Gar Knutson

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 21st, 1998]

Part (a)

The information commissioner is a special ombudsperson appointed by parliament ot investigate complaints that the government has denied rights under the Access to Information Act. The commissioner is independent of government and has strong investigative powers.

The position of information commissioner became vacant following the expiration of Mr. John Grace's term of office on April 30, 1998.

Seven individuals expressed an interest in writing in being considered for the position.

Part (b)

The selection process for the new information commissioner was an informal one. Names were brought to the attention of the government for consideration by many sources, including the bureaucracy, the journalist community and members of parliament.

The names of those individuals who wrote in expressing an interest in the position cannot be disclosed since this information is considered personal information and is protected under the Privacy Act.

However, the Honourable John Reid's name was put forward to the government by opposition members of the House of Commons.

Under the Access to Information Act, the appointment of a new information commissioner must be approved by motions in the House of Commons and the Senate.

Following his testimony in committee, the House of Commons and the Senate adopted such motion supporting the appointment of the Honourable John Reid.

The appointment of Mr. Reid was subsequently announced by the government on June 25, 1998.

Part (c)

Although the selection process was informal, the government at all times sought to ensure that the new information commissioner would be an individual possessing experience in managing at the senior executive level, in innovating and leading in the management of a multi-disciplinary team on sensitive issues in a public environment, and with a thorough knowledge of the Access to Information Act, as well as an understanding of the rules of natural justice and fairness, and the principles of public administration, current government structure, and government decision making.

The government shares the view of all parties in the House of Commons and the Senate that Mr. Reid meets these qualifications.

[Boating Safety, June 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every year in Canada 200 lives are lost and 6,000 non-fatal accidents occur while recreational boating.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please tell us what he and his department are doing to increase the safety of the boating public on Canada's waterways?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

There is 4% higher unemployment because we have better social programs. When a person falls out of a job in Canada they are not faced with the same desperate problems as they are when they fall out of a job in the United States. We are not prepared to tolerate the same things that the Americans tolerate. We are not prepared to tolerate a permanent underclass.

If we were prepared to tolerate a permanent underclass the way they do in the United States, we would have lower unemployment. If things are made more desperate, people will take jobs at low wages, even though they would prefer not to.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

They all have jobs, my friend is shouting across the way. Then perhaps he could have taken two hours on the weekend and driven down Michigan Avenue. He would have seen that they do not all have jobs. A number of people are homeless. A number of people are suffering. There is an underclass in the United States which does not exist in this country. Why? Because we have more generous social programs. When people fall out of work they are not as desperate to find jobs. They know they are not going to lose their health care benefits, at least under a Liberal government. What would happen, God forbid, under a Reform government, who knows. But they know they are not going to lose their health care benefits if they become unemployed. They know there is a social program to take care of them for a while. We have higher unemployment because we have better social programs.

If hon. members would stop heckling and listen for a bit they would also have heard that in the last four months our economy, compared to the United States, has out performed the American economy.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the question that the hon. member has asked me. I suggest that any understanding of basic economics would provide the answer.

We provide more generous social programs. We can walk down the main street of the city of Toronto and then walk down the main street of a city like Detroit and see the difference. When my hon. friends were in London last weekend, if they had driven two hours and gone to the city of Detroit, down Michigan Avenue, they would have seen a host of differences between the way things are done in the United States and Canada.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

The last comment from my hon. friend in the Bloc was that he cannot guarantee my safety in his riding because of the tension. This use of hyperbole, of gross exaggeration is so typical of when members of the Bloc Quebecois speak. It is ridiculous. We see this in its motion. It talks about the catastrophic effects of the reforms that we have had in unemployment insurance.

I ask the member, is it catastrophic that roughly one million more people are working today than were working in 1993? Is it catastrophic that the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.2% to 8.4% and is continuing to drop? Is it catastrophic that our job creation numbers in the last four months have been outstanding? We have created more jobs on a percentage basis than has the United States. Is it catastrophic that there were 171,000 new jobs in the first four months of 1998? Are these examples of the great catastrophe my friend in the Bloc Quebecois is talking about?

Is it catastrophic that the OECD is forecasting the highest growth, 3.8% for Canada, of any of the countries in the G-7? Is it catastrophic that inflation is at its lowest level in 30 years? When there is lower inflation we get lower interest rates and we get more investment by business. With more investment by business we get more jobs. The jobs that we already have in our economy become more secure as businesses invest in new plant and equipment and make those jobs more sustainable.

Is it catastrophic that our deficit has dropped from $42 billion when we took office in 1993 to zero today, again putting more pressure on lowering interest rates and higher investments by firms?

