Guy Arseneault

[Young Entrepreneurs, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, 12 university students from my riding of Restigouche-Chaleur had a chance to live a wonderful experience this summer in the young entrepreneurs program.

Each of these students created a business plan and next year during the second phase of this project they will create their own small business.

Under a Canada-New Brunswick agreement on the development of entrepreneurship, 16 young people had the opportunity to put into practice some of the skills needed to set up a business. I congratulate these young people on their desire to contribute to the economic future of our country.

I would also like to congratulate the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Department of Human Resources Development and the New Brunswick Department of Advanced Education and Labour for participating in this important program. Education and training are the key factors in the development of young people in Canada.

[Radio-Restigouche Community Radio Station, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a dream came true in my constituency of Restigouche-Chaleur. Last Monday, Radio-Restigouche, a community radio station also known as CIMS-FM, went on the air.

For the last few years, a great number of volunteers and employees have been working relentlessly to reach this goal. This community radio station aims at promoting the Acadian and French culture and at providing high quality regional news. CIMS-FM will also give its many volunteers the opportunity to train in the communications sector.

I want to congratulate all the members of the Radio-Restigouche team for their hard work. Such commitment by volunteers is worth mentioning. Long live Radio-Restigouche.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will not take much of the time of the House.

Today is sort of an historic day in the sense that it is the first time I believe that Standing Order 73(1) has been invoked. I would like to point out to the House that on May 11, 1994 I stood here on a point of order. At that time I was introducing a private member's bill and I pointed out to the Speaker that I would like to invoke Standing Order 73(1) for my bill. I pointed out some of the problems as the standing order presented itself where a minister of the crown could send any public bill to committee before second reading and this would include a private member's bill sponsored by a private member.

In reply the Speaker took it under consideration and made a ruling on June 1 at which time he suggested the redrafting of Standing Order 73 to grant the sponsor of a private member's bill the same prerogatives with regard to that bill that a minister of the crown enjoys with regard to a government bill seems to merit further consideration. He referred that issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and asked it to take that into consideration.

I realize the standing committee has been very active and very busy on a number of subjects. I would ask on my point today, Mr. Speaker, that you again ask that committee, seeing that this standing order has been invoked for the first time and could be invoked again for other opportunities, since the matter is an urgent one, especially for private members, backbenchers, that we would like to have a ruling on that as soon as possible.

[World Congress Of Acadians, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, from August 12 to August 20, Acadians from around the world gathered in New Brunswick for the first World Congress of Acadians.

It goes without saying that this event had a tremendous success. There were lots of activities including shows, family reunions and conferences. I wish to congratulate the organizing committee of Retrouvailles 94 as well as the conference organizing committee for a job well done. I would also like to thank our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who paid a visit to the Acadian Congress. His presence was highly appreciated and it demonstrates his commitment to the Acadian community.

[Pulp And Paper Industry, June 22nd, 1994]

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

A recent report states that pulp and paper mills expect to lay off 15,000 to 20,000 workers before the year 2000. Given the fact that this industry is one of the oldest and most important manufacturing sectors in Canada both in terms of its contribution to the national economy and in terms of jobs, what measures is the government taking to prevent these massive layoffs which would have a devastating impact in my province of New Brunswick and across Canada?

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion which, I think, is very important to all Canadians.

I would like to start by commending the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk for all the work he has done on this very important issue. It is not the first time he has raised this issue in the House. I remember very clearly having worked with him on this issue in the last parliamentary session. It is very encouraging to see someone who does not forget the issues he considers important. I commend the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk for his tenacity and his dedication. I am proud to rise today in support of this motion.

I had written in my notes that I was disappointed that the motion was not votable but I see that this has been changed with the unanimous consent of the House. I am very proud and very happy to say that the motion is now votable. I thank the hon. members, my colleagues. I urge all hon. members to maintain a spirit of co-operation in this House.

This motion is in keeping with the government's policy of restoring integrity and equity to the political system. The government looked at the issue of student loans and at other things and set out to ensure that the loan values honestly reflect the cost of post-secondary studies. The time has come to apply this equity principle to volunteer firefighters.

