting in.
Let us keep in mind another important fact. The government
ceased to pay anything into the UIC fund in the late 1980s. It
used to be kind of one-third, one-third, one-third. The
government stopped paying in at all. It is now solely made up of
contributions from the employer and the employee. For every
dollar the employee contributes, the employer contributes $1.40.
What gives the federal government the right to use the surplus
money at all? It is not its money. The member for Mississauga
West argued that because the government is responsible for any
shortfall, when that happens, when there is a surplus it is the
government's.
When we added up the total accumulated aggregate deficit that
the fund had ever gone into, it was something like $11.4 billion.
Over the course of many years, and during those years when there
was not enough money in the fund to pay for all the unemployed
people, we did go into the red.
1630
We now have a surplus of $32 billion and it is growing. By the
government's own logic, it should take back the $11.2 billion and
put the rest back into benefits, into income maintenance for
unemployed workers as it was intended. In that case that would
be fair and I do not think there would not be any protests from
the NDP.
We should take that $32 surplus, pay back all the money that we
were credited with by the government during those periods of high
unemployment and use the rest for income maintenance for
unemployed people. What could be more fair than that?
Bill C-2 tinkers with a broken system instead of taking active
steps to repair it. It tinkers with the intensity rule, the
least of our problems. It tinkers with the clawback provisions,
again a minor detail. The real problem unemployed workers have
is the divisor rule. The method by which benefits were
calculated changed dramatically in 1996 and left people, if they
were lucky enough to be eligible at all, with collecting less
money per week for a shorter period of time.
The divisor rule is so fundamentally wrong because eligibility
is calculated based on the hours worked in the previous 52 weeks
or one year prior to becoming unemployed. In other words, if a
workers get enough hours to qualify in that 52 week period, they
will get a claim. However the benefit is calculated on the 26
weeks immediately prior to their filing.
In the carpentry industry some of those might be dead weeks.
Maybe there was no work at all for many of those weeks. It used
to be that the benefit would be calculated by the previous weeks
that one had worked. Obviously the average benefit will be
dragged down if in that 26 week period only 13 weeks were worked
and the other half were not worked at all. Right away, after
making an average of that, it is 50% lower.
We have unemployed trades people and unemployed seasonal workers
filing their claims. They used to receive maybe $400 a week in
benefits because of the way it was calculated. With the new
divisor rule, it is not unusual to see those same people coming
in with paystubs for $128, $213 or $34. We had one actual
illustrated example of a seasonal worker in New Brunswick who
used to be able to count on approximately $315 a week. She now
receives $38 a week.
No wonder there is a surplus. Hardly anybody qualifies and
those who are lucky enough to win the lottery and qualify
receive dramatically reduced benefits. There is a basic
unfairness. If the system were being maxed out or there were a
shortage in the system, we would have to be more miserly in the
distribution of the benefits, but with a surplus of $500 million
every month it is obscene.
I have often said that if we deduct something from a person's
paycheque for a specific purpose and then use it for something
completely different, in the very best case scenario that is a
breach of trust. We entered into a trust relationship with
employees when we took money off their cheques and told them we
would hold it for them until they needed it. Then, on the very
day they need it, we tell them we have changed our minds and we
are spending that money on building roads, hospitals or for
whatever else the government is using its consolidated revenue
fund.
This is beyond a breach of trust. It is out and out fraudulent.
People have reasonable expectations which were created when we
told them that we were taking the money off their cheque for a
specific reason, to give them income security if they become
unemployed. We created that trust relationship and I would say
it is a legal relationship. As the hon. member from the Bloc
Quebecois very accurately pointed out, Bill C-2 seeks to
institutionalize what is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to
legalize what I believe is a challengeable situation.
That is what is wrong with Bill C-2 in a nutshell. It could
have dealt with eligibility. It could have dealt with the real
issue that less than 40% of Canadians qualify. It could have
lowered the bar so that more people were eligible because the
impact in certain regions is horrific.
We have heard members talk about Atlantic Canada today. Let me
give one example from my riding of Winnipeg Centre. It is the
third poorest riding in the country by whatever measurement is
used, whether incidence of poverty or average family income. In
the third poorest riding in the country the changes made to the
EI program sucked $20.8 million a year out of my riding alone.
That is just one little neighbourhood in the core area of
Winnipeg. That is $20.8 million of payroll that would otherwise
have been spent in the local economy.
1635
Let us imagine that a company wanted to move into my riding with
a payroll of $20.8 million. We would pave the streets with gold
to attract that company. It would get government grants and
subsidies. We would welcome it with open arms because it would
generate a level of activity of $20.8 million a year.
We have had $20.8 million sucked out. The reverse happened in
my riding. When we add what happened in St. John's,
Newfoundland, the total impact is over $100 million a year. The
very poorest and most vulnerable people have been pushed over the
line from a reasonable income maintenance benefit into poverty.
What happens to those people? They go on social assistance, so
the burden is offloaded on to the provinces that are already
maxed out. The CHST is cut back, adding to the burden of the
provinces, and their ability to provide income maintenance to
poor people is reduced because of the reduction of EI benefits.
If the government were sincere about fixing the EI program it
would have talked about eligibility in Bill C-2, but there is no
mention of that. The government does not seem to think there is
anything wrong with it. Why? It is a cash cow. It is a goose
that lays golden eggs. It just keeps squirting out these
treasures every month.
It has paid down the deficit on the backs of unemployed workers,
the most vulnerable people in the country. Even worse, it has not
just paid down the deficit with that money. Now it is giving tax
cuts to the wealthy with that money. It is a sick and perverted
form of Robin Hood, to rob from the poor to give to the rich.
The member across says that is nonsense. What would the member
call a further reduction in capital gains tax? What would the
member call a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 17% to
16%? Where is the government getting that money to give away? It
is getting a considerable amount of that money, $32 billion of
it, from the EI fund, from unemployed workers who would otherwise
receive benefits and now get zippo, zilch. They are shut out of
the system. We are not pleased with Bill C-2. We are kind of
upset by it.
There is one point that is even more galling. As a tradesman I
served a four year apprenticeship. It is a beautiful system
because one is engaged with the workforce. One can earn while
one learns. One has an attachment to the workforce while in
school with the community college component of the
apprenticeship.
When I went to community college for my apprenticeship training
I received EI benefits. It is one of the designated uses listed
in the EI act. It was a great system. The EI system used to
purchase block seats in community colleges. It would buy a whole
classroom of seats and provide income maintenance to the students
while they were there.
Now there is a two week waiting period. Now EI is treating the
students as if they are unemployed. When they leave the job site
and go to the community college, with no interruption in their
work they are not unemployed. They still have bosses and they
still have jobs. They are just going through the school
component of their apprenticeships.
An insignificant amount of money is being gained. It is a
miserly thing to do. The total impact of this for all
apprentices is about $80 million a year when a surplus of $500
million a month is being shown.
I will tell the House the predictable consequence and exactly
what is happening. Apprentices are not taking their schooling
when it comes up. They get their notices from the community
college that it is their turn to go to school. Struggling
apprentices with young families are faced with two weeks with no
income whatsoever. They are just passing on it and saying that
they will not accept it this year, that they will try next year
when their number comes up again, extending their apprenticeship
and disadvantaging the industry that needs graduating journeymen.
That is one example of the many hundreds of tiny things the
government did to the program in 1996 which has caused this
incredible windfall surplus. There is no mention of that in Bill
C-2.
We will be moving that as an amendment and we would seek broad
support from the other parties for the basic, fundamental issue
of income maintenance for apprentices while they are in community
college. I hope we will get broad support for that. I
understand that even the Progressive Conservative Party sees the
logic in that issue.
There is a huge gender issue here too, which I think should be
raised on behalf of the many women who are disadvantaged by the
EI system. I have already said that less than 25% of unemployed
women are eligible for EI. There is a reason for this. Women
are often more likely to be in part time jobs where they have
difficulty getting the number of hours they need to qualify.
There is a charter challenge. I am proud to say that the
community unemployed health centre located in my riding has
managed to succeed to the next level of federal court with an
argument that the current EI system structure affects women in a
way that violates article 15 of the charter which states that
everyone deserves equal access to all the benefits and the
provisions of being a citizen of Canada.
1640
It disproportionately affects women in a negative way far more
than it affects men. I believe the women of Canada and their
advocates have a legitimate case to make. Whether it was by
design, by omission or by accident, there is a gender imbalance
disadvantaging women more than men.