My final comment to my hon. friend about saying that the tension is so palpable that he cannot guarantee my safety in his riding, he should come to St. Thomas to see the new investments. He should come to see 1,000 new jobs coming out of investment by Magna corporation because of the upswing in the auto industry. He should come and see the new investment in a new truck plant by Freightliner which is a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. Both those plants will be making products for the world. It represents a confidence in this country I wish my friend across the way and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois shared.

I know the Liberals will talk about the good news all day today and the people in the opposition will talk about the bad news. Clearly one thing is true, that we are better off as a country than we were in 1993. That is why Canadians rewarded us with a second mandate and a majority government.

Having said that, any examination of the unemployment insurance system today, or the employment insurance bill, should acknowledge that the benefits to unemployment ratio has dropped. It has dropped from roughly 80% sometime ago to 43%. That on the face of it suggests a problem. We do have a surplus that is quite large. Both those elements taken together should cause us to reflect some on the cuts we made to the EI system.

Without getting into it in some detail, I had a discussion with front line workers in my local Canada employment office on Friday. They thought that sick benefits needed to be looked at. Right now the length of the term for people on sick benefits is 15 weeks. If we are going to make the system more generous we should expand the number of weeks available for sick benefits.

Another point which was mentioned in the meeting was that we need to provide more support for unskilled workers. If they get laid off from their job right now, the number of weeks on EI is calculated using a formula based on the number of weeks worked and the local unemployment level. We need to identify people within the unemployed group who are in particular need of greater support. Maybe we could provide them with longer term income support.

Older workers would also fit within this category. It may make sense that we provide older workers with longer term income support. An article in Friday's Toronto Star reported that Statistics Canada had said, and which all of us probably know anyway, that older workers take longer to find jobs and are more likely to exhaust their benefits.

Maybe we should take this time of dropping the EI ratio and the rising surplus to examine the whole issue of support we provide for older workers. Perhaps that is an area that could have some tinkering or some extra benefits.

Another issue that comes up is the whole issue of dropping the EI premium rate. The premium rate has to come down in a gradual and measured way. The thing we want to avoid is taking premiums up when we enter the next recession, which none of us want to see come soon. We all have to admit that the economy goes up and down. Eventually we are going to be in an economic downturn which would be the worst time to raise premium rates. It makes sense to lower them only when we are confident that lowering them is somewhat permanent and can work its way through the economy.

In the last three years the Government of Canada has dropped the employment insurance premiums paid by employees and employers by about $2.6 billion. This year alone Canadians are paying $1.4 billion less in EI premiums than they did last year. They are paying less because the government has reduced the EI premium rate four times in the last four years, from $3.07 per $100 of earnings in 1994 to $2.70 this year. This is the second largest reduction since the 1970s. The downward trend began when the government took office and will continue as fiscal circumstances permit. As premiums come down, it makes it easier to hire people and I think it is good news for all of us.

The 1998 EI premium rate was set by the employment insurance commission with the mandate given to it by the EI Act. In making the announcement last November, the government said it had gone as far as it prudently could in lowering premiums at that time. The rate provides for a cumulative surplus at the end of 1998 in the range of $15 billion to $19 billion, depending on economic performance. Some of us would say that this huge surplus of $15 billion to $19 billion is a catastrophe. Let me tell the House what is a catastrophe.

Prior to 1993 we had a UI expense that had grown from roughly $8 billion annually to about $18 billion annually. It was a social program that was fundamentally unsustainable and cried out for reform. If we had not dealt with that problem the people who would have been hurt the worst would have been the unemployed themselves, because eventually the program would have collapsed on itself and we would have had no program.

The premium rate must also be set at a level that will ensure the EI account will have sufficient funds to pay benefits even during a recession. The government wants to avoid raising premium rates if and when there is a downturn in the economy. A major increase in EI premiums during such a time would be harmful to the economy and to Canadian workers.

Canadians remember only too well what has happened in the past when the previous government lowered premiums one year when the times were good and raised them up the next year when times were bad.

During the recession of the 1990s the account went into a $6 billion deficit. Major cuts to benefits and sharp premium rate increases were used to stop the account deficit from getting worse.

We can all remember the bad old days when we were cutting benefits basically in the depths of the recession. In effect the program acted as a destabilizer rather than an economic stabilizer. That is exactly what we want to avoid in the future, keeping in mind the unpredictable nature of the business cycles. The experience of the last recession taught us a lesson and provides guidance for future decisions.

The current surplus makes prudent provisions against rate hikes in the event of unforeseen economic and global changes. Being prudent now means we will not have to cut benefits and raise premiums when the unemployed premium paying workers and employers can least afford it. Being prudent means that we are prepared to respond to unpredictable shifts in the labour market. Being prudent also allows the government to address unemployment where it is most severe.