Volunteer firefighters do exceptional work. The dedication they bring to their communities is very important. They encourage volunteerism in our country.

I am very pleased to be able to speak this evening on this issue. I am also pleased that the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has brought it to the House once again. His motion asks that the voluntary firefighter's tax exemption be raised from $500 to $1,000 to make it more meaningful in the context of inflation and the valuable service these volunteers provide to their communities. Such a move is in keeping with the government's policy of restoring integrity and especially equity to the fiscal system.

The government has looked at the issue of student loans and set out to ensure that the value of the loans honestly reflects the cost of studying. If I can compare the volunteer firemen with the students, they are doing a service to the community and it is costing them money. Therefore, we should have some type of equity built into the system. I believe this motion does that.

We have heard the member from the Reform Party and the member from the Bloc Quebecois speak about the firefighters in their regions. I suspect their thoughts would be unanimous right across Canada, that these firefighters do exceptional work in their communities. These are volunteers. They do work that goes far beyond the call of duty. They even encourage the spirit of volunteerism.

In this day and age everyone is out for the almighty dollar and we see limited numbers of people getting involved in their communities. A lot of them are becoming armchair activists. These firefighters are the people out on the front line and it is our responsibility to make sure that we, not necessarily reward them financially every time they do something, but put justice in the system so it is not costing them to be a volunteer. I would suspect that should go for other groups as well.

The firefighters in my area, and I am sure other members will be speaking about their firefighters, are no different from those in other areas. They are all well trained. They are on duty24 hours a day, basically on call on weekends, at night, in the middle of storms when we are home asleep or comfortable reading the newspaper or pursuing our favourite pastime, watching the parliamentary channel. These people are well trained in first aid, CPR and emergency operations.

Their work is pleasant in certain circumstances, but quite often it is not. They are on the scene of emergencies. They are on the scene at fires and car accidents. Quite often these scenes bother them, but someone has to do the job.

They help young people in distress. I know the volunteer firefighters in my area are always involved with educational programs and fire prevention. They are helpful. They are in malls. In fact just last weekend we were in the mall in my hometown. I had my son with me. We were walking along and who do we see but a number of firemen giving out pamphlets to the parents and the children were receiving balloons. They were giving out safety advice to the parents on how to protect their children in crowds, how to keep better rapport with the children. That is beyond the call of duty. These are volunteers. They not only teach children about fire safety, they teach parents how to be safe with their children.

Quite often they raise money for community events. They raise money for charities. They raise money for their own uniforms quite often. They raise money for equipment that the community cannot afford such as the jaws of life. It is usually the firefighters who hold bingos and some even have auxiliaries that help out. They hold bingos, sell tickets and have door to door campaigns. They are always involved with this type of activity.

Often the only remuneration these men and women receive is some type of honorarium to cover the out of pocket expenses incurred while dealing with fires and assorted emergencies or attending training sessions.

The Income Tax Act exempts from taxation the first $500 of allowances received by volunteer firefighters. Since 1980 this level has remained constant at $500. As a result of this constant $500 level the government is now penalizing a lot of these volunteers. Because of inflation it is costing them more money to be volunteer firefighters than if they stayed home and did nothing.

Our volunteer firefighters are now paying for the service they actually provide to the community. This is over and above the time and effort they have already donated. If we were to add up all of the hours, we would never be able to afford these firefighters as full time workers. Nor could we ever afford volunteers in other sectors if we had to pay them. Therefore, it is only fair that the government increase this exemption from$500 to $1,000.

These volunteers no doubt have saved communities right across this country millions of dollars. The cost of this measure is well below the savings generated by these volunteers.

The expenses incurred by the voluntary firefighters often exceed this tax exemption of $500. The cost of gasoline, car insurance, clothing and dry cleaning, for example, has become prohibitive. So, it would be in the interests of voluntary firefighters to increase the tax exemption.

In conclusion I congratulate the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. As I mentioned before he presented this motion in the last Parliament. I congratulate him for his tenacity and his devotion to this cause. I support this motion and I hope all members will see fit to support it when the time comes.

As the member for Restigouche-Chaleur, I would like to thank all the volunteers in my region.

I want to salute and thank the voluntary firefighters.

