Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to differ. I do not want to challenge the Chair on that but the matter has already been referred to the resources development committee and it came back without amendment. I would say that the Reform Party is stalling for time with private members' business and I am very concerned with that.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is just a matter of debate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues will appreciate that the bill as was indicated by the member for Restigouche has gone to committee, has been gone through clause by clause, and has come back.

To the hon. member for Restigouche, the motion proposes to discharge the bill and refer the subject matter. Therefore the amendment would appear to me to be in order.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, since this private member's bill was first introduced various things have come up which probably would now make it necessary for the bill to be referred to the committee again. One major thing that has come up is that the Minister of Human Resources Development ordered a review of some of the programs under the Department of Human Resources Development including unemployment insurance.

As there are no members of the Human Resources Development committee present since they are presently holding hearings in Quebec and across the country, it is only in order that we allow the bill to be referred to committee again.

The bill is contrary to true insurance principles. The minister made the point that the changes he is proposing would bring the Unemployment Insurance Act back to a true insurance act. It would very much change what we are doing here, and that is why I am supporting the amendment my colleague has made.

If we are to return unemployment insurance to true insurance principles there are various matters in the bill I would like to address that should be referred back to committee to be corrected. If the members opposite would listen to what I have to say, they would agree with that.

If the bill were passed it would be the first time in history that a private member's bill would require the government to spend more money, in the neighbourhood of $3 million. I think members opposite would agree and would probably oppose it for that reason.

As I have mentioned, the people on the Human Resources Development committee are not here now to present what they are hearing in the consultations across the country. I have been travelling with the committee for three weeks and there have been many presentations that would run contrary to the spirit of the private member's bill. For that reason we should be delaying it.

They will be going against the wishes of their Minister of Human Resources Development. The report that will come down in February will indicate that. It would be wise to refer this back to the committee and let it have another look at it.

Some of the things we are hearing that would run contrary to the bill are the following. The people who are coming before the committee as witnesses would like to see reduced the duplication that is presently taking place between the federal and provincial government.

The bill actually does the opposite. It infringes on an area of provincial jurisdiction, that is the area of justice. Even as the member who proposed the bill admitted, the problem is not with unemployment insurance. The problem with serving on duty as a juror falls on the justice system. It should not fall on the unemployment insurance system.

Another thing we are hearing is that the unemployment insurance system should be run more as a true insurance system and should be economically viable. It is not. It should be financially sustainable; we are hearing time and again that unemployment insurance should be self-financing.

Many people are telling us that we need to go back and establish it on true insurance principles. The bill is contrary to that and is why it should be referred back to the committee. The committee now has new insights from what it is hearing from Canadians and would like to probably evaluate the bill with regard to them.

I have a couple of more points. The consultations indicate that Canadians should be treated more equally across Canada. The bill does not do that. Self-employed people would be discriminated against under the bill. They would not be eligible to be compensated by unemployment insurance. They could be sitting beside somebody else on a jury and would not have the same access. There is an equality problem in that regard.

It will open up the system to more abuse. The Minister of Human Resources Development has stated explicitly that he would like to reduce the amount of abuse. Costs will escalate at a time when we cannot afford it. In fact we would be approving a history making government expenditure of $3 million because of a private member's bill.

Would it be possible to somehow look at the bill, send it back to committee and see if some of these things could be addressed? I believe it is and for that reason I am supporting the motion. I hope members opposite and members of the Bloc will support it as well.

The people from whom we are hearing in this consultative process are saying that we have to reduce the number of

opportunities for abuse, not increase them. For that reason I support what my colleague has put forward.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, originally I did not intend to enter into the debate. It was my intention from the beginning to rise and pay tribute to the member for Restigouche-Chaleur for bringing forward his private member's bill.

