House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was reform.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as Liberal MP for Parkdale—High Park (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 1993, with 54% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions February 6th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to table today. The first two pertain to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The petitioners call on Parliament to put an end to discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens and their familial relationships by amending federal legislation that currently allows unequal treatment, including an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have explained to the petitioners my disagreement with sections of their petition, but I feel it is their right to have me table it in the House on their behalf.

Message From The Senate December 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know that this government is not at all insensitive to the situation of Mr. Quan. He might be happy to know that the Prime Minister raised the matter of Mr. Quan's continuing detention during his meeting in Hanoi with the Vietnamese Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet.

The Prime Minister received a full explanation of the details of the case and was assured that the matter would be handled fairly and in accordance with Vietnamese law.

Mr. Quan has both Canadian and Vietnamese citizenships. Vietnamese authorities, however, do not recognize dual nationality and deny access to Mr. Quan by Canadian officials.

However, as a result of repeated high level interventions from the Canadian government we have gained counsellor access to Mr. Quan. Canadian officials have visited Mr. Quan and confirmed he is not being mistreated.

This is a very complex case in which a Vietnamese corporation lost a considerable sum of money. We understand that the Vietnamese are investigating the possibility of fraud.

As part of its regular counsellor assistance Canadian officials are facilitating discussions between Mr. Quan and Vietnamese authorities with regard to the possibility of Mr. Quan's release. These discussions are private and confidential and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them here.

The Canadian government will continue to provide all appropriate counsellor assistance to Mr. Quan and will monitor the situation with vigilance. It would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to demand that the Vietnamese set aside their own legal procedures and immediately release Mr. Quan, nor would it be appropriate for the government to support a business boycott of Vietnam because one of its citizens is being held in connection with a criminal investigation.

We have the right to insist upon counsellor access and due process. We are and will continue to do both.

Canadian Peacekeepers December 8th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I know that members on both sides of this House welcome the news that the Bosnian Serb army has now released 55 Canadian peacekeepers detained in the Bosnian town of Ilijas.

If these brave men and women are listening today, I want them to know that Canadians are very proud of the important work being done in this shattered region. We know very well this war could have claimed thousands of lives more if it were not for the Canadian peacekeepers.

We also know the war lords in this conflict would love the UN to pull out of the former Yugoslavia. Canadians are not quitters. We will not carelessly abandon innocent civilians at their moment of greatest need. I ask that all members join me in this salute to the brave Canadians serving in the UN peacekeeping operations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you and Radio Canada International for your assistance in getting this message to our peacekeepers serving around the globe.

Conference On Security And Co-Operation December 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the upcoming CSC summit in Budapest is to enhance security and respect for human rights in Europe.

Canada would also like the summit to broaden the CSC's capacity to prevent and resolve conflicts, notably by giving it the ability to establish or monitor peacekeeping operations. The conflict in former Yugoslavia, including recent events in the Bihac area of Bosnia will be of primary concern to the heads of state and government.

In support of an eventual comprehensive political settlement to the conflict, the summit could and should offer CSC expertise in areas such as human rights, elections monitoring, the protection of minorities, arms control, and confidence building measures.

Canada's voice at previous summits, conferences, and general meetings has always been listened to and highly respected.

Gun Control December 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice for making good on the government's promise to fight crime with tough gun control legislation.

The vast majority of my constituents of Parkdale-High Park welcome mandatory prison sentences for those who commit violent crimes with a gun. We welcome mandatory jail terms for those caught in possession of stolen or restricted firearms. All Canadians are pleased to see that gun smugglers will serve up to 10 years.

Tougher gun control is just one part of the government's commitment to safer streets and safer homes. Personal safety is in everyone's interest. If this legislation will save one life it will be worth the time, the effort and the cost of the program.

Supply November 22nd, 1994

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for his party's views on double dipping when it comes between levels of government. I know his party's position is against double dipping as is ours within the same level of government.

