Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to compress as much as I can within my six minutes. I will try not to repeat a lot of what has already been said. Many good comments have been made here today by our colleagues from the Bloc and my colleagues within the New Democratic Party.

I have a few questions about the others in regard to how we approach the issue, but to get on with the issue of training and educational opportunities for older workers, I think it is crucial that we do not wait until the last moment, when workers have already lost their jobs, before we give them those training opportunities.

I have been here in Ottawa for about eight years. At different times I have called upon the minister and the government to implement access to employment insurance for workers who want to take additional training.

For example, a request came to us from the nurses union. The nurses said they had members who wanted to take advanced training in their nursing profession or in some other profession. They wanted additional training. They may never have collected employment insurance in their lives, but even if they had, they wanted the opportunity to take some additional training.

Certainly had the workers within the softwood lumber industry been given an opportunity at some point to take additional training, they would have been able to make that transformation to another job without having to go through the crisis of not having employment.

There is a lot that we could be doing within our employment insurance program to prevent the crisis situations for so many unemployed workers, with workers having to go on welfare, their families being under that pressure and the entire system being under pressure. It ends up affecting the health care system and, in a lot of instances, the justice system. It has a major effect throughout the country.

The reality is that there is money in the employment insurance fund. It is not as if there are no dollars available to make those improvements to benefits within the employment insurance fund, certainly to address the issue that we are talking about here today with the opposition day motion, but also on a broader scope to give Canadians the opportunity to enhance their educational opportunities.

I would encourage the government not to look at this issue from just the older workers perspective, which is extremely important, but from the perspective that we need to enhance the opportunities for workers to get that additional training. It is also extremely important to note, and I will highlight this a bit more regarding the older workers, that we are seeing workers staying in the workforce a lot longer, even when they can retire at age 65. We know that a change is afoot to increase the retirement age, because in some work categories people are able to continue working longer. Certainly, though, in other areas people want to be able to leave a type of employment because it is hard on the body and hard on the mind. The longer people are in those jobs the more they feel it from a health perspective.

I think we need to enhance the opportunities for workers to get that additional training. This is something that the government has not been open to. The sad reality of why it is not open to this is that the government is using the employment insurance premium fund for other things. That is the sad reality.

What really sickens me about this is that if we look at that $46 billion, and we all know it came from EI and has gone into general revenue over the years, the Conservative Party is saying to take that employment insurance money and give a $4.6 billion tax break at the expense of all Canadians.

Let me say this for my colleague from Regina--Qu'Appelle. That is the riding where I spent most of my younger years. I do not say I grew up there anymore, because I probably grew up after I left the Regina--Qu'Appelle area. I grew up in a small community called Lebret. Here is what I would like to ask my colleague from Regina--Qu'Appelle. What great advantage to Lebret is that $4.6 billion corporate tax cut?

I cannot imagine the benefit, but I can tell the member that I can certainly imagine the benefits of affordable education, affordable housing and improvements in Kyoto measures and environmental issues. All of these will have great advantages for those communities in his own riding, but he is fighting for corporate tax cuts for Bay Street corporations that may want to expand and pay their CEOs a bit more so they can go and get another place in the Cayman Islands or a holiday offshore somewhere. Meanwhile, the people in his own riding would get nothing, absolutely nothing.

I am going to quickly scan the comments that I was writing down as the discussion was going on about EI. The parliamentary secretary had commented in reply to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster that it is too bad the U.S. does not play fair in the globalization issue on the trade deals. I want to say to the parliamentary secretary, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on the Liberal government for time and time again getting into battles with our southern neighbour and not doing anything about it, not fixing the faults within the trade agreements that have jeopardized jobs in Canada over and over again. Shame on the government for not acting on behalf of Canadians.

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2005]

No partisanship, I am telling members. I was a school trustee and I know that if someone goes into a school and starts getting partisan, that person will not be back there. It just will not happen.