Even the whole hour system is structured in a way that fewer
people qualify. I am not trying to hearken back to the old
system as if it were perfect, but if people worked more than 15
hours in one week in the old days they were given credit for one
insurable week. Granted the benefit would be lower because it
would be a low income week, but at least they received credit for
the week.
Now 920 hours are required to requalify into the program, with
700 hours being required for an initial application. Rather than
14 to 20 weeks depending on where one lives, one now needs 700 to
920 hours. That is a lot more. It is like six months of work.
The eligibility bar has been raised. A lot of people working
part time will never get 920 hours. UFCW workers who are store
clerks at Sobey's or Canada Safeway are deliberately held down to
15 hours a week. They will never qualify. They have to pay in
but they never qualify. This is absolutely unfair.
A number of things in the EI bill are fundamentally wrong. It
is a revenue generator for the government. It is not an
insurance system. It ceased to be an insurance system a long
time ago when it failed to provide reasonable income maintenance
for unemployed workers as per its original mandate. At $500
million a month the Liberals cannot afford to be fair. If that
is the case, maybe we should pack the system up because it is
failing to meet the needs of unemployed workers.
I mentioned the intensity rule and the clawback rule. Both of
these will be changed by Bill C-2. They are positive steps. We
do not deny that these are two of the things that needed to be
changed. However they are insignificant. The intensity rule
meant an individual was punished for being a frequent user of the
system. If one collected this year one would lose 1% of the
benefit the next year on a rolling scale up to a total of 5%. If
one collected five years in a row, one would be 5% lower than
one's colleagues.
The Canadian Labour Congress put together a series of proposals
to improve the system and make it more accessible. It is
shooting for 70% and 60%. Seventy per cent of all unemployed
workers should qualify and they should be compensated at sixty
per cent of their gross earnings. This would be an employment
insurance system that would actually provide insurance for
unemployed people.
It is supposed to be unemployment insurance system. The
government changed the name in a very cynical way in 1996 to try
to take the focus away from what it was originally intended to
do: to provide income maintenance and training for unemployed
people so they could re-enter the workforce.
We heard a lot about labour market training in the Speech from
the Throne. Suddenly there is a renewed interest in a highly
skilled workforce where key elements in building a highly skilled
workforce are being taken away. I am talking about job security,
income maintenance when unemployed and good access to labour
market training so individuals can get back into the workforce
should they be unfortunate enough to become unemployed.
What would members say of home insurance program if they had
less than a 40% chance to collect? What would we say of any kind
of system that paid out less than 50% or what was put in? The
odds are better in a Las Vegas VLT where at least 94% is paid
out. Here $7 billion is paid out and $7.8 billion is put into
surplus and then squandered by the Liberal government spending it
on whatever it wishes.
Unemployed workers in this province have been fleeced. They
have been hosed since 1996 and they are fed up. They are coming
to us pleading for the government to understand what it means to
be a seasonal worker, a construction worker or any Canadian who
finds himself unemployed and needing income maintenance.
Bill C-2 is as flawed as the employment insurance system.
1645
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
remarks. I was particularly struck by the figure he cited with
respect to what was lost in employment insurance payouts. It was
$20.8 million in his riding alone, which works out, if he has
about 80,000 people in his riding, to $260 a person. That is
just what is lost as a result of the changes, so I would
understand from him that there is a very major and systemic
problem in his riding in Winnipeg. I have great sympathy, and I
can see where he comes from when he has a situation like that in
an urban community.
I would like to ask him one question that has always bothered
me, both with respect to this legislation and the legislation as
we originally changed it. One of the things that it did not
properly address and still does not properly address now is the
fact that in Manitoba, I believe it was, people working with
school boards in clerical jobs and that kind of thing would work
for 10 months, quit, collect employment insurance or unemployment
insurance, call it what you will, for two months, and then be
re-hired.
One of the things that always distressed me about the system as
it existed before we changed it, and as it still exists, is that
this seemed to me to be an abuse of the system, because it was a
classic case where the employer was taking advantage of
employment insurance to pay the workers less for 10 months rather
than paying the workers fully for 12 months. Could the member
opposite comment on that?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of personal
information on the specific job the hon. member raised in his
question. I do know that some industries use the EI system in
order to maintain a skilled workforce for when the work is there.
If we value those industries we need to find a mechanism by which
they will not all wander away and move to Alberta. Frankly, we
would not have any carpenters left in Manitoba if we did not have
some way of giving them income maintenance for the period of time
when there is no work. Unless companies want to retrain a whole new
workforce every time the economy picks up, they try to retain the
employees they have.
I apologize for the fact that I am not personally familiar with
the issue raised by the member. I would be happy to see if I
could find more information and get back to him.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the presentation of the NDP member, and
from his comments I can understand why the NDP lost seats during
this election campaign. His solution to the problem in
employment insurance seems to be to pay out the surplus through
larger payouts to unemployed people rather than to do
what would create jobs, in fact, and what would lower premiums.
It has been well documented that payroll taxes, including
unemployment insurance premiums, are big job killers. Rather
than focusing on having business create new jobs by lowering the
premiums, he has taken the approach that we have this huge
surplus and we just have to spend it, we just have to get it into
the hands of people.
Of course coming from the NDP that is not too surprising. Coming
from this member, it is not surprising at all, because this is
the same member who on Friday, in introducing his private
member's bill, proposed setting up a price setting commission. He
referred to any Albertans opposed to a new national energy
program as being somehow consumed by corporate greed and
suggested that Albertans are selfish if they do not support some
type of new national energy program.
I could not believe that this member would propose such a thing.
Certainly if we want to alienate western Canada, Alberta in
particular, that is how it is done. The member has certainly
done a good job of that. I have had very few issues on which I
have had as many calls from constituents as I did on this issue.
1650
Why is the member proposing this change which would in fact kill
jobs rather than create jobs? Would he not prefer to see people
work rather than see higher payouts? I would also like him to
comment on his proposal for a new national energy program.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the issue of how any surplus
in the EI fund should be used is really pretty straightforward.
The federal government pays nothing into the EI program. It is
all made up of contributions by employers and employees. It is
our money, and income maintenance, frankly, is what the
designated use of the EI fund was.
When the member says the NDP would squander it by giving that
money to workers, let me say that first, it is their money, and
second, the Liberals already squandered it by spending it on
whatever they felt like. They had no right to do that. They had
no right to use that money for anything other than what the act
states, and that is for income maintenance and labour market
training. That is why we pay into the fund. It was the
expectation, and a reasonable expectation, on the part of workers
that they would qualify for some kind of income maintenance
should they become unemployed.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I was
somewhat surprised by comments from the government in regard to
suggesting that employers circumvent the system to misuse the EI
fund. Employers pay into the EI fund as well, and I actually
have very good knowledge of the situation with regard to school
districts that the previous member asked my colleague about.
Having been a former school trustee, I know that most schools
operate 10 months a year. That is the nature of the beast. They
do not operate 12 months a year. There are some school districts
that operate for longer than 10 months, but for the most part
throughout Canada school districts operate 10 months a year. The
bottom line is that it was not a matter of school districts
trying to rip off the government or anything of the kind. There
were 10 months of employment. The work was in place for 10
months and then the employees were laid off and re-hired.
I find the suggestion that they were being unscrupulous really
disheartening, as was the suggestion that school districts did
that throughout the country. I suggest, quite frankly, that all
those employees, who were making good salaries in a good many
cases, paid their income tax and paid into the EI fund. It is
wrong to suggest that those employers were being unscrupulous by
allowing those employees to access EI during the two months when
there were no jobs available.
Mr. John Bryden: It is wrong.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It is not wrong. To suggest that
they did it as an underhanded alternative is quite unacceptable.
On the other hand, what we do have is a Liberal government that
nitpicked parts of the system to get some money from it so that
the government could have its cash cow instead of putting back
into the system. Maybe it should have offered additional
training for those workers. Maybe it should be encouraging year
round schools so that we can meet the educational needs of all
Canadians. That is what we should be doing.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill is
absolutely right. She seems to
know what she is talking about on this matter. I concur
wholeheartedly with her remarks.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the remark of my Liberal colleague
across the floor when he says he sympathizes with my colleague
from Winnipeg Centre who said his riding is losing $28 million in
employment insurance benefits.
For the record, Acadie—Bathurst loses $69 million of benefits
per year, which really hurts small and medium sized businesses.
That is why I say the whole program is wrong.
