Bernie Collins

[Petitions, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition.

A number of my constituents from Welwyn, Saskatchewan pray that the Government of Canada not increase taxes on gasoline.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the first part of the question.

When we are going through with the changes to this bill, in summary for all Canadians whether they are from the riding of the hon. member or from Prince Edward Island, I think he will find that the legislation will deal fairly with all those people who had been left out of the system.

Will there be enough money for everybody? Yes, there will. Just the idea of reducing the payment feature from $3 to $2.95 is significant. Women who had been left out of the system because they had to work at a number of small jobs are now going to become part of the process. I believe the government is to be commended. I am sure the legislation will receive support across Canada.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member for Malpeque.

Let me assure the member that the people on the island and across eastern Canada support the initiatives put forward. If anyone understands the problem, certainly it would be the people on the island.

They are prepared to change and they are looking for the leadership that the government, through the minister and the committee, can provide. They understand that change is inevitable and that change will accommodate those people who have been left out the system through some of the inequities of the past. If a person works 15 hours a week, those 15 hours should be recognized as a contribution.

I thank the member for raising this question. From time to time there are errors in quotations that are read. I am happy that the the minister of economic development for P.E.I. came before the committee to clarify the issue. Workers are able to see the positive initiatives and recognize that those people with less than 15 hours of week can accumulate those hours. They will recognize that through EI benefits they will be treated fairly by the system.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on one of the most important pieces of legislation on the agenda of the government.

The government in its commitment to Canada said new employment insurance legislation would be law by July 1 of this year. I begin my remarks by encouraging hon. members to give swift passage to the bill so that Canadians can begin to quickly benefit from a more fair and balanced regime, one that removes the inequities that have characterized the current unemployment insurance system.

The new proposed EI system follows more than two years of consultation with Canadians in all walks of life. I held four town hall meetings in the fall of 1994 to get the input of people in my riding. Because of this public input, the new employment insurance bill will help unemployed Canadians get jobs. It will strengthen work initiatives, ensure fairer treatment for all workers and help workers adjust to our changing economic climate by investing in back to work benefits. It will save Canadian taxpayers $1.2 billion by the year 2001.

I will concentrate now on the benefits to a large group in my riding, the part time workers and multiple job holders. As amended by the standing committee, the new system is simpler, more modern and fairer. At the centre of the new approach is the method of qualifying for EI based on hours of work rather than weeks. A week is a very clumsy measure of a person's work. Using it to calculate unemployment insurance credits is neither accurate nor adequate.

For the current unemployment insurance purposes, a week is a week whether it contains 15 hours or 70 hours. This fails to accommodate the reality of today's labour market where more and more people are working part time and holding more than one part time job.

In the current system a person needs 15 hours of work in any one week to qualify for UI. Less than that and the person is out of luck. Over time this has led to a situation in which some employees hire a person for less than 15 hours a week in order to avoid UI premiums.

I have heard from many constituents in my riding who have suffered due to this barrier. A worker with less than 15 hours per week, even working year round, could not qualify for UI. Neither could a person holding two or three small jobs which may well be the hour equivalent to a full time job.

For example, someone holding down three part time jobs requiring 14 hours per week, totalling 42 hours, does not qualify for UI benefits. On the other hand, a person with a single 42 hour a week job does qualify. This is double jeopardy for part time workers and holders of multiple jobs. They have difficulty getting more hours of work because of the 15 hour ceiling imposed by employers. What they do get does not qualify them for UI benefits.

By counting hours per week, the new employment insurance act brings forward these inequities and treats them on a fair and

equitable basis. EI also provides better rules for setting the level of benefits for part time workers. Current UI benefits are based on total earning weeks prior to job loss. The new EI system will use average earnings over a fixed period before job loss. The period will vary with the unemployment rate in each region. Benefits will be based on the average weekly earnings figure, with the result that all earnings in the fixed period will count toward benefits. That is a fair system.

With amendments introduced as a result of the standing committee review, the gaps in income will be taken into account through an improved method of looking back 26 weeks prior to the claim. Furthermore, regional differences in employment conditions will be taken into account by a new divisor that is two weeks more than the minimum entrance requirement for the region.

These measures link benefits more directly to earnings than the current UI system. They provide greater incentive for workers to seek additional work.

Bill C-12 benefits part time workers and multiple job holders in several fundamental ways. The higher a worker's earnings in the 26 week period prior to unemployment, up to an annual ceiling, the higher the benefit regardless of the work pattern. Total earnings in that 26 week period prior to unemployment from all jobs, including part time jobs of less than 15 hours per week, are included. Extra work during the fixed earnings period, even at lower wages, will add to average earnings and therefore benefits.