I stand firm on the commitment that I do not get partisan, but I can say that I have been in the schools in my riding and have entered into discussions on the trade agreements and how they affect the farm situation. We have had discussions about the BSE crisis. That was with grade 9 and grade 10 students. There are a lot of adults in this country who do not have the same type of knowledge that I was experiencing in those classrooms and we still give them the right to vote. And well we should. We expect that individuals take time to learn about what they are going to be voting on and to understand the different parties.

I think we have reached that fork in the road where we make a decision as a country to go a bit further, to take that leap and to put the trust in the young people in our country. I think that time is now.

I was involved in this in the last Parliament. I had a private member's bill on this. I remember having discussions with one of the former Conservative's daughters, Catherine Clark. I think it was with one of my colleagues from the Conservatives, the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam, I believe, that I had discussions about the age group. We acknowledged some of the dynamics of what was allowed within parties at age 14, but somehow people still say we should not allow 16 year olds to vote. I think we have a lot of hypocrisy involved in this and we need to go beyond that.

I also want to make a point of mentioning that within the first nations communities we have a situation: not a lot of people go out and vote. Many Canadians do not realize that aboriginal people in Canada, certainly first nations, did not have the right to vote until much later than everyone else. Sometimes there is criticism that if they do not want to get out and vote it is their own fault, but again, let us recognize that sometimes people have to get into the habit of voting. They need to see that voting works and they need to be able to see change.

First nations people have not been given the same length of time to get into that process, so I think it is crucially important in the first nations communities that 16 year olds have the opportunity to get involved in the election process. They will be in their schools and they can take the time to learn about the different political parties and the different policies of those parties. That can be done in a non-partisan way. We can get the information out there and then they can make a decision and become involved in the electoral process.

A number of first nations communities elect junior chiefs and councils. That is the area of government they see firsthand, the chiefs and councils in their communities. A number of those communities have junior chiefs and councils who try to be actively involved in how their communities work.

If those young people are taking the time to see themselves as junior chiefs and councils, I also think they would take the time to see themselves involved in the whole political process within the country. From the perspective of encouraging first nations and aboriginal youth to become part of the electoral process, I also think it is crucially important.

I have just a few minutes left. I want to thank my colleague from Ajax—Pickering and my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for pursuing this issue in this Parliament. I certainly support this motion. I would encourage everyone else to take that extra strong leap and support young people having the opportunity to vote, because they have shown that they are active participants in Canada. We should give them the opportunity to be actively involved politically.

[Canada Elections Act, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate once again the issue of lowering the voting age to 16.

I want to start off by acknowledging the comments by my colleague from the Bloc who talked about the paradox of how someone, and I believe the age is 14 years in most political parties in the country, can vote for their party leader. This includes, unless things have changed in the last couple years, the Conservative Party. There are people who can vote for their party leader who--although I think it is very doubtful we are going to see this with the Conservative Party--could become the prime minister and those people do not have the right to vote for that person within a normal federal election. It is a paradox. It is absolutely hypocritical.

I was taken aback by the comments made by the Conservative member that somehow being younger is better, as if everyone else does not count. That is not how I look at it. I look at it as representation within the House of as many as possible, recognizing the experience and wisdom that comes from every age group. His comments came across as very derogatory, that somehow anyone who is of another generation does not count.

That is not what I want to see in the House. That is not why I believe that young people should be given the opportunity to vote. They should be given the opportunity because I have seen over the course of time the intelligence that they offer, the differing opinions and different perspectives that they offer. As I met with them in high schools and throughout my riding, I grew more and more committed to the fact that they should be given the opportunity to vote, not because somehow I thought all those older people did not have any respectable qualities, or any good qualities or any great options for the country. That was not it.

I certainly got a very uncomfortable feeling from the Conservative member.

It is important that we give the representation to as wide an age group as possible within the House.

As I indicated, I have seen a great response from young people in the riding. We can always debate about whether the age should be 14, 16 or 17. Generally we tie it to different things that happen in the lives of individuals.