One of his colleagues, and I will not mention names, does draw a pension of $61,000 I believe and now is getting a salary of $64,500. This gives him a salary of $125,000 plus a year. What is his party's position and his own position on this kind of cross level of government double dipping?

Social Security Programs November 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, we ran on a platform of putting our own house in order first. When I say we, I include all of us. To get our house in order we have to look at the programs and which ones we can afford.

We give out $38 billion for programs and services but we spend more than that in paying the interest on the public debt. I know we agree on that. We see eye to eye. We are going to have to reduce the annual deficit and bring down the public debt. I do not think we can wait for one and then the other. All of this has to go hand in hand.

I know the Reform Party would like to reduce the annual deficit in one year and wipe out the public debt in one or two years. If we did that we would put so many people out of work that we would really bankrupt this country because it is jobs that create the resources and funding that we need to carry on.

Let us not forget that even with all of our deficit and public debt, et cetera the United Nations still named Canada as the number one country on this planet in which to live. Therefore, we must be doing something right. We are not perfect and we never said we were, but we must be doing something right for a United Nations organization to put Canada that high on the map measured against certain social protection.

Social Security Programs November 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question. I get the same question from many constituents: Why is it taking so long? Why not do it tomorrow?

If you want a true consultative process, if you honestly want to get input from the grassroots Canadians it will be a slower process. By listening to Canadians you have to determine what programs are of highest priority, what programs are of the least priority. Then as a government jointly with all parties in opposition we have to decide which programs we must continue funding and which programs can be dropped. Then we have to see what kind of resources, how many public service personnel we need to match those programs and what kind of financial resources we need to match those programs.

We lead the public astray when we complain we are not moving fast enough. We are moving very quickly when you consider the kind of input that the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and individual members from all three parties are getting through town hall meetings. I think we are moving fairly quickly.

Social Security Programs November 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I think we should remind the viewers of what motion we are debating. It is Motion No. 15 which says that this House take note of the progress made to date on the government's forthcoming reform of social security programs and of the views expressed by Canadians with regard to this reform.

Last week when the House was not sitting I had a townhall meeting with an excellent attendance. I would like to share some of the views from my constituents in Toronto.

At that townhall meeting almost everyone in the audience agreed that a strong economy is the essence of a strong society. They also agreed with the government's two priorities, jobs and economic growth. The Government of Canada will meet those priorities by building a healthy fiscal climate, by getting the federal deficit down and eventually eliminating the public debt as some people have already stressed in this debate.

It will strengthen Canada's economic performance through investment, innovation and trade; review government programs and priorities, making sure that as a government we are concentrating our energy on the right things in the most effective way possible. Finally, it has the priority of reforming social security.

Why is reforming social security part of this agenda for growth? Because good social programs will put people and jobs together. The programs we have now do not do that well enough. It is time to rebuild and modernize our social security programs to build a system that will help people get back to work, help people get off welfare and build a better life for their families.

In education, prior to being a politician, I met families that were second and third generation on welfare. This has to stop. Our system will have to look squarely at the problem of child poverty and do something about it.

It is up to all Canadians to decide how we can build a system that works, that is fair, affordable and effective, with programs that open doors, not close them, to opportunity for people across our great country. The federal government has presented Canadians with some options for discussion. Now it is inviting all Canadians to consider how we can build such a system. How must our social programs change to stay in touch with the needs

people face today? What kind of programs make sense as Canada prepares for the 21st century?

At the town hall meeting I was asked why do we need reform? Because our social programs have not kept pace with the needs of Canadians. For too many people the system does not work any more. At this town hall meeting there was a qualified doctor who is on welfare. Because he got his training in another country he cannot work in Canada.

Canadian taxpayers are spending more than $38 billion a year on employment programs, UI, welfare, post-secondary education, child tax benefits and programs for disabled persons. Yet too many people are unemployed or find themselves caught in a revolving door going from UI to short term jobs and back to UI.

Too many children are living in poverty. Too many people are stuck on social assistance. They want to work, but under our present system they cannot afford to go to work. They are better off financially staying on social assistance.