The effect of all of this is that under EI 2.4 million people who are now part time workers will have their earnings insured, compared with the current 1.9 million. No less than 500,000 additional part time workers will have their work insured for the first time. Some of these workers will have to pay premiums for the first time as well. It is estimated that 76 per cent, some 380,000, will have their premiums refunded.

As a group, fewer part time workers will pay premiums: 1.7 million under EI compared with 1.9 million under the old UI. About 300,000 part time workers now paying premiums who earn less than $2,000 per year will have their premiums refunded. That is significant. For the remaining 1.6 million part time workers who now pay premiums under the UI system there will be a reduction from $3 to $2.95 for every hundred dollars of insurable earnings. In all, part time workers as a group will pay a total of about $6 million less in premiums than they do today.

Bill C-12 provides an employment insurance system that matches current economic realities in Canada. Employment insurance will continue to provide income support for 2.4 million

unemployed Canadians. Employment insurance matches the varying labour market conditions across the country. Employment insurance treats all workers fairly and realistically measures their work in calculating benefits. Employment insurance encourages workers to add to their hours and incomes and discourages dependency on income support.

The new system's active employment measures will contribute to getting the unemployed back to work and will contribute to job creation and growth. Employment insurance requirements will be much simpler for employers to administer.

Having contributed for 32 years to this program, I know it needs to be changed. The members of our party and I are prepared to support this legislation. We must move quickly to assist the taxpayers of Canada so that $1.2 billion will be saved by the year 2001. Members have every reason to pass the bill into law without delay.

[Petitions, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of a number of petitioners from across Saskatchewan. They raise concerns about the possible increase in gasoline taxes which they believed we were prepared to include in the budget. On their behalf I do want to raise them now and I am pleased to do so.

[Education, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the fantastic work that is being done in the education of our young people.

Mr. Leo Carteri received the Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence in science a few weeks ago. Recently I was able to visit his school and attend a ceremony honouring him, his fellow teachers and of course the students.

Mr. Carteri's students rarely go home from the Canada-wide Science Fair without at least one prize. Mr. Carteri believes that competitions like these not only widen the students' academic horizons but also expose them to the corporate world through business scholarships.

Canada's youth is this government's priority. I know members of the House will join with me as I commend Mr. Carteri in helping to encourage and enrich our young people.

[Agriculture, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the private member's motion of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. It is a pleasure because I know my counterparts from Saskatchewan and Alberta have farming backgrounds. I am here to represent the point of view of farming communities.

I come from a rural area in southeast Saskatchewan. The concerns they raise are valid. That is why the minister of agriculture set up a mechanism to review that forum. Where are we going? How will we move into the 21st century if we do not understand what are the problems that confront us today?

I set up a panel. That panel was allowed to hold hearings in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The panel is going to come back and report to the agriculture minister.

Let me say to my friends opposite that as I travel throughout southeast Saskatchewan, there are those on both sides of the issue. There are those who would like to see the sale of grains and other commodities put through dual marketing. But there are also those who are saying that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to stay in its present form.

The Canadian Wheat Board has to make some changes. Those changes have to be done through the proper mechanism, that is, through the panel set up to review that.

Let us take a look at some of the proposals that the panel is going to review. They have merit. What are the nature and the requirements of existent potential markets? What do we have? Let us review the commodities and products that could be sold into these markets. Then let us review the marketing systems that are now available or could be available to exploit such markets to the maximum possible benefit of western producers.

We had stakeholders. Who did we select as the chairman? We selected a lawyer from Saskatoon who is well known and well respected. Along with that where did we go? We took people on both sides of the issue. The agriculture minister said: "We want both points of view". Those people are going to come forward with honest opinions. They may not be the opinion which my friends opposite want, but it will be one which is focused, one which is right for the time and one which will lead us into the 21st century.

There was the suggestion that not every member of Parliament takes polls. Every time I go home to my riding I take a poll. I take the opinions of those people who are my farming counterparts and I listen to them.

The folks from Inland terminal have one point of view on how we should handle this. The people in southeast Saskatchewan from the Redvers area look at dual marketing and are concerned. Other groups of farmers are saying: "I am old, I am established and I think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a reputable job". It is fine to criticize if one does not understand.

However, the Canadian Wheat Board is due for some criticism if it does not change. Does change mean that the whole system should be thrown out? I do not think so. When all is said and done, we will find that the support of the people from across the west will be for the Canadian Wheat Board as the single desk selling agency that performs very well.

Let us not fool ourselves. If we get rid of it and we go to a marketing system where everybody goes on their own, I would venture to say that within five years or less the farmers who wanted to get rid of the system will be marching back to the door of the agriculture minister saying: "What have we done? Let us bring that agency back".