I mentioned how at age 14 most individuals can vote within their parties for their leader. I have listened over the years to comments that 10 year olds should be moved up to adult court. Again, it came from the Reform-Alliance and I think probably some of it has hung over to the Conservatives. In all reality there were actually comments that 10 year olds should be moved up to adult court. Where is the hypocrisy of moving a 10 year old up to adult court but a 16 year old should not be able to vote in an election?

Even if we went beyond that, we know that 16 year olds can be moved up to adult court. If we expect that they are responsible for their actions at 16, enough that they can be moved up to adult court for a particular crime, certainly we should acknowledge they should have the right to vote in an election.

A number of 15, 16 and 17 year old men went to war in the second world war. They laid their lives on the line for this country and did not have the right to vote. How many 14, 15 and 16 year olds are working adding additional income for their families? It is a rough time for a lot of people on minimum wage, so there are family members who are working.

It is not because of our age that we pay income tax. It is when we reach a certain level of income that we pay income tax. One can be 14 and be paying income tax, but at 14 one cannot vote municipally, provincially or federally. It is time that changed.

Young people have access to more information now than ever before. They are more knowledgeable about things happening throughout the world. We need to recognize that and give them the opportunity to vote.

I want to emphasize the comments by my colleague from the Bloc about how businesses and corporations know that they have to target young people if they want to get them hooked into doing something.

We have accepted that we can hook them in for buying certain products, eating certain foods, and smoking and drinking, but somehow it is wrong for us to suggest that they get involved in the political process and vote at that age. It is an excellent time. They are in their senior years in school.

I do not know about the other provinces, but in the province of Manitoba grade nine has a basic component of the curriculum in which the students study governments. I often get called into the schools to speak to the students. I know it is going to shock members, but I really try not to be partisan and I really make an effort to build an understanding. I am amazed at the questions that come from the students.

[Foreign Aid, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today Stephen Lewis spoke to delegates on the millennium development goals. He said that the Liberals' failure to set a timeline for 0.7% of GDP going to aid undermines everything that Canada does around the world.

Every witness before the foreign affairs committee has expressed complete bewilderment that the Liberals have not set out a date to reach 0.7%, including the man who has just been appointed the president of CIDA.

The millennium development goals of 0.7% are not just about photo ops and funding for concerts. The goals are an honest commitment to improving and saving lives.

When will the Prime Minister make that honest commitment? What is the date that Canada will reach 0.7%?

[Supply Management, June 7th, 2005]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague, who I have known for a number of years now, will recognize that I have sat through a number of discussions related to crises in a number of different industries in which the government has often waited so long to respond and actually get anything done. In a number of cases, nothing has ever been done. We are still dealing with the issues and the crises in the softwood lumber and the BSE situations. What I have seen actually has been quite disappointing, from the perspective of a government standing up for farmers in Canada.

As my colleague from Timmins—James Bay was talking, and I was hearing different comments from the background, I actually was envisioning the government and the representatives of the government fighting for the farmers in Canada. We have all seen those inflatable bags that are filled with air and that have sand in the bottom, and when you bop them they pop back up again. Quite frankly, that is how I saw the government, as an inflatable bag of air, not doing anything for the farmers of Canada. They keep getting bopped from every country and they are doing nothing. They are getting back up, but they are staying in the same spot, up and down, up and down, and accomplishing nothing.

So my question to my colleague is, at what point does she take a different position? At what point does the government recognize that it cannot wait until the industry is totally dead before it stands up and does something for the farmers in Canada and for the dairy producers?

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh mentioned that the labelling will only affect 2% to 3%. We have to take other measures if we are going to really have an impact on the industry. At what point does she see that happening?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. One would pretty much have to be around the debate the whole day to see where the initial blows come from before the other ones start coming back. I guess it would be nice if the ball would not go back and forth sometimes in the House, Mr. Speaker, and you have to catch it in the middle to put a halt to it.