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

I know it is a little unusual, but with unanimous consent we can do that because we do have some speakers who want to continue speaking. I would ask for unanimous consent that the motion be votable at the end of the hour.

[Voluntary Firefighters, June 1st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening quite closely to the comments of the various members of the three parties. I gather there is some support for the motion.

I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to approve the following motion and then continue on with the debate. I would like the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That this motion be votable.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to rise to present my bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.

As you may know, section 14 of this Act prevents persons who are obliged to exercise their civic duty as jurors from receiving unemployment insurance benefits when they are without work.

You will no doubt agree that this is clearly unfair and that many persons find themselves between a rock and a hard place when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens. In addition, I feel that this section runs counter to the spirit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This Act was passed more than 50 years ago to provide all Canadians with income security and not to punish them when they are obliged to perform their duty as citizens.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that persons in temporary service as jurors are not regarded as disqualified from a benefit merely because of their participation in such an activity.

At present anyone performing their civic duty while collecting unemployment insurance benefits is penalized by the federal government for no valid or obvious reason. Anyone performing jury duty for more than two days is no longer considered eligible for benefits since the law considers that he or she is not available for work. Although jurors are usually granted a stipend for expenses incurred while performing their duties, anyone submitting unemployment insurance claim cards to receive the difference in UI benefits will receive nothing.

As some of the hon. members may be aware, I originally introduced a bill similar to this one in the last Parliament. While similar in some respects, Bill C-216 includes a number of improvements over the earlier bill. I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the House how I was made aware of this flaw in the Unemployment Insurance Act.

When I was originally referred to this case I thought the situation was the result of a simple misunderstanding and so did the person in question. To our surprise, we both came to find out that such a regulation was in fact on the books. The best way of explaining it is to read this letter which I received a couple of years ago now from one of my constituents. It was a letter to the editor and as it happened before it was published the editor phoned me up for a comment and I thought it was a misunderstanding. But I will read parts of it.

To the Editor:

In September I experienced the luck of having been laid off after paying maximum unemployment insurance premiums for the past 25 years. In November I experienced the luck again of having been selected as a juror for the murder trial recently held in Campbellton. I clenched my teeth and resigned myself to the fact that I had a dirty job to do and might as well do it to the best of my ability.

Having never followed trial proceedings previously, I found the whole process rather interesting. The mental stress of trying to absorb nine days of testimony and summations was emotionally draining.

At the conclusion of the trial I requested and was given a letter which stated the days I had been present in court and the amount of money that I would receive from the court. I mailed this letter along with my UI card on November 27.

Needless to say, this woman was refused unemployment benefits. She goes on to say:

I am outraged to say the least. We are taxed to death by every level of government known to man. My tax money helped pay the salaries of the participants in this case, including the RCMP, the prosecution staff, the public defender, the sheriff's department, the court staff, not to mention the room and board of the prisoner. In retrospect I could have ignored the summons to appear for jury selection and I would have been fined $50 like the dozen or so other good citizens who failed to show up. I could have requested a letter be sent to the court by a sympathetic doctor exempting me. I could have lied and said I knew someone connected with the case. I could have lied on my UI claim. Someone suggested that anyone showing up for jury selection with a rope thrown over a shoulder would probably be rejected by the defence team. However, I did none of these things. I tried to be a good citizen. But I have come to the conclusion that when dealing with big brother honesty is really not the best policy.

That puts it in its context. To go on:

After receiving notice of this letter another problem came to my attention in other provinces whereby members of the justice system, honourable judges, recognized that there was indeed a problem with the system.

Here I want to quote from an article that appeared in the Moncton Times , a New Brunswick paper, referring to something that happened in Nova Scotia. The headline says: Calls UI rule Stupid-Judge excuses potential jurors''. I will read it. It is short:A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge'-that is not a regular judge, not just a lawyer, not just an MP walking down the street making these comments. Remember it is a Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice-``excused nine people from jury duty Tuesday because they would not be able to collect unemployment benefits if the trial took more than two days. Canada Employment states that people must be available for work to qualify for payments''.