Would my colleague from Winnipeg Centre explain to us how
the people are affected in the Manitoba regions and in the city
of Winnipeg? It seems to me that people think it is only
the Atlantic provinces that have a problem with employment
insurance. I have gone across the country many times and this is
a national problem. I would like to hear more about is happening
in Winnipeg.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact the Canadian
Labour Congress, in co-operation with the unemployed, help centres
across the country, paid for a very detailed and comprehensive
study for every riding in the country, for all 301 ridings, and
measured the actual impact of the cuts to UIC.
1655
That survey was mailed to every member of parliament. All
members have received a package telling them exactly what the
impact was of the cuts to unemployment insurance per year in
their ridings. In some parts of the country, it is horrific.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
to start with, I would like to congratulate you on your
appointment as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House.
As this is my first speech since parliament resumed, I would
like to thank voters in the riding of Chutes-de-la-Chaudière who
elected me for the third time and for the trust they showed in
me. I can assure them that I will do my best to honour their
trust. I especially thank those who voted for me. At the same
time, as you know, Mr. Speaker, when we are elected, we must
work for all our constituents, and this is what I pledge to do.
I am mentioning the election because this bill amending the
Employment Insurance Act was introduced in the weeks before the
election was called and an election was indeed called. As much as
the government tried to blame the Bloc Quebecois for preventing
the passing of the bill, it should be pointed out that
we never got to vote on the bill.
We opposed it but I want to remind members why we opposed a certain
part of the bill. It was because it made official the plundering
of the EI fund surplus by the government to reduce the deficit
or just show a surplus.
There was no vote and I will point out that the same thing
happened with the bill on shipbuilding that I introduced. I was
in the same situation.
The bill had passed all stages, including second reading and
clause by clause study in committee. Then suddenly the Prime
Minister decided to call an election three and a half years
after the last one.
Why? Because he wanted to take advantage of what was
favourable to him and his party. A number of bills such as this
one died on the order paper. This is the reason the bill
had to be reintroduced now.
This is not the topic we are dealing with today but
the context in which a bill is introduced must sometimes be
recalled.
I want to relate the bill to something that happened during the
election.
Many, at least in Quebec, deplored the fact that a lot of young
people did not exercise their right to vote because they felt
abandoned by the government in many ways, including with regard
to employment insurance.
I think they are not totally wrong. I talked to some young
people who did not vote. First, they had a problem with
registration; they were not on the voters' list. Moreover, there
was only one office in each riding where they could register.
This feeling was shared by many young people. They told me
afterward that they felt ignored, that they felt like they were
being treated differently and that they did not get the special
attention they needed.
During the election campaign I often heard the Liberals,
including the Prime Minister, try to ridicule the leader of the
Canadian Alliance for wanting a two tier health care system. That
is rather bizarre because, since 1995, we have had a two tier
employment insurance system, one for those who have received
employment insurance benefits before and one for those who have
never received employment insurance benefits.
1700
How is that? Some people have to work 900 hours to qualify,
which is more than for others. Obviously I will not get into the
number of hours required by region because, as members know, it
varies from one region to the next depending on the unemployment
rate.
I say that we have a two tier employment insurance system
because there is one set of rules for one group and another set
of rules for another. Yet the Liberal Party kept criticizing
the leader of another party or a member of that party for
alleged plans with regard to health, never realizing that there
was a contradiction between the words and the actions.
Young workers were the first to be hurt by this two tier system
for the new unemployed. Women were also affected. After deciding
to stay home for a number of years to raise their children—and
that is a choice they made—when they want to get into the labour
market, and in some cases find their first job ever, women find
themselves in the same situation as young workers who have never
worked. The tough part is to work 900 hours to qualify for
employment insurance benefits.
Let me digress once again. Lately I have seen the government ad
we keep seeing everywhere, the one dealing with parental
leave. That issue is not addressed in the bill but it is
somewhat related to our debate. The employment insurance program
is being used to provide parental leave to everyone. That is the
impression we get but it is not so.
The mother or the father who has not worked the required number
of hours to qualify for employment insurance cannot benefit from
this program, where the leave has gone from six to twelve months
as of, I believe, January 1.
What I also find outrageous about this program, which is not, in
my mind, a real parental leave program, is that it uses the
employment insurance program. The government is trying to look
good by saying “This is our program”.
I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
when the consultations that led to the 1995 reform were carried
out. The federal government has not put a single dime into the
employment insurance fund since 1991, except to pay for
outstanding deficits, which it does not have to do anymore.
Eligibility for the program was so reduced that the government
now has a surplus that has reached a total of over $31 billion in
five years. That is an enormous sum. It is almost as much as
Quebecers provide to the federal government every year from all
the various sources.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: They get plenty back in return, plenty of
services.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would greatly appreciate it,
should the hon. member across the way repeat this behaviour, if
you would ask her to pipe down. I can barely hear my own voice.
Women and young workers are the main ones to bear the brunt of
the deep cuts to employment insurance. It is all very well that
the government has managed to deal with the deficit but it has
affected one category of the population, mainly the poorest and
the unemployed.
What do these people do when they cannot receive employment
insurance? They are forced onto welfare, a provincial
jurisdiction. This program is now subject to the Canada health
and social transfer in which the federal government has made
substantial cuts. Everything has been dumped onto the provinces.
As for young workers, before the reform 54% of young people
aged 20 to 24 were entitled to employment insurance; in 1999 the
figure was only 24.9%.
1705
I endorse what the NDP member before me
has said. What would people think if this were another type of
insurance, whether fire or theft insurance, crop insurance, or
some other kind? There are many kinds of insurance. If people
knew in advance that they had only one in four chances of
receiving any benefits, as the young workers do, would this be
any encouragement to say “now I feel I am being treated fairly”?
On the contrary, young people are justified in feeling that they
are being treated unfairly.
At present, this is the case of the employment insurance system.
This is the impression shared by all the people who pay
employment insurance premiums, since only 41.9% of all
unemployed workers, of all contributors, qualified for benefits
in 1999. It is not only women and young people, but mostly young
people and women. That is unacceptable. Yet, in its bill, the
government did not change anything pertaining to eligibility.
This is my opinion and I know that our critic, the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, agrees with
me. I would like to take the opportunity to mention the
absolutely remarkable work he has done since he was elected.
He has been the Bloc Quebecois critic for human resources
development since 1997 and he took part with me in consultations
within the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development,
during the first mandate. He is a formidable and relentless
worker. This has led to many results. Many of my relatives live
in his riding. I myself am a living example of the young people
who leave a so-called remote area. Indeed, I come from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques or, more
specifically, from Sainte-Rita.
There were not and there still are not many jobs in that area.
I must pay tribute to the work of this member and to the work of
others such as the remarkable work of the member for
Acadie—Bathurst, who, although he is not a member of our party,
has his heart in the right place. He has vigorously defended
and represented those who have felt the backlash of the cuts to
employment insurance. I also want to recognize the work of the
member for Québec, who toured her region and all of Quebec in
connection with poverty. When we spoke of poor people, she
spoke of people who had felt the downside of the employment
insurance reform. These members have done a phenomenal job.
I see the member for Sept-Îles, who did terrific work during his
campaign in eastern Quebec and on the north shore. These people
were re-elected. The member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques increased his
majority incredibly. He should be congratulated.
I think the members opposite should congratulate him, but they
will do nothing. However, they do recognize that he is a
defender of the people, the poor, the people who face worry and
insecurity daily. Mothers or fathers wonder every week if they
will get through, be able to properly feed and clothe their
children, and so on. How many people worry, like the MP for
Acadie—Bathurst, about the famous gap, the period that is missing
in order to get through to the spring and for seasonal work to
begin?
Despite the opinion of all the members of the opposition, we
have this problem. The members of the Alliance might be the
exception, since I have already heard them say—although not
today—that their approach to resolving the problem of
unemployment is to abolish employment insurance. That way
everyone will go hungry and take ridiculous jobs, will move from
one province to another and will end up finding work. It is
incredible.
1710
It is as if we told the sick that everyone would be in good
health if hospitals were eliminated. It is incredible to hear
such magical thinking.
I now go back to my point. As the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, we are once
again subjected to blackmail.
The Bloc Quebecois would have supported a proposal to include
the proposed amendments in a bill.
While deploring the fact that this legislation was not changing
anything regarding eligibility, we would have supported it,
because we have a heart, and we care about our constituents who
are going through a rough time. We would have voted in favour of
this bill, even though we were hoping for a better program.
Now the government wants to formalize what the Minister of
Finance has already been doing for five years, that is to take
money from the surplus generated by the employment insurance
fund to manage its mismanagement, and to counteract the
continued laxness of a government which will just not cut
certain expenditures.
That is not the issue, since all the parties have found areas
where government expenditures could be reduced.