As far as the budget goes, the New Democratic Party has supported a budget that made changes that reflected things we wanted to see happen. Over the course of time, I have to admit there have been times I have supported items that have come from the Conservatives when they were good, although they have been few and far between. I have supported items that have come from the Bloc. We have done that all around

However, in dealing with this issue today, my colleague and I have talked about work issues before. I know he thinks an awful lot along the same lines as we do on a good many issues. In this case, he should look at the issue and vote accordingly to the issue and the motion rather than deal with everything that has come before the House or will come in the upcoming years.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question. One certainly would get that impression. I honestly do not believe that each and every one of my colleagues on the Liberal side think that way. I do believe they are getting rooked into doing something that is not right because they have a controlling body that says they have to do this because it wants to give corporate tax cuts. I think a lot of good people on the governing side are getting rooked in and they are falling into it, somehow believing they cannot do anything for working people.

There is no question that if people in the fishing industry or the forestry industry are unable to get some assistance in downtimes, they will have to move or go on social assistance or their industry will be wiped out. Maybe there is some unscrupulous plan to put them out of business for good so a large corporation can take over the fishing industry. We hear these different stories of different things happening.

I would ask that all my colleagues on the governing side not get rooked in by those people within their party who want to benefit large corporations.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on our opposition day motion.

The motion itself does not encompass all of the wrongs within the unemployment system. That has been acknowledged today. We have been criticized by the other opposition parties, whose members have said that somehow we should have fixed everything in this one opposition day motion. Either of the other two opposition parties could have on numerous occasions also tried to fix it, but they have in a number of instances failed to do so. I want everyone to reflect on the fact that we are addressing only one of the faults in the unemployment system.

My riding, including both land and water, is about four-fifths of the province of Manitoba. There are only about 80,000 people in the riding. Over half of the first nations in Manitoba are in my riding.

In my riding, there are large numbers of people working in seasonal employment in the forestry industry, as the member for Toronto—Danforth said. There are a number in the fishing industry and others within the tourism industry, whether they are guiding or helping out. This motion would definitely increase their opportunity to have more dollars coming into their households, there is no question about it, and ultimately that means more dollars going into their communities.

The people who are collecting unemployment insurance are not taking holidays in the Cayman Islands. They are not going to Mexico. They are not whipping off to Hawaii to spend their money. They are buying milk and bread to put on their tables. They are spending that money in their local communities. If they do not have the dollars coming in from employment insurance, a lot of them will end up having to collect social assistance. They do not want to be collecting social assistance. They have rightfully earned the right to receive employment insurance.

What has happened is that year after year the government has cut the benefits within employment insurance. I have been working pretty much every year since I was 12 years old. I worked every summer. I have been in full time employment since I was 17 or 18. During that course of time I have worked summer jobs that started in May and ended in September, and I had enough weeks in that I was able to collect employment insurance.

As a newly married young mother I moved to where I now live and was able to collect employment insurance for a period of time, but I still went out to look for work. I did not sit back and say, “Gosh, I have all this money”. Members must bear in mind that I was probably getting a good percentage more than a lot of the individuals are getting now. I still looked for work. I expect that most people on employment insurance want to do the same thing.

Over time, after I had each of my children I was able to take time off and receive maternity benefits because there was a program that helped offset the costs. We were a young family and were able to hold our own while doing that. I went back to work each time. I expect that most people on employment insurance want to do the same. It is not their fault that they are living in communities where there is no employment and they cannot do it.

It is being suggested by those who oppose this motion that these individuals should somehow travel across the country with all the money they have stashed away because they must have stashed away a pile of money in their seasonal jobs from which they are trying to earn enough of a living to support their families. They must be able to stash a pile away, those who oppose this motion say, so that when they are unemployed they can take a $2,000 or $3,000 trip from one end of the country to a place where there may be some employment for a few weeks. How ridiculous is that?

These are individuals who cannot afford to travel that far without getting some money. There used to be money within the employment insurance system for relocating for periods of time. There used to be dollars available for that. That is gone. It was one of the benefits that was stripped out of the employment insurance program.

On top of taking away those dollars and cutting benefits, percentage rates have been established so that if people have collected once they are going to be punished for having to collect again and they will lose more dollars.