Justice Nathanson said: "I think it is a stupid ruling. But who am I?". He is a Supreme Court Justice from Nova Scotia. "Who am I?". Here we have a Supreme Court Justice for Nova Scotia telling us that there is a regulation that is stupid. It is very obvious it is stupid. Someone is forced to do something. They are not available for work, they are forced to do it. It is not their own doing if they are not available for work. They are forced to do it as a good, honest citizen. It goes further than that because it goes to the root of the justice system.

I am not a legal mind. I do not have a background in the legal profession but I do know that every accused person has a right to be judged by their peers. Judges, and they have been across Canada in various provinces, have been excusing jurors who are receiving UI because they would lose their UI. They have been excusing them from their jury duty.

If an accused who is receiving UI goes to court and wants to be judged by his or her peers, odds are that there will be no one in the jury box that would be considered his or her peer. So it goes to the root of the justice system. We have to correct that. There is only one way to correct it and that is by simple amendment here.

I would ask members to throw away their prejudices if they have any. We have been told that Parliament has to be more responsive to the people. This is not Guy Arseneault's private members' bill, this is Canada's private members' bill. This is a problem with the system. I am just someone here who is trying to correct it along the way. This is part of the process.

I ask my colleagues today to look at it on an individual basis. Go back to your constituents. It has more than likely happened in every constituency in Canada. If you look hard enough that problem will be there.

Is it a cost to the system? No, because the juror who is excused is getting UI anyway. They are going to get their UI. They just do not go on jury duty anymore. I ask members to look at that.

I would also like to point out that some members might claim today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility.

I say again to all the members of this Chamber that the justice system is the responsibility of every one of us. It is a personal responsibility.

If they are against this, some members are going to tell us today that the justice system is a provincial responsibility. It is not. It is everyone's responsibility. We cannot wait for another jurisdiction to correct a problem if we are aware of a problem. That is what we are here for. This is a law and a regulation here that we can change to make the system better.

I say to you as well that the injustices that mar the system and can be put right should be rectified by all the levels of government. In the matter at hand, it seems to me that an injustice was done and that another will be committed by our group if we do not agree with this bill. I will try not to be too biased, because I feel in all honesty that it is a good bill. Moreover, when you are biased, you risk losing people's support sometimes. I am compelled to say that if others claim it is a matter for the provinces, they are trying to shirk their own responsibilities. I think they are trying to pass their responsibilities off on others.

I would like to go back to what concerns us today and correct an injustice in the system.

I would like to inform hon. members that at this point in time I have the support of the majority of members of Parliament. I have the support of the human resources minister. I have the undertaking from the chairman of the human resources committee that it would take the bill and look at it quickly. I am not saying it would pass it. He did not say that, but it would be ready to study it.

I would ask members today to take a second look at the bill and consider sending it to committee. I leave that with the House. It is a request made by a constituent. We are here representing constituents. We have heard a lot about the justice system in the last couple of weeks from all parties.

Everyone has a concern. I have heard about the Young Offenders Act. I have concerns about that too. At the same time here is an item that can improve the system. I am waiting to see how my colleagues respond. I hope it is in a positive way.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time because I would like to enter into debate if possible later, if that is the ruling. I would like to raise a very important point of order. Not being well versed on how to do it, I may stray from the procedure. I would appreciate your indulgence.

What I would like to point out is this. I would like to invoke Standing Order 73(1). That standing order gives a minister of the crown the opportunity to refer a bill to a committee before second reading. What I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that it would not be right for a minister to be able to do that for a public bill presented by a private member.

I would point out that there is a parallel in the book. It may be an oversight. I would refer members to page 35, Standing Order 68(4)(a) and (b). It points out that ministers have certain authorities, according to the standing orders, and there are parallels for private members.

It says: "for a motion by a minister to prepare and bring in a bill". In the following section, it says: "motion by a member to prepare and bring in a bill". I repeat, "private member". I say to members that in Standing Order 73 that by extension of 73(1) and the parallels that I just mentioned, as a member I should have the authority, as sponsor, also to refer my bill. A minister has the authority to refer a bill to a committee that the government sponsors, a government bill.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that as the sponsor of a private member's bill I would have that authority. If not, then I do not think it is right for a minister to have that authority over my bill. It is very important that we get a clarification on that.