But no. This government makes cuts affecting the poorest in our
society, those who should not be affected by cuts. It makes cuts
to EI, and tightens up eligibility requirements. This is
unbelievable.
I am told the bill's effect would be retroactive to October 1,
as the Bloc Quebecois leader pointed out. During the whole
period that followed the election, however, the Prime Minister
did not convene the House, while he could have done so before
Christmas. People would have liked to see these amendments take
effect before the holiday season. But no, the government took
its time. There was no rush. The election had taken place and
the Liberals had just won a majority government. So, the Prime
Minister preferred to wait and then say “Yes, we will do this
retroactively for you”. But people's rent and other expenses
cannot be paid retroactively.
The day after the election I continued to see people in my
riding office as though nothing had changed. People asked me
“If the government is talking about a retroactive system, will
their wonderful parental leave be retroactive as well?” No,
it will not. Things are retroactive when it suits the government,
because it has said that they will be. I find this government's lack
of compassion appalling.
Finally, when he called the election, the Prime Minister had
only one thing on his mind: getting elected for a third majority
mandate. He was not thinking about the good of the country,
about the plight of the poor and the unemployed. He apparently
wanted to go down in history as the prime minister who, after
Laurier, had the most majority mandates.
Unbelievable, but there it is. How can we complain about the
poor voter turnout when there was so little to vote for? While
not encouraging this, I can understand it. The election was
called for no other reason than opportunism, not out of any
desire to tackle the real problems facing a certain segment of
the population.
I was re-elected for the third time with a strong majority.
Members of the House know that shipbuilding is an issue of great
concern to me. It is an issue that is well covered by the media
in certain regions but unfortunately not on Parliament Hill.
No Hill journalists are interested in the topic.
1715
The shipbuilding sector is a sector that has been hit hard by
unemployment. It is a sector that has been affected by the
problems of the intensity rule, the rule applied to those who
are frequently out of work.
Each year these people have lost 1% of their employment insurance
benefits because there were periods of unemployment. This
represents millions of dollars in my region that were lost not
just by unemployed workers at the Lévis shipyard but also by
businesses in my region.
When people have less money in their wallet they spend less.
This has an effect on the whole community.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow
me first to congratulate you on your new job. I am convinced you
will use your wisdom for the benefit of the House of Commons and
all Canadians.
Allow me also to say how much respect I have for my colleague
from Lévis who works very hard for his riding and his whole
region. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to see him
work on the issue of shipyards.
With regard to the issue we are dealing with today, namely Bill
C-2 on unemployment insurance, I would like to say that I too was
targeted. During the election campaign there was a lot of
reference to what was called the theft of $40 billion over a
period of several years. However, what they did not say is that
the fund is actually managed as part of government operations as
a whole.
One should always look at it in the light of the planned tax
reduction of $100 billion over five years.
However, people forget to say that lower premiums will result in
savings of several hundreds of millions of dollars. The Bloc
often asks, as a key element of parental leave reform, that
funds be repatriated to Quebec. This reminds me of Quebec's
traditional demands and positions regarding, among others,
manpower training.
Four years ago there was a deal with the federal government.
Some $700 million a year is transferred to Quebec via
Emploi-Québec. One day I would like to have the opportunity to
analyze the efficiency and productivity of Emploi-Québec in terms
of the transferred funds. I may be wrong, but I keep on hearing
negative comments in this regard.
I would like to turn my colleague's speech into
something more positive. Could he list some key elements that
would help slow down or stop the exodus of young people? I know
a brief was tabled at the United Nations by a group of
world economists. Some important parameters are needed to ensure
the economic development of a given area. I would like my
colleague to talk about these instead of talking only about
unemployment.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that I had a
lot of respect for the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I use the past
tense because I lost some of it when he crossed the floor to sit
with the Liberal government at which he had previously aimed what
I consider just criticisms.
I remember some of his comments, even the last one about the
Liberal government's lack of compassion for our young people at
the time. He says that this is a positive initiative. I want to put to
him a question dealing only with employment insurance, which was
one of the major concerns I expressed in my speech. Would he
support, like I would, an amendment to put an end to the two tier
employment insurance system, one for the older workers and one
for the younger ones?
In my speech, I said that unfortunately our young people were
the first ones to be hurt by this system. I believe that
returning to a fairer system for everyone would encourage more
young workers to stay in their ridings or their regions and to
even create their own jobs in some cases. I do not want to go on
and on about this, I will limit myself only to that one
suggestion.
The hon. member would hence be able to follow the agenda and
stay true to the criticisms he made while sitting on this side of
the House.
1720
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just for
the information of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I will
remind him that this is a debate on employment insurance and not
on economic development.
With regard to changes to the employment insurance system, I
would like my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois to tell us if he
has had this experience. During the election campaign, it seems
that if one wanted changes to the EI system, one had to vote for
the Liberals because they were the only ones who could deliver on
that. I remember that the Liberals in all the ridings in our area
were telling people that if they voted for them, they would make
changes to the employment insurance system.
Did the Liberals use the employment insurance system only to win
votes or were they really serious about correcting the problem
that was created through changes that hurt
employers and employees who contribute to the employment
insurance plan?
I would like to know if the member has experienced the same
thing I have in Acadie—Bathurst.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, we have the same opinion of
what they were saying. During the election campaign, I watched
the news like everyone else. When the Prime Minister was
campaigning, in your neck of the woods, I believe, he said this
about Bill C-44 “We realized that it had not been a good
decision; we ought not to have done so”. He was referring to the
cuts to employment insurance eligibility.
The hon. member for Bourassa made a personal commitment to
making corrections to the employment insurance legislation. Many
people understood this to mean corrections that would improve the
bill that had been introduced just before the election.
The result as far as concrete measures are concerned, with the
exception of a few lines or phrases, is that nothing substantial
has been changed. It is as if there had never been an election.
It is as if those words had never been spoken.
That is why in the speech I have just given I said that, on
occasion, I am beginning to understand why people are fed up with
politics. When a person listens to what is said during election
campaigns, particularly by the people across the floor, words
that are not respected afterward, not taken any notice of, it is
as if nothing has happened at all.
I would say, however, that the voters did a good thing by
re-electing a number of opposition MPs, particularly the hon.
member for Acadie—Bathurst, and all the others I have just
named, to act as watchdogs over this government. I would have a
word of caution for the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for
whom I still have considerable respect. When a person crosses the
floor of this House, before he does so, he needs to be vigilant
about maintaining his opinions, his values, the things he wants
changed.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière think that the members for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok and for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet will vote in favour of the
bill in its present form, a bill in which there is nothing that
was not already in Bill C-44? Do these members go along with the
Prime Minister's trickery, who said “Some major changes are in
order and we will make them” whereas, now that the election is
behind us, the Prime Minister is forgetting the reality?
Does my colleague agree that during the election campaign the
members representing the Gaspé and the Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet
ridings came and told us that major, indepth changes were
necessary? Today no such changes have been made.
How will these members vote at second reading? Since no changes
have been made to the bill, this means they now agree with the
content of that bill, while they were opposed to it during the
election campaign.
What does the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière think
these members will do?
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think they will
follow the pack, toe the party line and remain silent.
I remember that the Liberal candidate in my riding refused to
have any debate. It was the same with the other Liberal
candidates in the Quebec City region.
1725
Allow me to make a brief comment. In the ridings of the Quebec
City region, with the exception of Bellechasse, the candidates
tried to convince voters to vote against the Bloc Quebecois to
bring the issue of mergers to the Quebec political arena. This
is our second week in the House and these members are no longer
talking about mergers. They do not ask questions on this issue
and they do not make comments.
We are getting used to this pattern. Once the election is over,
the Liberals either remain silent or else they toe the party
line.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw to your attention
that about a year ago I toured the Gaspé. I talked to a lot of
people. Those people said to me that they had no interest in the
government of Quebec under Mr. Bouchard because Mr. Bouchard's
government had no interest in the Gaspé.
As Mr. Bouchard is so closely associated with the Bloc
Quebecois, they had no interest in the Bloc Quebecois either. I
suggest it is no wonder that the Liberals were elected in the
Gaspé in the last election.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have
heard this MP speak of the Gaspé, and I am delighted.
The new member representing the Gaspé, whom we have not yet
heard speak, should draw on his energy and his influence to
speak in support of the Gaspé.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to join the debate, but before begin I would like to
point out that I will be splitting my time with the very learned
member for the riding of St. John's East.