All we asking for in this motion is to put a little of that money back in. It would be one thing if the money were not there, but there is $46 billion from employment insurance premiums that the government is using for other things. Is that fair? Is that just? Is it fair that all of those people who are working and paying their premiums into their insurance plan now cannot get decent benefits because the government wants to use the money, as my colleague from Toronto—Danforth said, to give $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts?

What is wrong with this picture? Who are members representing here in this House? Is it not those workers and those employers who have paid in the money?

Should we not be improving the benefits and putting dollars back into local communities? This is not money to use on a holiday to the Cayman Islands or Mexico. This is money going back into Prince Rupert, The Pas, Thompson, Bras d'Or and Acadie—Bathurst, into numerous communities across the country. I am sure some would even end up going into Alberta, as rich as people are in Alberta. We all hear about how rich people are in Alberta, but I know there are people who are unemployed in Alberta and who need some additional dollars, who want to work but maybe at certain times do not have those jobs available.

It is not as if the dollars are not there within the employment insurance program, but we have a government that wants to use those dollars for other things. How dare the Liberals? How dare they come into the House and talk about their wonderful surplus when time and time again benefits have been cut from the employment insurance program?

If people are paying into an insurance plan for their house or even for car insurance and they see the plan building up and there is money there, they want to see the benefits improved. Is that not right? People are not expecting that this year the company is going to say, “No, we want another $500 and the deductible for accidents is going to be increased by another $500”. That is not acceptable, people would say. If the company is making the money from this and not spending it, people want to see the benefits improved. They would want to see their deductible lowered. Rightfully so. It is their money.

In this case, it is our money and our employers' money. We want to see the benefits. It is no different. We are asking for an improvement in the benefits. The dollars are there. As for anyone who talks about irresponsible spending, that is just not the case. These are dollars that are in the employment insurance program.

Now if we want to keep that program honest and if we want to keep the government honest with the employment insurance program, there is no question about it: a separate fund should be set up. I understand that we are going to hear that the Auditor General thinks it should be included in general revenue and the government may at some point have to offset the cost. At $46 billion, that is a whole lot of offsetting, so that just does not cut it with me.

The reality is that there is room to improve the benefits within the employment insurance program. This is one aspect of improvement that we want to see. The dollars are there. Not doing it is irresponsible and it is unconscionable. Quite frankly, I would like to say that it is almost like extortion to keep taking money from workers and not putting dollars back into the program that they and their employers are paying the premiums for.

There are things that can be done to improve the program. That is what should be happening. That is what we are calling for here. We are calling for an improvement in the benefits by way of reducing the number of weeks. We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are not asking for the moon. We are not asking for additional tax dollars to be paid. The premiums have been paid and the money is there. I hope everyone in the House will support the motion.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to indicate that there are a number of different projects being tried. He said that we have to find a balanced approach so that EI is not seen as the employment funding so to speak for an area or a region.

I am curious to know if he thinks this way because there is not enough money in the EI fund or if he somehow falls into the view that people who are doing seasonal jobs really do not want to work part of the time.

I have to admit that I am getting the impression from some members that they somehow feel that people who are doing seasonal jobs really do not want to work all the time and therefore do not deserve to have their employment insurance come into place when they are not employed for part of the year because the type of jobs they do are seasonal. I am wondering if maybe that is just part of not recognizing that different regions of the country have different jobs available and one cannot necessarily work year round in a specific job.

Is the member's reasoning because there is not enough money in the EI fund or does he fall into that trap of believing that people who are on EI really do not want to work?

[Air Transportation, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will protect the privacy of Canadians as much as he protects the privacy of his minister.

Any time the Liberal government goes into discussions with the U.S., Canadians get worried. After all, the Liberal government has been discussing the softwood lumber dispute and the BSE dispute for years with no resolution. Now the transport minister says he is discussing the U.S. requirements to release private information on airline passengers flying over the U.S., not landing in the U.S. but flying over the U.S.

The government needs to make it perfectly clear that Canada will protect the privacy of Canadians and this is not up for discussion. Will the minister do that? Will he say--