The rise in the EI surplus gives us a flexibility we did not have before. I would suggest that the hon. members from the Bloc not use such ridiculous terms as “catastrophe” and appreciate that the economy is in far better shape than when we took office and give us the credit for that.

[National Head Start Program, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for putting forward the motion we are debating today. I remind members of the House that the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should (a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000.

I could speak for some time on the substantive merits of the proposal. I support the intent of the motion quite strongly. It has been stated eloquently by members who spoke before me that by investing in children in the early years of life we get a tremendous compounding effect of benefits throughout a person's life. If we invest early we get better literacy rates. If we invest early we get lower criminal rates. If we invest early we get better health rates. All social factors are improved by investing early between the ages of zero and eight. I certainly hope the member knows that I know that and that I know the intent.

However, if we had questions and answers I would raise some concerns over the bill. For the federal government to partner with the provinces these days is a difficult task. Anyone who reads the newspapers knows that it is difficult.

Unfortunately in many parts of the country the provinces want the federal government to write a cheque. Then we would let provinces go off on their merry way and devise programs. They would thank Ottawa and take the money, but they do not want the federal government involved in their jurisdiction.

Quebec would have some opinions on federal government spending on what traditionally would be seen as a provincial jurisdiction. That causes me some concern. Other provinces whether out west or whatever would also have some concerns about the federal government embarking on a new spending program. I am not sure we can put a time line of the year 2000. These things would involve some very difficult negotiations. They would have to be processed and I do not know whether that can be done by the year 2000.

I do not think the member is suggesting that the federal government, if it does not have an agreement to bring in a program by the year 2000, would unilaterally embark on its own program. I do not read that in the bill so I am not sure what would happen if the motion passed and the federal government could not get agreement by the year 2000.

That is not to suggest I do not support the bill. I have some difficulty with the wording. I ask members when they vote on the motion not just to vote on the intent of the bill. All members can see the intent is worth while. It is worth supporting.

However it is not simple and straightforward to embark on new federal-provincial programs. The federal government is trying to get a new federal-provincial program on home care. It has on its agenda that at some point it would like a new federal-provincial program around a national pharmacare program. This would become another program that would be added to the agenda.

We saw it on the hepatitis C issue. The government is trying to work out another agreement with the provinces on how to treat the people excluded from the original agreement. Those negotiations are proving to be difficult. I could throw some stones at those on the other side who are in some respect playing politics.

My main point is that federal-provincial agreements are not as simple as a simple private member's motion might suggest on first read. I ask members to think about what they are voting on when the motion comes before us for a vote. I advise members opposite that I support the intent of the bill, but I will have to reflect on whether I will be voting for it.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that a number of people who enter into the health care system oftentimes quite tragically come out of the experience much sicker, whether it is hepatitis C victims or a variety of other diseases they may pick up.

If there is no negligence and there is no legal liability, does the member think we should be moving into a system of no fault insurance or no fault compensation? If the member does not believe in a no fault compensation package, what distinguishes a group of pre-1986 hepatitis C victims from all the other people who enter into the health care system and come out, tragically, oftentimes much worse for the experience?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians really care whether the $2.5 billion is booked this year or a couple of years hence.

All members should realize that if we did not book it this year the numbers would look even better. The surging rate of popularity of the Liberal government would probably go up even higher. I do not think we are doing anybody a disservice by trying to be conservative and booking the number in advance. We are committed to the $2.5 billion, so what is the harm in booking it now?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me address the preamble to the question. I agree with the hon. member. I think an unemployment system that covers only 42% is a real problem. The government and all members of the House need to turn our attention in a creative way to making constructive suggestions on how to change the EI system so that it covers more Canadians.

However, I think we should learn from the lessons of the past. Perhaps writing someone a cheque on a biweekly basis may or may not make them more job ready for the economy that is coming as we move into the next century. We have to find ways to use the EI fund in a more creative manner. We have to find ways to use it so that it supports appropriate training or retraining in the adult workforce and people can find meaningful long term jobs.

By using the surplus in valid legitimate ways which will help people find lifelong jobs that pay decent wages is something we need to turn our minds to. I agree with the hon. member on that.

The argument about whether to lower premiums or increase benefits to unemployed people is somewhat a phoney debate. We can afford to do both. Certainly we do not want to lower premiums to the point where we have to raise them again if the economy goes into a recession. We have to be mindful that this is the worst time to be raising premiums.

They ask for empirical evidence to show that when premiums are lowered jobs are increased. We must remember that we compete at the level of the firm, a starting point in economics. When the cost to firms of doing business is lowered it gives them the opportunity to make investments, to expand their production and to hire people.