[Translation]
Before I begin, I would like to thank all those in my riding who
gave me this opportunity to again represent the riding of
Fundy—Royal. This is my second term in the House of Commons
and I would once again like to thank the voters in my riding for
giving me the responsibility of representing them here.
[English]
When I approach this bill and think about what we are talking
about, one of the things we are looking at doing is strengthening
the economy as a whole throughout the country.
Before entering public life, I was a debt and deficit activist.
I used to say about the debt that we were mortgaging the future
for younger generations and we needed to get our fiscal house in
order. It is the minimum that we owe our future citizens. I also
believed fundamentally that the best way for us to grow an
economy was to ensure that our tax rates were competitive with
those of our trading nations, primarily our American cousins.
We could look at free trade. Our trade with the Americans in
1988 was $90 billion. Today we trade over $320 billion each and
every year. Those are the basics of our economic fundamentals.
We have a situation where we will have a February pass where we
actually may not even see a budget, despite the fact that we
could be on the eve of facing some form of a recession. The
Americans are actually looking at a perspective where they may be
lowering taxes en masse, and we will not be following suit.
I prefaced my comments with those remarks before talking about
the EI bill because they are what drove my politics for the most
part. The Progressive Conservatives believe in a market economy,
but we do not believe in a market society.
To illustrate that, when the Liberal government chose to select
its restraint measures, instead of actually looking at reducing
spending on massive made in Ottawa programs, where do we see the
bulk of its cuts, its draconian measures in terms of what took
place?
1730
It attacked the provinces with respect to gutting health care
and post-secondary education by 35% in the budget of 1995.
Post-secondary education and health care are fundamental
priorities of our society, yet the government chose to attack
those fundamental planks.
It also chose to attack the poor. I campaigned in 1997 and if I
were to review my remarks in the course of that campaign, I am
sure I would have commented on the fact that there was at least a
$5 billion surplus in the EI fund at that time.
Those are draconian taxes that tax every new job created. The
chief actuary at the time, Bernard Dussault, mentioned to us and
the public that the EI fund would be sustainable at around $2.40
per $100 insurable earnings. Today I believe it is around $1.75.
I am talking about the tax cut side of this matter because that
money belongs in the pockets of Canadians. I am proud to say
that I learned a lot over the course of my mandate. The other
side of the equation is that 75% of the individuals who collected
EI in the year that the Liberals made these draconian cuts earned
less than $10,000. They attacked individuals who earned less
than $10,000 per year. That is essentially the cause and effect
of that initiative. It was wrong.
I say that as a devout fiscal Conservative who wants to get our
fiscal house to ensure that we pay down the debt for future
generations and lower taxes. This is not in any way socialist
propaganda, as I heard a Reform member say in the past. This is
not a regional subsidy in terms of EI.
If we talk to individuals in the northern regions of Alberta,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick or even
in my riding of Fundy—Royal, we see that there are pockets where
seasonal work in winter has a cumulative effect on seasonal
communities.
I am very proud to have been in the coalition of Progressive
Conservatives, social moderates, fiscal conservatives and some
individuals who spoke out on the particular issue.
I compliment the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst for bringing
the issue forward. I compliment Jean Dubé, the former member for
Madawaska—Restigouche who is running in a byelection today. I
wish him well as the polls close in about two and a half hours
from now.
Above all, I compliment Angela Vautour. Angela Vautour raised
the profile of the EI seasonal worker and these draconian cuts in
terms of the intensity measure. She actually brought the issue
before Canadians. I almost call it the Angela Vautour bill.
Her efforts, the efforts within the Bloc in defending its
seasonal communities and the efforts within our Conservative
caucus in terms of the members for New Brunswick Southwest and
for St. John's East, formed a coalition that guilted the
government into action. Only on the eve of an election did it
actually have the guts to go forward and do it.
This was an ill-advised bill, particularly concerning issues
relating to women. The intensity rule actually attacked how we
have our children. A woman may have two children, but if she did
not work the number of weeks or hours necessary between the two
pregnancies, she would not be eligible for EI to start off with.
Moreover, she would be cut from her previous benefits because of
the intensity rule. The legislation was anti-women and
anti-family.
1735
Corrections are long overdue. They are on the floor of the
House of Commons today because of work of opposition members,
primarily the Bloc and the New Democrats. Principally the member
for Acadie—Bathurst for the New Democrats put his shoulder to
the wheel on this issue.
I pay tribute to two members who are not here. They left a very
lasting legacy and will help families in their own communities
for years to come. I compliment Jean Dubé and Angela Vautour for
the work they did on behalf of Canadians.
With those comments, I will entertain any questions and answers
members may have, but I will also issue a challenge.
[Translation]
I would like to hear the members for Madawaska—Restigouche and
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. They have a responsibility to express
their opinion of this bill. These two Liberal members must
speak to this bill.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am sorry to the
member opposite. He will have to make do with me in response to
his speech.
As we know, both the employer and the employee pay employment
insurance premiums. Is it not true that if we cut the EI
premiums to the auto giants, one of the major employers in the
country, it will be a windfall profit worth millions of dollars
to them?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, lowering EI premiums for
the employee and the employer provides more stimulus in our
economy. As any economist who studied this issue has always
maintained that payroll taxes are one of the largest deterrents
of economic growth in our economy.
Companies may actually make money and profits, one of the things
Progressive Conservatives think is good and actually grows the
economy. Liberals would rather stifle the economy and shame on
them for taking that perspective. Lowering premiums for the
employer and the employee is the right thing to do. Almost every
major economist will categorically subscribe to that perspective.
Given that the surplus is almost $9 billion on an annual basis,
there is more than enough money in that process. That money
belongs to the taxpayers. Through tax cuts that money should be
put back in their pockets where it belongs to repair the
draconian damage that Doug Young and the Liberals did in 1995.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from
New Brunswick, the province which neighbours the beautiful
province of Nova Scotia. We already know that the Progressive
Conservatives will support the waiver of the two week rule when
it comes to labour training. We thank the Conservative Party for
its support of that initiative.
We already heard the member from Mississauga admit that EI funds
come from employers and employees and not from government. It
comes from the businesses and the workers. The member from
Mississauga clearly stated that the money was used for purposes
other than labour training or income security.
Would he comment on the revelation of the longstanding member
from the Liberal Party as to why the Liberal government was able
to get away with using funds other than for the purposes they
were intended?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Liberals
were able to get away with it is was that there has not been a
political party in the House over the last seven years that has
the critical mass and strength to be able to hold the government
accountable.
1740
I remember the first leader that made an issue of the EI surplus
and hammered it day in and day out, the Hon. Jean J. Charest. He
actually hit that issue time and time again. Once the surplus
started to evolve and build, he started pointing out the fact
that the money belonged in the pockets of Canadians through lower
premiums and that there was no need for the government to make
the draconian cuts which it actually did at that time.
With respect to the comment of using the money for other
purposes, I think it is a breach of trust. It is disingenuous to
the taxpayers. It is a shame, and we should be lowering taxes in
that regard.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to put a question to my colleague from the PC Party.
He said that his leader, Mr. Charest, fought about the employment
insurance surplus. With all due respect, it seems to be that
every time they speak about employment insurance they talk about
the premium.
Before bringing down the premium, would he agree with me that
the real thing to do is to resolve the problem of employment
insurance for people who do not qualify for it and then look at
the surplus and the premium?
Mr. John Herron: Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the amount
of money that is involved from a surplus perspective is nearly
$10 million annually. The government is misusing or
misappropriating so much money in terms of its intent about how
it is collecting it that both can be done exactly at the same
time. There is no reason to wait in that regard. There is
clearly enough room to be able to move in both directions.
The New Democrats and the Conservatives at some point will say
enough is enough in terms of the benefits. The cuts that I am
resisting relate to those made in 1996 that attacked people
making less than $10,000 per year.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words in this
debate.
We on this side of the House have been calling for four years
for changes to the employment insurance system. The first set of
major changes brought in by the Liberal government about four
years ago had the effect of making life very miserable for a
number of my constituents. It also had the effect of making life
very miserable for people in Atlantic Canada generally who
happened to live for the most part in a seasonal economy.
When the unemployment insurance system became the employment
insurance system, the new rules forced many people in Atlantic
Canada to become mobile. The new rules forced many seasonal
workers to move because it became much more difficult to qualify
for employment insurance benefits. When they did qualify it was
for fewer benefits for a shorter period of time.
This caused quite a great deal of difficulty for Atlantic
Canadians. Seasonal workers were penalized for the intensity
rule, which dropped their rate of benefit every year because they
happened to be repeat users of the system.
