Roger Simmons

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap and all other hon. members there is complete harmony between overall government priorities and the priorities of the new Department of Human Resources Development.

As the government made abundantly clear in the throne speech, the policies of the government are aimed at fostering a healthy economic climate, and we are beginning to see some signs of that. Look at the indicators, interest rates, foreign exchange, the trade balance and so on. I think we are on the right road but we are not there yet.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Do not change the issue. I want to focus onthis one.

That stereotype is thrown at me from time to time. The truth is there are more native born Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland today than living in Newfoundland. There are 579,000 people in Newfoundland and there are over 700,000 Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland.

They have left Newfoundland, almost without exception, to chase jobs. They are good workers. They have good work ethics. We find them on the CP tracks in Saskatchewan or on the tar sands project in Fort McMurray in great numbers.

There are thousands of them working on the Great Lakes. In my constituency alone there are more than 8,000 Newfoundlanders who sail the Great Lakes six to eight months a year. They go home for a week or a month to stay with their families and then they return to their work. They work in the forestry industry in Nova Scotia. They make up a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian Armed Forces. Newfoundlanders have gone elsewhere because that is where the work is. I have digressed to make a point.

I was talking about some of the concerns I have with the employment insurance legislation. One has to do with the intensity rule. Another has to do with the method of determining benefits, the so-called divisor method. I have made my views known to the appropriate people, including those on the committee.

Eligibility rules for new entrants is another concern.

Another concern is the clawback after $39,000. I have said to both the minister and to members of the committee we have to be careful that in applying that clawback we do not unwittingly introduce a disincentive. If time allowed I would give the House a few examples. However, if members look closely at the proposal they will find that the clawback, as laudable as it seems at the moment, has a disincentive built into it. There are circumstances where it is worth the person's while, in strict financial terms, to sit at home rather than to earn too much money because by so doing they would adversely affect their level of benefits down the road.

I had another concern about the hearings which are concluding today. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, it is the province with the highest rate of unemployment in all of Canada. Yet when the all-party committee decided to call witnesses it called only three from Newfoundland. What is more, all three witnesses were business people. They were from the St. John's Board of Trade and those kinds of groups. They have their point of view, but it is the point of view of the employer. If we are to have an equitable employment insurance scheme when this is all over we ought to have the input of not only the employer but the employee.

In the case of Newfoundland, the committee was to hear three witnesses from the employer side and not a single witness from the worker side. That was changed at the last minute, not completely to my satisfaction, but at least we got the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour on the list at the last minute. The decision was made to hear that group this week. There ought to have been others to provide more of a balance.

In fairness to my colleagues on the committee from all parties, I understand that in general if we look at the mix of witnesses who have appeared before the committee from across the country there has been a balance of both worker and employer representation. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, that balance was not reflected. I put that on the record.

I digressed a bit, but nevertheless I wanted to speak generally on the issue of this bill and one of the current active files of the new department, the employment insurance proposal.

I thought I would give my friend the opportunity to speak.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

The member is standing proof of that.

The bill confirms the minister's responsibility to develop the human resources that fall under the mandate of the Government of Canada. It does nothing to extend or to diminish the minister's powers, nor does the legislation introduce any substantive changes to government policies or programs.

As members will know, the government is committed to an effective and efficient operation.

At the time of structuring it was realized that encompassing all human resources in one department would better serve the needs of Canadians. To that end, Labour Canada is now part of human resources. The bill provides for the appointment of a minister of labour. However, so there is no confusion, appointment of a minister of labour does not in any way mean further reorganization of the department.

During the current restructuring of the Canadian economy the government is placing a high priority on issues such as labour relations, occupational safety and health and workplace standards as well as other issues that have a profound effect on Canada's labour markets.

These concerns are in keeping with the Government of Canada's responsibility for labour relations in several key areas which are under federal jurisdiction, including transportation, banking and communications. As well, the government is signatory to a number of international labour agreements, hence the need for a role under this department.

It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to ensure these issues receive the attention they reserve. With that in mind, modernization of the Canadian Labour Code is one of Labour Canada's key undertakings.

Prior to the reorganization of the government, employment and immigration came under the same roof. That is no longer the case with this new bill and this new department.

The former Canada Employment and Immigration Commission will become the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, and the commission will continue its mandate with regard to policies affecting employment, labour market conditions and revitalization of the unemployment insurance program.

That brings me to an issue I particularly want to address under the aegis of this bill. This is not a bill particularly about employ-

ment insurance. It is a bill about a department that has responsibility for the proposals now making their way through the system. Within a few days the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development will report to the House on its recommendations concerning the proposals tabled on December 1 by the now Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I have said many times publicly that I believe these proposals constitute an overall improvement in what we have had in terms of employment insurance. However, there have been some concerns expressed by my constituents and by people in Atlantic Canada generally, including by me.