Too many young people cannot get started in a career. It breaks my heart when I get a PhD graduate or a Master's graduate coming to my constituency office begging: "Mr. Flis, can you help me find work?"

In many ways the system keeps people on a treadmill instead of helping to solve their problems. Too many Canadians fall through the cracks. Too many Canadians find the rules stacked against them when they try to build better lives for themselves and for their children.

People here in Ontario know firsthand how urgent the need for reform is. Ontario today is at a crossroads. The recession and the effects of international competition have taken jobs we thought were secure. It has helped push unprecedented numbers of people on to unemployment insurance and social assistance rolls. Now that things are beginning to improve, our social programs do not do enough to help people to get back into the workforce.

We have been forced to recognize that our social programs were designed in an era that has passed into the history books. In 1993 the average unemployed worker in Ontario between the ages of 45 and 64 had been looking for work for 34 weeks. That figure masks the number who were facing much longer unemployment because of their limited skills and as a result of industrial change. For too many of them a plant shutdown meant a career shutdown. We can no longer afford that.

Ontario recognizes the need for reform as do all governments. Now is the time to work together. We need a system that works for people, that brings hope, that rewards initiative, that supports efforts to regain independence and the dignity of work. We need a system that Canadians can afford. All governments have to get spending under control if we are to take control of the future.

In my region we contend with four levels of government: federal, provincial, metro Toronto, Toronto and a lot of unnecessary duplication. We must do a better job in putting people and jobs together. Employment programs, things like job counselling, training, labour market information, work experience projects are a good investment if they help people get off UI or welfare and back to work. But existing programs do not work well enough.

We need to invest more in people, focusing on better tools to help people get jobs and better management to make sure those tools get results.

The green paper suggests a healthy debate around possible directions for reform, making progress more accessible to those who need help, especially people on social assistance and persons with disabilities. We must pay more attention to individual needs, with more assessment and counselling to help each person develop a practical action plan for getting a job.

People come to my constituency office complaining that they have to wait six months before they can see a counsellor, and as a result miss many opportunities.

We should consider giving communities, local business, labour, education and service groups more control over what kinds of programs are used and how they are used.

Another possible direction suggested in the green paper is encouraging more employers to provide training on the job. Why not? We can ensure that institutional training is relevant and effective. We can help people get work experience, for example by offering to supplement their wages if they are hired, or finding opportunities for community work, something we have not stressed enough. We can reduce duplication and waste in programs, with better co-ordination between the federal, provincial and local governments. We must pay more attention to results and help people get jobs and less attention to following rigid bureaucratic rules.

I mentioned as an example someone who came to my office wanting a course which was to begin in a couple of weeks. That course would have led to full time employment. So I said, great, why don't you take it, why don't you apply? He could not because he had to see a counsellor first. I asked him why don't you see the counsellor? The counsellor cannot see this person for six months because of the workload. Another opportunity is lost where someone could have taken a course which would have led to full time employment.

We must have unemployment insurance that makes sense. For too many people the UI program does not work any more. It does not help them get the skills they need for new jobs. It does not help people solve their employment problems. Too often it just makes those problems worse because there is no incentive or support for people to change. Canadians want a better UI program, one that is fair and affordable and helps unemployed people get good long term jobs.

Another constituent complained because she has been working for six years with the same company but it has always been on a part time basis. The employer saves all of the fringe benefits, et cetera. This has to stop.

One way to adjust the system is to make people work longer to qualify for UI or reduce the amount they receive. Or we could shorten the time people could collect UI. That might help but we need more than that. We should look at an entirely new employment insurance program, one that really helps people deal with employment problems. The hon. member mentions a newly-formed party in the past that led to unemployment instead of employment.

The discussion paper outlines one possible approach, a program that targets special help to people who have trouble getting a job. It would have two components; basic insurance and adjustment insurance. Occasional UI claimants, people who face temporary, occasional unemployment would get basic insurance benefits. This would give them income support while they looked for work, much as at the present time. The frequent UI claimants, people who keep having employment problems, would get adjustment insurance benefits. They would get much better help finding a job than they do now through things like better job counselling, training, or opportunities for community work.