I do not see too many changes in some of the really important
aspects of the unemployment insurance bill. The divisor rule had
the effect of lessening the monetary value of the weeks worked
and drove down the weekly EI benefit. I do not see too many
changes that would reverse that effect.
1745
The net result is that about 35% of unemployed people actually
qualify for benefits. Because women of course have a different
work pattern than men, about 30% of women actually qualify for
benefits. That is causing a great deal of hardship among the
workforce generally.
Newfoundland is the hardest hit of the Atlantic provinces with
respect to the EI changes. That, combined with the downturn in
the fishery, has meant a steady out-migration of people from the
province. The population of the province is steadily going down
because of many of the draconian measures the government has
taken.
The truly sad part of this is that the out-migration was not
accidental. It seemed to be a deliberate part of the whole plan.
The architects of the new EI system knew that there would be a
part of the year when seasonal workers would not be able to
qualify for benefits. If they did not qualify for benefits they
would be faced with a choice. They would have the choice of
digging into their savings, going on welfare or moving to another
part of the country.
Some might say so what if they have to move to another part of
the country. However, if they happen to be seasonal workers,
their wages very often are low. They cannot afford to move their
families, lock, stock and barrel, to another part of the country.
The changes brought in by the Liberals in changing the system
from UI to EI have cost the province of Newfoundland $1 billion
annually. The city of St. John's has been losing $75 million
annually. The riding of St. John's East, which is made up of
part of the city of St. John's and the rural areas of Conception
Bay, is losing about $52 million annually. Neighbouring St.
John's West is losing about $56 million annually. Burin—St.
George's is losing $80 million a year. A lot of these towns and
communities happen to be in a seasonal economy because of the
fishery. Newfoundland being on the government side did not seem
to help either. In the five ridings outside of St. John's, the
EI cuts have had a really devastating effect on the rural parts
of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last fall the government decided to loosen up on some of the EI
rules because an election was in the offing, but it failed to
pass the EI bill before the writ was dropped. We were supposed
to forget then, and we are supposed to forget now, that there has
been a massive surplus in the EI account for quite some time. The
government could have and should have acted on the unemployment
insurance problems in Atlantic Canada long before it did. It did
not do so simply because it was leading up to an election, so we
have an EI bill before us today that still fails to address the
problems of a seasonal economy.
I want to say a few words about women and EI. Earlier I said
that about 30% of unemployed Canadian women qualify for benefits
these days. That is not my estimate; that is from Statistics
Canada as well as the employment insurance commission. Only 30%
of unemployed Canadian women actually qualify for benefits.
1750
In the spring budget the Liberals made much of the fact that EI
maternity leave would be extended from six months to a full year.
Given that only 30% of women qualify for any benefits and given
that it is harder to qualify for maternity benefits than it is
for regular benefits, only a political party with the gall of the
Liberals would boast about improvements to maternity benefits.
There are some good points about the bill and I do not think
they should be overlooked. One good point is that the bill
raises the income threshold for clawback. There is no clawback
for first time claimants and for people who avail themselves of
maternity benefits or sick benefits. This is very good and I
want to compliment the government on this. People coming off
maternity or parental benefits will now have an easier time
getting back into the employment insurance system because they
will no longer be treated as people with no attachment to the
workforce.
Why was all of this not done earlier? Why was this not done
this spring when the length of the maternity benefit period was
increased? If only 30% of unemployed women qualify for benefits,
as I said earlier, all of these improvements are cold comfort to
the other 70%.
Also, I do not see any changes in this bill with regard to
easing up on the qualifying requirements for regular benefits,
nor do I see anything that increases the time during which one
can draw regular benefits. This means that there is still a
period of the year in which an unemployed person will have no
income. The divisor rule, which lowers the monetary value of the
weeks worked, is still there and the value of the weekly benefit
has not been changed. While the improvements to maternity
benefits and the clawback provisions are certainly welcome, for
regular benefits the EI system is still nowhere as generous as
what it should be.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his
remarks. I listened very carefully. Incidentally, I am very
fond of his province. I have been down there a number of times.
It is probably one of the most beautiful corners in the country
or, for that matter, anywhere in the world.
I do sympathize with him on this problem of the migration out
that occurs in Newfoundland, because of lack of job
opportunities, I suppose. In that context, I would ask the
member, then, if it would not be better to allow the rich
corporations in central Canada to continue to pay relatively high
premiums into the EI fund? With that surplus the federal
government can invest in infrastructure in Newfoundland that
creates jobs. Is that not a better solution for Newfoundland
than reducing premiums?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, no, that is certainly not
the way it should be. I believe there should be a general
recognition by the federal government of the fact that we either
value seasonal workers or we do not. If a province happens to
have a seasonal economy as we do in Atlantic Canada, the federal
government can and should be looking at making the employment
insurance system a lot more generous. If 10 and 42 was too
generous, which it probably was, then 10 and 21 is certainly not
as generous as it should be.
This is the question we have to ask ourselves when we are
talking about employment insurance: do we value a seasonal
economy? Do we value the fishery in Atlantic Canada? Do we
value loggers in Atlantic Canada? Do we value construction
workers in Atlantic Canada? These people make a very valuable
contribution to the Canadian economy.
It is not only Atlantic Canada that has a seasonal economy.
Parts of Ontario have a seasonal economy as well.
I think it is incumbent upon federal government to realize that
it has an obligation toward the regions of the country. We
should not always be looking to the centre. To think that to
make things better in the centre and things will all of a sudden
become a whole lot better in Atlantic Canada is the wrong
approach.
1755
The hon. members opposite who happen to be representing ridings
in Ontario should realize that. Ontario is not the only province
in Canada that makes a contribution to this economy. The people
of Atlantic Canada make that contribution as well. Fish may not
be very appealing to the member opposite, but fish are a very
important part of this economy and we have fishermen in Atlantic
Canada who need a more generous employment insurance system than
what the federal government is providing now.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with what the
Liberals have done with the draconian cuts to EI is that they
have increased child poverty in this country. They have also
increased the number of food banks we have in this country. It is
absolutely criminal that this government can get away with that.
In my own riding, in Chezzetcook, they opened up another food
bank the other day because people simply do not have enough money
to buy their own food.
This is what happens when we have a centrally based government
that ignores the regions of the country.
Could the hon. member from St. John's East tell us what effect
it has in his communities in terms of the children of his riding
when parents do not have enough money to clothe or feed their
children?
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked
a very good question and a very important one. I believe that
food banks are being used today at unprecedented rates, not only
in Newfoundland but in a lot of Atlantic Canada.
I was part of a committee on poverty that travelled this country
from Newfoundland to Vancouver. We held public meetings and had
people come forward and make presentations. One of the things
people said to us consistently was that the unemployment
insurance system and the changes that the federal government made
to the unemployment insurance system had lowered their income
levels to such an extent that they depended on food banks on an
almost weekly basis. The government should be held to account
for that.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this
opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Western
Arctic and on behalf of my government in favour of these changes
to the employment insurance legislation.
I have been with HRDC since 1993, when EI was still UI, as it
was known then. It was under the leadership of former Minister
Axworthy that the initial discussion on review and reform began.
It was an attempt to look at the inequities in the system, at the
issues and at the long outdated problems that had occurred within
the system and needed to be changed. The ensuing debate was on
those issues. Subsequently we went through successive ministers,
four to be exact, the most important to date our current
minister, who has undertaken to complete the file on the changes
for these particular sections.
The changes we are bringing forward under this bill are
important and necessary. As members of the House know, this bill
was introduced in the House last fall and debated in second
reading. That is why we are reintroducing this bill. The
changes herein reflect the mandate that Canadians gave us in the
last election. They also follow from our government's ongoing
monitoring and review of the EI system and our belief in
fairness.
1800
There is always an effort made to ensure that the best results
come from any reforms or reviews of legislations, programs and
services. This monitoring has led us to recognize that some of
the changes brought in then have caused unanticipated
difficulties, especially some of the impacts that they have had
on seasonal workers and parents who take extended absences from
the workforce to care for young children.
We want to provide a program that is fair and that Canadians can
count on for support when they are out of work or when they are
preparing for work. We have continued to monitor the process.
By and large we can say that all the core elements of the reforms
undertaken in 1996 are working well. However, we also recognize
that some improvements need to be made. That is why we are doing
this legislation reform.
I see the legislation as good news for families and their
children. By eliminating the intensity rule, for example, we
will improve the situation of workers and their families who
often have to rely on EI more than they would like to because job
opportunities may be limited. For many people in situations like
this the existing legislation may be perceived to be punitive,
especially in regions where jobs are scarce. This is something
that is recognized by these changes.