However I must admit that I am appalled by the remarks made by the two previous speakers from the Reform Party. I did not think it was possible for members of Parliament to be so meanspirited.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The words just used characterizing the Reform Party are not parliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have researched the matter. It was a minister who used those words and she was required to withdraw them. I would invite the member for Winnipeg-St. James to withdraw those words immediately.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to withdraw them if they are unparliamentary. How do I convey my disgust? Is that unparliamentary as well? I am left absolutely disgusted by the remarks.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member has withdrawn the offending words that have been ruled within the last two weeks as being unparliamentary. I would ask the hon. member to continue his speech.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to continue with my speech.

What is the intent of the private member's bill? Its intent is to remove an injustice, to remove a wrong. These people are ready, willing and able to work. They happen to be on unemployment insurance. They have been mandated by the state. They have been mandated by the government. They have been obliged by society to serve jury duty.

It is not their fault. It is not abuse as suggested by the previous speakers from the third party. They are following the duty imposed upon them by the Parliament of Canada. They are not at fault. These are good people. They do not want to violate the Unemployment Insurance Act, but they have benefits owing to them. They are obliged to serve on the jury but in the process they have to give up their benefits, their compensation.

In the name of fairness and justice surely we cannot ask them on one hand to serve on a jury and at the same time to give up their unemployment insurance compensation. It is wrong. It is an injustice. The intent of the bill is to remove that injustice, to correct that wrong.

Do we not have the compassion or the decency to show these people that we care for them? On one hand we want them to follow the law of the land and to serve on juries and at the same time we should not take away their unemployment insurance benefits, their compensation. If parliamentarians cannot understand this simple concept, this simple piece of justice then I do not understand what is going on.

In conclusion all I want to say is this piece of legislation is justified in the name of fairness. The arguments brought forward by the previous speakers are red herrings. This has been examined by the committee. There are no more questions. We should be settling this now in the name of justice.

I pay tribute to the member for Restigouche-Chaleur. He has done the right thing. In the name of justice and fairness and in the name of God let us pass this bill now.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for long but I hope to speak a little more calmly than the previous speaker did. A number of points he brought forward actually reiterate what my colleagues are trying to do in having this subject matter referred back to committee.

We must view this in light of the review of all of our social programs and proposed reforms to be introduced hopefully later and not that much later in this Parliament. We are going to be looking at the unemployment insurance system and hopefully reviewing it with a view to making it a true insurance program. Also when we are talking about jury duty we may be talking about other jurisdictions such as the provincial jurisdiction as it affects the criminal justice system.

There are so many complications and so many other angles to this whole situation which have not been adequately presented both in this House and to the committee nor for the provinces to have their input. This underscores the fact that before we hastily implement this private member's bill which will cost taxpayers some money and which will broaden the scope of unemployment insurance rather than narrow it to its original function, it would be wise not to bind the hands of the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development on proposals that will have to be undone at a later date.

I speak on behalf of rational Canadians who want to look carefully and make wise decisions rather than rant uncontrollably and emotionally without having put one's facts together ahead of time in order to make smart decisions rather than foolish ones. We have seen past Liberal governments build up the unemployment insurance program and our social safety net to the point that we have to look at reform, restructuring, redirecting them back to their original purposes so that they can help those Canadians they were supposed to help.

Certainly if people are called to jury duty and there are some financial implications, that needs to be looked at. I do not think my colleagues in the Reform Party are saying this is not a valid issue to bring forward in the House. We are saying that perhaps unemployment insurance is not the correct vehicle to deal with this issue. Also a precedent is being set where a private member's bill is going to cost taxpayers dollars. That is why the

Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs had to get up and make rather an elaborate statement to the House.

This is a precedent setting incident. We need to look a lot more cautiously in the light of the total deficit of $540 billion. Every penny must be accounted for. This House has to take more responsibility over that expenditure. We should not hasten to make short two minute speeches and try to slip these bills through without proper consultation and without proper debate in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the deputy whip has asked me to defer the vote until tomorrow at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that given the way the votes are planned for this week you might find unanimous consent in the House to further defer the division until Thursday at 5.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.