Adjustment insurance benefits could depend on a person's willingness to take part in programs that would help them find work. Reformed programs will open more doors through learning. More than ever before the key to security for Canadians is learning. Education, training, skills are the only ticket to a good job.

More Canadians need opportunities for training and education throughout their lives. We all know now that learning is a lifetime process. While the provinces are responsible for education, the federal government plays an important role. But education and training cost money. How can we make sure that individual Canadians can afford the learning they need?

Some options outlined in the green paper include: making more loans and grants available for students; exploring a new form of income contingent repayment of student loans. These loans would be repayable only after a student graduates and enters the workforce. At that point a repayment schedule would be based on the borrower's ability to repay, given his or her income levels.

I am sure many of the members here receive students at their offices who are at a breaking point mentally because the previous government sent out collection agencies to collect the loans that they did not repay. How can they repay the loans if they cannot get a job? That has to change.

Another option is allowing more flexibility in registered retirement savings plans so that people could draw on those savings for lifelong learning. Our goal must be to preserve and broaden access to post-secondary education. A reformed program must provide a fair chance for all Canadians. This is a basic commitment at the heart of our social security reform, to protect those most in need. It is the same policy that we have in our foreign policy, to help those most in need.

That commitment will remain firm but we have got to do a better job. The system is not working despite the fact that spending on welfare and social services has jumped from $2.6 billion to more than $8 billion annually since 1981. Too many Canadian children live in poverty, more children proportionately than any other industrialized country except the U.S.A. Too many parents of those children spend years on welfare even though with the right kind of help they could find work. The problem is we do not give them the help they need.

The source of the problem is the outdated rules of the Canada assistance plan know as CAP. The rules place strict limits on how federal funding through CAP can be used. We have got to start looking at new ideas to help all Canadians get a better chance in life.

For example, how can we make the rules more flexible and put people first, giving the provinces more leeway to design programs that work? How can we start focusing more of our attention on long term solutions like preventing child poverty instead of just tinkering around with short term cures? Should we take some of the money we spend now and use it for special priorities like increasing the child tax benefit for low income families, or giving people on welfare more training and more help finding jobs, or providing more opportunities for people with disabilities so we do not have the incidents such as we saw yesterday on the news?

Many of the ideas behind social security reform are already being put into action here in Ontario through creative partnership agreements between the Ontario and federal governments.

The first of these will create a series of local labour force development boards across the province. The boards will give communities a real voice in training and employment development priority setting. It will give them the chance to put federal and provincial dollars to work on the needs they see around them. Real grassroots planning and action will mean that money is spent where it has the best chance to create results.

Another joint project, Joblink Ontario, will create about a dozen resource centres in communities across the province on a pilot basis. The $25 million that the federal government will contribute this year will match Ontario's contribution. These resource centres will help people on social assistance prepare for and find jobs. It will give them one-stop shopping for training and employment programs for all levels of government and community agencies. It will offer real support to people who can work and who want to work. Through counselling, labour market information and Canada employment centre job listings these people will gain the self-sufficiency they need to escape the welfare trap.

By working together the ideas behind social security reform are already becoming a reality in Ontario, but we cannot stop here. In the past generations of Canadians have risen to the challenge of building a society that cares, that has compassion for the disadvantaged, that supports those in need. This is a challenge each generation must face in turn.

It is now our turn, and I include every member in this Chamber. It is our turn to shape a system that works here on the eve of a new century. We should face this challenge with confidence. We can face this challenge knowing that as a nation our prospects for the future are good.

The federal government is putting in place a comprehensive agenda for economic growth and jobs for Canadians. We can make social security reform an integral part of that agenda. As demonstrated in my town hall meeting of last week Canadians want a better system. By working together we will build a better system.

Petitions November 17th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I too have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians who respect the sanctity of human life. The petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and, that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia. I add my support to these petitions.