Remember the intensity rule was put in place to discourage the
repeat use of EI. Unfortunately, it has not achieved the desired
results. Looking at my part of the country, for example, we do
not have the same job opportunities as some other areas of the
country. In some regions of my riding of Western Arctic, jobs
are very scarce or at best very seasonal.
Not everyone is in the same situation across the country. Take
for example the individuals employed in the transportation
industry, the ferry workers and the longshoremen of the Northwest
Territories. These men and women ensure the transportation of
vital goods to many small communities in the western Arctic. Many
people would not know but we do not have a complete highway
system. We do not have 100% of the transportation grid in our
area, neither does Nunavut and some parts of the northern areas
of provinces. These jobs are at best very seasonal. These men
and women, try as they might, cannot always work year around. The
weather simply makes it impossible. Should they be penalized by
the intensity rule?
The same is true in a number of other industries in northern
communities, such as commercial fisheries. Our communities also
depend on firefighters to prevent and extinguish forest fires.
Sometimes they work in very remote locations and sometimes they
go abroad and assist because they developed the expertise and are
asked to make a contribution nationally and internationally
outside of our region. Nonetheless, their work is seasonal work.
Should these workers be penalized by the intensity rule?
Oil and gas workers, as well as mining industry workers, are
other groups who are a vital part of the communities of the
Northwest Territories. This work is highly seasonal for the very
fact that we do not have permanent roads. We depend on winter
roads which have a very short window of opportunity because of
the environment. We are not allowed to continue with the
transportation of goods once the ground softens. This really has
an impact on the livelihood of many of those people. Once again,
while they would like to work year around, the reality of our
weather, climate and winter prevents this. The intensity rule
has caused hardship for many people in circumstances like this.
We all agree that the emphasis should be on encouraging people
to gain long term employment. I know that is what people in the
north want to do. That is the long term strategic goal of the
north, to become self-sustaining. With the opportunity of now
having two diamond mines in full swing, we anticipate camps that
have 800 people.
All the same, many of the people who transport fuel and goods
are seasonal workers because of the very nature of the climate
and circumstances that our environment entails in the north. It
is not a government device. We report the weather but we do not
create the environment that makes the weather. That is the way
it is. Once again, while they would like to work year around,
the reality is their circumstances prevent it.
1805
We have to be realistic and we are. We want a system that is
fair to all Canadians including those whose incomes depend on
seasonal employment. We can do that by eliminating the intensity
rule and backdating the change to October 1, 2000, as the
legislation proposes.
I know all members want this. We want to restore the basic rate
of 55% for everyone. This is good news. I also see good news in
the proposed legislation for those individuals and their families
whose income includes special benefits under EI. By this, I mean
benefits paid under EI for maternity or parental leave or in
cases of illness.
Under the current system special benefits can be subject to the
clawback. Under the legislation before us, that will no longer
be the case. When Bill C-2 is passed, people collecting
maternity, parental or sickness benefits, will no longer have to
repay their benefits.
First time claimants will also get a break from the clawback. A
first time claimant has often paid premiums for many years
without ever drawing on their benefits. At the same time, the
government proposes to raise the income level at which the
clawback kicks in for repeat claimants, from $39,000 to $48,750
net income.
After the legislation is passed, only higher income Canadians
who have repeatedly received EI will face the prospect of paying
back their benefits.
I note the legislation proposes we make this repayment
adjustment apply starting from taxation year 2000. In other
words, the change will provide benefit for all of 2000 and from
that time forward.
The bill also proposes changes that will help parents of young
children to more easily qualify for regular benefits after they
have re-entered the labour force. If the bill is adopted,
parents would require the same number of hours as other workers
to qualify for regular benefits, between 420 and 700 hours
depending on the unemployment rate where they live.
The new rules will recognize the strong workforce attachments
these parents had prior to taking an extended period away from
work to raise their young children. For example, we have heard
about women who felt they had been penalized for taking time away
from work to care for their children and that existing
regulations did not give them adequate credit for past
participation in the labour force.
The throne speech gave a flavour of the kind of care, and
previous budgets have also indicated the care, that we give to
young children, to families and to the youth of the country. This
is a reflection and an extension of that. We want all young
children to have a good start. Any legislation that we have put
forward has dealt with early intervention and prevention
programs. We will ensure that there is compatibility between
these changes and the results that we desire.
We are extending the look back period used to determine
eligibility for EI regular benefits by four years to make sure
re-entrant parents are not treated unfairly. This is an
important amendment for my constituents.
Members of the House may not be aware that the Northwest
Territories and its neighbour Nunavut have one of the highest
birth rates in Canada. In 1999 the birth rate for the Northwest
Territories and Nunavut combined was 22.7 births for every 1,000
residents. This compares to an average of 11.2 births for every
1,000 residents in Canada as a whole.
The changes will benefit many people in my riding and
neighbouring ridings in the north. I see this as another
positive change for Canadian families, particularly in light of
the new extended parental benefits. It will remove the penalty
these parents, and especially women, could face when applying for
EI after an extended absence.
1810
There are numbers of ways the changes in Bill C-2 will benefit
unemployed Canadian workers and their families. The bottom line
is that by addressing some very real concerns which have been
brought to our attention, concerns of my constituents and of the
government itself, we are moving to ensure that northerners and
all Canadian families are treated fairly under EI, and that they
have more money to meet the needs of their families.
However the bill is not the end of our work to ensure fairness
under EI. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that we are
committed to an ongoing process of review, that we will continue
to monitor and access how EI is working and to ensure that the EI
system does the job we want it to do. That is why I am pleased
to speak in favour of the legislation for northerners and all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the bill on employment insurance. I was listening to
a woman in parliament talk about fairness and fair treatment,
words that are to be found in Bill C-2. As we know, the treatment
women are subjected to in order to qualify is totally
unfair.
When the minister tells us this reform was necessary, I quite
agree with her. However, when one looks at the bill with respect
to parental leave, about which the minister was boasting in terms
of what the government is doing, it is like putting one's head in
the sand. This means that women are not eligible for employment
insurance.
When one requires that women work 600 hours while in
some regions where unemployment is high, men or women only have
to work 420 hours in order to qualify for regular benefits, when
one boasts about the parental leave bill, that means that one is
not looking at how many women will qualify for parental leave.
The government says that 42% of pregnant women are eligible for
maternity leave. It is fine to boast about doubling the number of
weeks and hours that a woman will be able to spend at home with
her child, but it remains that she has to qualify and to be able
to afford it. With 55% of a precarious salary, a woman will not
be able to afford to stay at home for two years to care for her
child.
When the minister talks about fair treatment, I do not believe
it concerning women, for several reasons. As we know, women are
the ones in precarious jobs. According to the Canadian Labour
Congress, 10 years ago 70% of women had access to employment
insurance. Nowadays, it is the reverse: 70% of women are
excluded.
I dare the minister to tell me this is treating women fairly.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I think members
understand that these are very specific reforms. These changes
are not a panacea to all the woes, problems, hardships and
challenges that face women. There are many other opportunities
that we have to look at.
Some members in the House cannot distinguish between the issue
of guaranteed income and a specific program like employment
insurance. We need to have a different set of discussions on
whether or not there are other issues we have to look at to
perhaps enhance the economic well-being of women. It is a fact
that women are benefiting from our economy as a whole. There
were 31,000 new jobs created for women in December. Employment
for women increased by 1.1 million jobs since 1993.
No, we cannot resolve all the issues because these are specific
reforms. Look at the benefit repayment clawback, the re-entrance
provision and the retroactive fishing regulations which ensure
that women in the fishing industry can access the same parental
benefits as other women. This is progress and the hon. member
should recognize that.
1815
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to have some details from the Secretary of State for
Children and Youth.
In 1989, when my predecessor, Doug Young, was in opposition, he
said that he encouraged all New Brunswickers to fight any changes
to the unemployment insurance system with vigour because they
would spell disaster for New Brunswick.
In February 1993, the leader of the opposition, who is now the
Prime Minister of Canada, said that we should attack the economy,
not the most vulnerable people in our society.
Today, the minister is telling us that minister Axworthy did
what he had to do, which was to reform the employment insurance
plan.
Could she tell me the difference? When she was a member of an
opposition party, that party was fighting any changes proposed by
the Conservative government to the unemployment insurance plan.
Now that the Liberals are in power, it is apparently all right to
steal $32 billion from workers. Could she explain that to me?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon.
member should reflect on the fortunes of his party and consider
the whole issue of reform and review. That is where the reform
needs to be.