A friend of mine recently visited China. He talked to the agriculture people over there. He said that our producers are to be commended. They produce the best quality grains in the world. They have the quantities which China wants and they are delivered on time. The Chinese people are going to be the largest buyers of our good quality wheat. However, he said: "If you move away from that single desk selling agency, I am telling you now that we will have to take a second look at whether we will buy from you".

That is what is happening in the trading world. There are people who are concerned that we will move away from that single desk selling agency.

I would like to commend my hon. friend from Kindersley-Lloydminster for bringing forward this motion. This is the area in which we want to be able to sit down to discuss openly, in a wise manner, what are the options and where we are going.

I also commend the parliamentary secretary. He brought up a very good point, that is, the vote in Alberta was not really reflective of the question which was asked.

People were asked if they wanted a dual marketing system. They said yes. If it means the end of the Canadian Wheat Board they may very well say no. It is a very serious argument.

I want to say in closing that the results will be reviewed by the minister of agriculture. He will take a look at both sides of the issue and I am sure he will recommend those things that need to be done in the best interests of the farming community right across Canada.

[Canada Transportation Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-14, previously known as Bill C-101, as it has some direct impact on the western provinces and certainly my province of Saskatchewan.

I believe the proposed legislation is very constructive, creative and in a manner allows for unnecessary regulations and overlap to be removed. It places greater reliance on parties to negotiate their own solutions on commercial and economic issues and reduce, wherever possible, reliance on regulatory decision making in such matters.

In my view, this wisely places the matters of competition and monopoly in the realm of other appropriate legislation such as the Competition Act.

A number of places were uncovered where general business laws such as the Canada Business Corporations Act would be used instead of having specialized laws for transportation and companies. We wanted to reduce overlap and regulation. These matters were covered adequately by some other body.

This also makes it simpler for stakeholders who might otherwise be faced with confusion or who are burdened with many different pieces of legislation or regulation. Overall the new act will reduce the costly burden of excess regulation and will ensure the long term viability of Canada's transportation system.

First and foremost in my mind is the concern of my constituents about the rail sector. In this area alone, the legislation will reduce government intervention for approvals and decisions on railway actions, limiting them from 200 to approximately 40.

Although the bill is not completely satisfactory to either the railways or the shippers, it serves after months of public and open consultation to strike a compromise.

The amendments brought to the bill were after considerable work by the Standing Committee on Transport. Considerable consultation was undertaken with all the stakeholders. Because of the consultation, equilibrium and balance has been achieved. The bill has effectively addressed the need for balance between the marketplace and government policy issues and what must remain a matter for the regulator to be involved in.

I turn to some matters that drew considerable attention and fire during the debate from western stakeholders. I do this to demonstrate to the House that concerns have been listened to and changes have been made and to reassure western constituents they have not been hung out to dry in the process.

I wish to focus on three clauses that got the most attention while I travelled throughout the riding and when witnesses appeared before the standing committee. They were clause 27(2), formerly known as significant prejudice; clause 34(1), frivolous and vexatious arguments or applications; and clause 113, now known as clause 112, which obligated the agency to ensure any rates or service levels it sets are commercially fair and reasonable.

Let me deal first with clause 27(2). The clause was reworded, although some have missed it, to clear up what had been a problem. It provides guidance to the agency in ultimately rendering decisions. It does not act is a pretest as some had thought. The words "significant prejudice" were replaced by the words "substantial commercial harm", terms that are more understood in law. The new clauses 3 and 5 clearly signify and make clear that this does not apply to final offer arbitration.

In standing committee transcripts Cargill, a major shipper, was asked if these changes would satisfy it. Cargill responded positively. These amendments were adopted unanimously by all the parties in the standing committee.

Regarding the phrase "frivolous and vexatious arguments" many people in shipping organizations raised concerns. That clause has been removed from the bill.

The third major concern is clause 112. "Commercially fair and reasonable" is a phrase that has been heavily investigated and debated throughout the process. There are some concerns raised by the pools. I recall there was a question of commercially fair and reasonable to whom and in whose perspective? The government motion at report stage now adds some clarifying words to this provision. The words "to all parties" answer the questions of the shippers. This underscores the obligation that the agency's set rates must meet the test of fairness and provide the users with rail service.

I do not want to leave the House with the impression that I have conveniently grabbed all of these clauses and I quote them simply to support the position of the government. I have consulted widely with stakeholders and with my constituents on the issue. I feel confident that now is the time to move forward with the bill.

