Debates of Dec. 8th, 1995

Copyright

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps our colleague has closer ties to the arts community that I do, but I certainly get their message loud and clear. I do not need to go through him to consult with them. I hear them, I listen to them and we will act in their best interest.

British Columbia

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of National Revenue, our minister from British Columbia, on his new found influence with cabinet and the Prime Minister.

Will he now try to achieve distinct society status for British Columbians?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has acknowledged the very important work of the minister from British Columbia, working behind the scenes as we promised in the House he would do.

I can understand the obvious embarrassment of the Reform Party because only about a week ago its leader was in the House seeking the right of veto for British Columbia, not for Alberta.

In a very positive way we have tried to respond to his concerns and in particular to the very sound recommendations given by the minister form British Columbia to the Prime Minister, who ultimately is seeking the approval of the amendment.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the non-answer from the non-minister will probably reflect the non-votes for the Liberals in the next election in British Columbia.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Given the short shrift British Columbians have had over the years with the closure of Royal Roads, the closure of base Chilliwack, the KAON project, the welfare fiasco of recent times, et cetera, will the minister with his new found influence try to move the government away from knee-jerk reactions toward meaningful action?

The specific one is the west coast fishing strategy, fishing licences and fishing quotas. Will the minister move toward making them fair and non-discriminatory because he understands what is going on in British Columbia?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the word knee-jerk coming from this member, the emphasis ought to be on the latter part of that description in referring to the member.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I ask the hon. minister to withdraw that.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely.

[The Speaker]

I accept that. Would the hon. minister like to answer the question?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Absolutely, Mr Speaker, out of deference to you, the House and all the goods knees in the world.

Yesterday in Vancouver in beautiful British Columbia, while the member was here trying to figure out ways to make the federation fail, we were meeting with 80 representatives of the British Columbia fishing industry, trying to work toward ensuring the federation succeeds.

We believe that when people from coast to coast work together, speak together, listen to one another and build together, Canada is a better place. In working together, we will build the country. To the hon. member and his party, they cannot fulfil their political ambitions by trying to climb up on the broken pieces of Canada. It is time to stand up for the country instead of tearing it down.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As a result of the measures proposed in the minister's bill, UI coverage for workers will be reduced even further. In 1990, 77 per cent of unemployed workers qualified for UI. This proportion has since dropped to less than 50 per cent, and the minister's reform will reduce it even further.

Does the minister not agree that, as the Canadian Labour Congress pointed out in its analysis of his reform, the new UI program will protect only one out of three unemployed workers?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Mercier and the CLC are dead wrong in their analysis.

The proposed changes to the program substantially expand coverage. We will be expanding coverage for half a million people who are presently part time workers. We will be extending coverage for seasonal workers by using an hours system so that they can establish eligibility earlier and have longer benefits. We will be extending the coverage of employment benefits for people who have presently exhausted their programs so that they can get back to work.

The net result is to give people a lot more opportunity to return to work, to get credit for the work they are doing and as a result achieve the most important objective, to give people real support in getting a job.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the reform did not include an additional major obstacle in that workers will be required to work a minimum of 910 hours in one year in order to qualify for UI, there could be a semblance of truth to what the minister is saying.

Does the minister not agree that-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I would ask you to please choose your words very judiciously.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

That is very judicious.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that the main reason why 500,000 part time workers were included in the program is to require them to pay premiums even though most of them will never be eligible to benefit?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out in an earlier exchange, the hon. member has omitted a very important part of the program. Those workers are also eligible for a major refund of all premiums if they do not become eligible.

About 1.3 million part time workers are eligible for a full refund of all premiums paid. As a result, many will be paying less than they do now under the old system.

Once again it points out that when simply trying to defend the status quo, they are totally immune and incapable of understanding the real positive pluses that come by making good, substantial, balanced, equitable reform.

Health Care

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary to the health minister is a physician from B.C. Some of her colleagues have just built a brand new clinic there. It is innovative and something to be proud of.

Because of her minister, however, that clinic is unavailable to B.C. residents; only to foreigners. Does the parliamentary secretary have any difficulty telling her neighbours waiting in line in pain they cannot access that clinic because of her minister's policies?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often we have to say this in the House, but there is a Canada Health Act. It works on the five principles of medicare, guiding principles for the country.

Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians, especially British Columbians, support that.

When any province sets up any sort of clinic or anything which contravenes the Canada Health Act the government will act to take whatever steps are necessary to stop it.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a physician:

Governments which willing undertook the responsibility for funding medicare when there was political mileage to be gained are now reluctant to accept the concomitant financial burden. They try to weasel out of their promise.

The honest alternative would be for governments to confess to the public that they no longer can, or wish to fund medicare.

Those words should be eerily familiar to the parliamentary secretary. They are published words of hers in a 1990 B.C. journal of medicine.

[The Speaker]

Questions in question period should relate to the policy or administrative area of a minister or parliamentary secretary.

The way the question is phrased I judge to be out of order. However, I invite the hon. member to rephrase his question.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Simply, Mr. Speaker, what changed the parliamentary secretary's mind?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is presuming many things. My mind has always been clearly fixed on the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare. Nothing since, before or during my life as a physician has ever changed that.

Unemployment Insurance

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The economic and financial update released yesterday by the minister indicates that the government could have lowered UI premiums to $2.93 for every $100 of insurable earnings and still have collected the whole amount set in the 1995 budget. Yet, the government decided to set the premium at $2.95.

Will the minister recognize that he could have lowered UI premiums to $2.93 and still have met his 1995 budgetary objectives?