It is undeniable that we are living in a world of change. We have high
technology, mechanization, digitalization and a shift from a
resource based economy to a high tech, innovative economy. We
have challenges to face and one of the challenges is adjusting to
change.
The hon. member's comments serve to remind many Canadians that
his party is unwilling to change, unwilling to meet the
challenges and unwilling to make tough decisions in the short
term for long term gain. I think that is what it is all about.
The hon. member should consider those comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, between 1993 and 1997, I sat on the human resources
development committee and the secretary of state was performing
about the same duties as today.
Since very few changes were made compared to what people
requested throughout the consultation process and since the
secretary of state is very much aware of the situation, how does
she explain the fact that the eligibility rule has not been
modified?
The House has to realize that no changes whatsoever were made to
the eligibility rule. The changes only affect those who are
already eligible to employment insurance benefits. There is
nothing in this bill for those who could not previously qualify
for employment insurance.
The secretary of state has read the reports prepared by the
committee that even travelled to my region. How can she justify
and support this bill that does not include any of the
suggestions concerning the eligibility issue?
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
should recognize that we took on the reforms in 1996 to make the
system fairer, reduce dependency, assist claimants in low income
families with children, reduce program costs and emphasize active
measures, all the while leaving the core elements of employment
insurance intact. Perhaps this is not his view, and I doubt that
it is.
These are facts. These are not my opinions. These goals are
just as important today as they were in 1996. This is what we
aspire to. I am sad and sorry that the members opposite do not
feel the same.
Let us look at the changes. In 1997 we saw an inequity and
created the small week pilot project. In the 2000 budget we
extended parental benefits. These are all changes. Today we talk
about clawback and intensity. These are very specific. Do the
hon. members not recognize that these are changes?
I do not know how we can convince them. I am sure that with
more time we can, because they will come to their senses and
realize this is the thing to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.
I find it incredible that those in power are able to say, during
an election campaign, that they are there to make changes when
young university students have trouble studying and working at
the same time.
Many of them work part time but some of them work full time.
These people receive very little benefits if any.
1820
I want to ask the secretary of state how she can say such things
during an election campaign, then introduce a bill without make
changes to allow young university students to have enough money
to get by, especially to allow them not to pay employment
insurance premiums or, at the very least, to receive benefits.
[English]
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the difference is
that we believe in creating opportunities for those students
rather than have a system where they depend on only one form of
support, which would be EI.
We would rather create economic opportunity for smart, clever
young people who make an investment in their education and who
want to work. That is what we prefer to do. We do so by
investing a lot in post-secondary education. We invest $1.2
billion into youth programs and support programs. We have a
summer employment program. All these things speak to the kind of
world we want to create for young people.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise
in the House in the final minutes of this debate on the very
important issue of unemployment insurance.
It is interesting to see the arrogance ooze from the pores of
the Liberal members. It is absolutely incredible that the
government thinks for one second that it has not only the legal
authority but the moral authority to tell businesses and workers
what to do with their money.
This is not government money. This is not Liberal money. This
belongs to the hardworking members of both the working class and
the business community. It is their money. I doubt very much
that an ounce of consultation went on with the various businesses
or union organizations throughout the country.
It is absolutely astounding that in 1989 the Liberals agreed
with an Ed Broadbent motion to eliminate poverty by the year
2000. Since 1993 when the government took power, poverty has
increased four times. More and more food banks are opening
across the country because parents do not have the funds to look
after their children's daily needs.
It is an absolute scandalous shame that government members can
tell us that they are doing is a good thing. They need only come
to my riding, come to areas of Newfoundland and come to other
areas throughout the country to see the devastation their
policies have invoked across the country.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, let us completely ignore
that man and carry on. The Liberals wish to rise on a point of
order simply because they do not understand what their
devastation has done to the EI system.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, you did indicate that the
member only had a minute left to speak. I believe you may have
lost track of time in his particular instance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): No, I did not lose track
at all, because before I gave him the floor I said “Resuming
debate. The hon. member has 20 minutes left”. I give him back
the floor.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, that shows the attention
the Liberals pay to very important issues throughout the country.
I thank you for correcting that error.
It is unfortunate that the government has no understanding of
what it has done. I notice my new colleague, the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton, is in the House today. I welcome him to the
House. No offence to him personally, but I do wish that Michelle
Dockrill was back. Now that he is here, however, I am sure he
will stand up for the good fishing communities of Cape Breton.
It is simply scandalous that he can sit in the House and say his
Liberal colleagues will do a good thing with EI. I would love to
tour with him in his riding after the bill gets through. I know
the Liberals will rush the bill through with no positive
amendments from our side. They will see exactly what happens a
year from now, the devastation that the bill will continue to
have on the good people of Cape Breton.
1825
It is most unfortunate that this is happening. In fact, my hon.
colleague from Winnipeg Centre has clearly pointed out the fact
that the two week penalty for employees who wish to go back and
get training at vocational school is still in effect.
We hope the government will accept this amendment. By taking
away that two week clawback, the government will not penalize any
person in this country who wishes to upgrade his or her skills.
We would like the government to eliminate that penalty against
workers so that they can have the opportunity to upgrade their
skills, especially in aspects of the new economy.
It is most unfortunate that the government members in the House
of Commons think that because they have 170 seats they have a
mandate to do whatever they please. We in the NDP, although we
may have been reduced in numbers, will continue to stand up in
the House for the workers of the country and for the small
businesses of the country, because these are the backbone of our
society, the backbone of the outer regions of our society.
I could not help but notice that one of the members from Prince
Edward Island is here. It is an unfortunate shame that a lot of
the shell fishers in his area have gone through a personal hell
over the last four years due to what HRDC, Revenue Canada and DFO
collectively have done to his good people in his riding.
Now we hear from the member for New Brunswick that the same
thing is happening to the clam fishers in New Brunswick. The
same thing is happening to shell fishers in the Gaspé region as
well and in other areas of New Brunswick. It is unfortunate that
the government continues to punish those people in our society
who make under $10,000 a year. It is absolutely criminal that
the government can stand up and say it is going to do what is
right.
To do what is right is, first of all, to respect these people.
Although they do not make an awful lot of money, they are still
Canadian citizens. The last time I checked, they had a right to
be governed in a respectful way. It is a shame that the federal
government, through its departments, can display such arrogance
toward these hardworking Canadians, when in actuality all they
really wish to do is look after their families and live in the
communities of their ancestors.
My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst went across the country a
couple of years ago and came up with an EI report. My colleague
from the Conservatives gave a lot of credit to Angela Vautour,
who, by the way, was a former member of the New Democratic Party
before she crossed the floor, and I give her credit as well for
raising this issue, but I believe the fact that the government is
even talking about EI is due to the incredible hard work of my
colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He deserves an awful lot of
credit for bringing the issue to the House and shaming the
government into doing something right.
I will give the Liberals some credit. I do not often give them
credit, but a couple of things in the EI changes are positive.
The unfortunate fact is that the government has the money and the
time to move forward, invoke all the changes and make sure that
an awful lot of people can access EI funds for many positive
reasons, but it does not.
There is one thing the government could do, which I offer to it.
I could not help but notice in the throne speech the situation of
parents who look after children needing palliative care. The
parents may be able to access income security and job protection
at the same time. That was taken right out of my private
member's bill. The only unfortunate part is a lot of it was
missed.
I am going to give this advice to the Liberal government and to
my good colleague from Cape Breton. Here is what can be done.
Any person that looks after an infirm relative, one under
rehabilitative or palliative care, should be able to take time
off work, access EI funds and have job protection for up to a
year. This gives the person the opportunity to look after a
loved one, be it under a palliative care or rehabilitative care
situation, and to care for him or her with some dignity. It also
relieves our health care system and gives great relief to other
medical concerns out there.
If the Liberals would have taken up that one, they would be
getting a lot of support and high praise throughout the country.
They did not. They just took a little bit. In order to move
this issue forward, I am offering them the entire private
member's bill. We all know that when we care for a loved one or
an individual under a palliative care situation in our own home,
it gives that individual a lot more care and dignity than would
be the case if the person had to be institutionalized.
I want to say once and for all that the government does not have
the right to use the EI money as it pleases. It belongs to
businesses and the workers in Canada. Before it invokes any
major changes, the government should consult Canadians to see
what should be done with the burgeoning surplus.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt
my hon. colleague. I would like to inform him that he still has
13 minutes left in his speech when the matter is next brought
before the House.
[Translation]
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)