Let me quickly say a few words about the provisions of the bill as they relate to the grain interests in the country. Many witnesses who came forward to the standing committee were pleased that the government seemed to recognize that competition and market forces were not perfect in the grain sector and that a period of transition was needed. The changes that were made, especially in section 27, go a long way to remove the remaining fears of shippers, including grain shippers, about the issue. As well as the protection afforded all shippers under the new legislation, grain shippers will enjoy extra provisions such as maximum rates and a comprehensive hopper car allocation.

The Minister of Transport has indicated that the government intends to sell the 13,000 hopper cars which are presently owned by the department. He indicated that the department is inviting proposals to assess and determine the financial arrangements and the terms and conditions of sale. The interests of all stakeholders, including producers, will be taken into account in this process.

In closing, I will touch on the positive attributes of the legislation. While I was a member of the committee listening to the hearings and particularly presentations from the west, section

27(2), section 34(1) and also section 113 which is now known as section 112 were also major concerns. What happened with those?

We altered the wording in section 27(2) to meet the needs of shippers. Also section 34(1) which said "frivolous and vexatious arguments" was dropped completely, and I think correctly so. In section 113, which is now section 112, we have amended the wording to deal with those people who will be affected by it.

The shippers and rail companies and all who will be involved with new Bill C-14 have to come to the position of making it work. If they want it to work, it will. If they do not want it to work, they will use every effort in their power so that it will not work.

In my opinion, we have set legislation which is a compromise and in the final analysis will meet the needs of shippers, railways and all Canadians.

[Competition Act, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to support private member's Bill C-221 presented by my esteemed colleague from Lambton-Middlesex. The issue at hand is a grave one for many of my constituents. I will digress for a moment to respond to the member from the third party with regard to three of the observations he made.

The first is in relation to sparsity. The city I come from was so sparse that all the dealers left, that is 10,000. We must be careful when we talk about sparsity. What does sparsity mean? For people in rural Saskatchewan everything is fairly sparse. We have to ensure that dealers have a place and that they are protected.

Let me go one step further and consider a company like McDonald's. Anyone who competes against McDonald's wants to be located right next door because he likes the competition. Yet within the framework of these large companies they are telling the John Deere dealer not to move beyond the scope of John Deere.

People travel hundreds of miles to get parts and this dealer who is having trouble competing in the world around him adds one or two parts to provide that level of service, and they are prepared to see him lose his dealership. On the other hand if they were really competitive and open minded individuals they would say: "No, John Deere we want you to handle that and we want you to handle Case as well. If our machinery is the kind of machinery we say it is, ours will be selected over Case anyway". I appreciate what my

hon. friend from Huron-Bruce who was in that business had to offer on this very important topic.

With regard to the proposal in Bill C-221, the machinery dealers are now saying they are prepared to go along with the proposal on this type of thinking: "We will step in and allow you to sell combines, but we will not allow you to sell tractors". They are going to move in and add additional pressure on the people who are providing that service on their behalf.

I support the bill. I think the bill is well framed. We do have to look at it. The question was raised of why does somebody not move in and take some action against this inappropriate behaviour? That small dealer is not going to go against his company because his survival is based on that company's supporting him with that machinery. If he loses that line, he is out of business. In rural Saskatchewan when someone comes to pick up his machinery, he picks up his fuel, he picks up his food and he picks up his mail. It is another way to ensure that rural Saskatchewan, rural Manitoba and rural Canada in general will eventually die.

It is incumbent on all of us to do something as we speak on this very important private member's bill. Again I commend the member for Lambton-Middlesex for having the courage to come forward and say there is something in this private member's bill that we want everyone to look at. The time has come for us to set aside our personal feelings and ask: Is it good for Canada? Is it good for rural Canada? Is it good for all of us? Can we support it? In my opinion, we can support it and we will support it.

I sincerely thank my friend opposite for allowing me the privilege of taking part in this very serious discussion. I look forward to the statements from my fellow MPs from Saskatchewan.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to what the hon. member from the third party had to say. Let me raise a whole series of items to which he may wish to respond. The only thing about the zero in three is that in three years we would all have zero. We would all be out on the streets looking for a job.

Concerning infrastructure, I do not know where the member travels but as a municipal person who has travelled throughout his riding, I want to assure him that municipal people throughout Saskatchewan were more than proud of the infrastructure program. They supported it wholeheartedly. I do not know where he travels in his riding but he should get out to my riding in Saskatchewan. He would find that people there are responsive. They said that it was a good program. They would like it to go on.

With regard to his evaluation of MPs, I can assure him that as I travel throughout my riding in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada the attitude and level of respect for MPs will come up depending on what he expects it to come up to. If he wants to downgrade MPs and say that all MPs are not doing their jobs, he should just keep on. However, as an MP who feels he has a responsibility to the public, I will continue maintain that we are there, we are honest-