I have expressed concerns and continue to have concerns about the so-called intensity rule, punishing people who through no fault of their own must have more frequent access to unemployment insurance benefits than other people. It is a fact of life. It is a characteristic of this country that there are a number of industries which by definition are seasonal, resource extractions certainly being in that category.

Although not exclusively, the Atlantic provinces are very much identified with these types of industries; mineral extraction in Labrador and parts of the island of Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada, and forestry and fishery. All three of these have seasonal implications.

What would the country be today without access to the vast resources of Atlantic Canada? I submit that the manufacturing complex of central Canada would be less vibrant without the resource sectors of other parts of the country.

For these reasons and for others we have never made any apology about the seasonal nature of our work activity. While we make no apologies, we wish it were otherwise in terms of the individuals concerned. If we gave any people in my riding, and I suspect I reflect the views of elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, the choice between unemployment insurance benefits and full time, 12 month work, they would take the latter.

It bears repeating because people who have not lived the experience in Atlantic Canada tend to generalize. There is still a generalization out there that Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians are a bunch of lazy people who work for ten weeks so they can get their stamps and sit around drinking beer for the other 42 weeks.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

The purpose of this bill is to ask Parliament to formalize the existence of the new department, which has already shown itself to be a pragmatic, efficient and effective entity. There is no hidden agenda here which will disappoint some of my friends in the Reform Party. It is business as usual.

[Byelections, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yes the byelections are over and the people have spoken and I for one like the results.

I am happy to note that Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte is giving us a gentleman we know and has given overwhelming support for Gerry Byrne. The name is well known around Parliament Hill as he worked with former member and now Premier Brian Tobin. Gerry's experience is going to serve the House and his people very well.

Labradorians had the good sense to put their confidence in Lawrence O'Brien. In so doing I say to the leader of the Reform Party they sent a strong signal of support for the Liberal government here.

I look forward to working with both members. I want to extend my gratitude and that of all the caucus to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for their ongoing confidence and trust in the government's efforts on behalf of Atlantic Canada.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Lévis for his question and comment.

Without blaming the translators, something obviously got lost in the translation. I said in essence what he implied at the end, that while the youth unemployment figure is down to 28 per cent I immediately followed up by saying that is nothing to be particularly proud of. That is what he is saying. It is still very high. I said in my speech, in fairness, that it has dropped down a little and we can take some encouragement from that. However, I believe my next sentence was that it was nothing to be particularly proud of. That is not good enough. I agree with him that it is a little better, but just a little.

That is why I took comfort from the fact that we have a federal summer student job creation program which will double the number of jobs this year.

I agree with my friend from Lévis that we need to do more, particularly in the area of youth unemployment. So much needs to be done and he and I are on the same wave length.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Mount Royal has given me the opportunity to say something on the cultural issue.

I am proud of the leadership the government is giving to this particular initiative. Yes it is tough times but the government has avoided the temptation to treat cultural industries as something that are dispensable. It has paid more than lip service to them and that is to its credit.

The hon. member has also given me an opportunity to beat my chest as a proud Newfoundlander. I never miss the show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" and I hope she does not either. It is a marvellous show and I know all four of the characters. In the good Newfoundland sense of the term they are characters, all of them. It is a great tribute to Mary Walsh for having dreamed up the idea and having provided the leadership, following it through and now being part of the cast.

The danger of course for all you up along Canadians in fostering the cultural enterprise of this country is that you are going to allow very many talented Newfoundlanders to rise to the surface. I could mention Rex Murphy and his Sunday call-in show. We are going to take over this country altogether.

As you know from John Crosbie, Brian Tobin and Don Jamieson and others who have come here, acting is what we do well in Newfoundland. If you encourage us at all, you could be in a lot of trouble up here.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on your election as the House's acting Speaker. I am sure that your constituents from Madawaska-Victoria are proud to be represented by you in this assembly.

My congratulations on your election. We are very proud of you.

I have spent time both in the provincial house in Newfoundland and in here and I have had occasion to participate in other throne speech debates along the way. This one gives me particular pleasure because it does strike three things I can wholeheartedly support: job creation; preserving the social security net; and addressing the national unity issue. These are issues all members of the House can identify with. I understand the Bloc has a particular perspective on the third issue of national unity, but with that qualification, I am sure members of the House generally can concur with the need to promote those three objectives.

Let me address something my friend from Calgary Centre was on to a few minutes ago. By way of illustration, let me tell him and others in the House that the former Premier of Newfoundland, Joey Smallwood, was known and berated by the Tory opposition in Newfoundland for 40 years. He was berated for having said to Newfoundlanders: "Burn your boats".

The context was that we had come into a new industrial age and we would not have to fish any more because there would be lots of jobs on the land. According to the critics of the day, Mr. Smallwood had said: "Burn your boats. We won't need to go fishing any more. There are going to be thousands of jobs on the land". The phrase, burn your boats and the attribution of it to Smallwood went on for 30 or 40 years.

Most Newfoundlanders today are absolutely sure that Smallwood made that admonition, gave that advice to Newfoundlanders, particularly the fishermen. The fact is that he never uttered the

words but that did not matter. It was said often enough by the Tory opposition that it became the accepted truth in Newfoundland that he had said it. If you are from Newfoundland it is a classic example of how something that never was gets into the record.

I come to what the gentleman for Calgary Centre and members of his party are doing today. They set up the old strawman and then knock him down. "You guys said you were going to do way with the GST". No, we did not. They are waving the red book here every day. Well, let them read the red book on this one because the red book is very clear. On page 22 of the red book it says very clearly that the Liberal government would replace the GST with a system that "generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization".

The member for Calgary Centre says that we suddenly slipped in the word harmonization. We did not just slip it in. It was on page 22 of the book they have been quoting from for the last two and a half years. It has been there all the time but they did not read it. It is the old strawman approach: Quote them as having said something and then show how they did not come true to their quote, even though the quote was false in the first place.

I never stood on any platform during the 1993 election saying that we would do away with the GST as such. What we said was that there had to be a fairer tax, that it had to bring in the same amount of revenue and that we would undertake to replace the GST with something fairer. Let there be no mistake about it. We need the kind of revenue that is generated by the GST. Nobody in his right mind suggested that the revenue which was generated from the GST would be done away with. That was never ever said.

Let us go back to the themes in the throne speech. The one I am particularly pleased about has to do with job creation, the whole issue of jobs and growth. So far the government's record is not that bad.

In the first couple of years since November 1993 more than half a million jobs have been created. The unemployment rate has come down two full percentage points. It is now under 10 per cent for the first time in five years. Canada enjoys the highest growth rate of the G-7 countries, the big industrial countries, the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and so on. The government under the leadership of the Prime Minister must be doing something right to have these results to show after only 28 months in office.

I want to focus for a moment on youth unemployment, particularly as it relates to Newfoundland. Going back to 1990, the youth unemployment rate in Newfoundland was 25 per cent. That is the 15 to 24 age bracket. In 1990, 25 per cent of them were unemployed. By 1991 it was 28.1 per cent unemployed in Newfoundland. By 1992 it was 30.2 per cent. In 1993, the last year of the Tory administration, it went over 31 per cent. It went from 25 to 31.1 per cent in the last three years under the Mulroney and Campbell administrations.

Beginning in 1994 we began to see a turnaround. It was still terribly high but it came down. It began to drop from 31 to 30 per cent, then to 28 per cent. It has come down in the couple of years this government has been in power but 28 per cent of one's young people in Newfoundland, ages 15 to 24, without work is still nothing to be proud of. It is lower than it was but it is nothing to be gleefully shouting about.

More needs to be done and the government has recognized that. It said so in the throne speech last week. It is going to take steps to double the number of summer student jobs. Summer student jobs are very important for young people. For most of them it is their first crack at a job. It is their first opportunity to prove themselves in the workplace. It comes as very welcome news that the government is going to do that.

I was also pleased with the emphasis in the throne speech on the knowledge based industries. There again, that is the wave of the future. That is the way to go. In Newfoundland we are getting in on that action too. A number of communities in my own riding are benefiting from the government's initiative in this area.

It is trade of course that is at the heart of the reason the government has been doing so well in fostering economic growth and creating jobs in the last couple of years. In that context I want to salute the Prime Minister's trade missions. They have been marvellous successes.

Unfortunately my time is up. Otherwise I would talk about some of the success stories that have flown from the Prime Minister's trade missions right into Burin-St. George's, right into the province and riding I represent, creating and stabilizing jobs there.

[Employment Insurance, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government's new employment insurance package has the support of the majority of Canadians, and so it should because the old UI was desperately in need of reform.

However, certain measures in the new plan, including the intensity rule and the divisor method, must be changed, as the new HRD minister has agreed. Without that change the very people who are most in need of our assistance will be hurt. People such as seasonal workers, substitute teachers and others who live in areas of high unemployment would rather be working full time, year round but cannot through no fault of their own.

I support their cause. The long standing Canadian practice of fairness and equality for all must prevail as the government puts its finishing touches on its new employment insurance reforms.

[Committees Of The House, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health to present its sixth report in accordance with its order of reference of November 1, 1995.

The committee has considered votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 20a and 25a under health in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996 and report the same.

A copy of the minutes of proceedings relating to the study is tabled.