Debates of Feb. 3rd, 1994

Social Security System

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since there are only three minutes left, I would ask the member for Bourassa to share them with the parliamentary secretary.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her election as an MP. She is from one of Canada's important minority groups, and since I too belong to one of them, I think that we should be able to work together for Canada's minorities.

The member mentioned unemployment. I believe that in Canada, minorities are particularly affected by unemployment and the economic crisis. I would like to hear her views on equal access programs such as job access and affirmative action for minorities. I hope the government will make more room for minorities in the federal public service where they are under-represented.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the opportunity to share some of his experiences that we have in common.

I do care about equity issues. I think we are on the road to equity. If we look around the Chamber we can see that there are opportunities for us to work in a fashion that would reflect the nature of Canadian society.

Canadian society is not just English and French, or people from Quebec and people from the rest of Canada. We are multicultural and multiracial. We must be in every place in society. We must aspire to be the best Canadians that we can be and every opportunity must be given to individuals. It is a waste of talent and ability when every individual is not given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

That is why I am here. That is why the hon. member is here. We are all here to work in the interests of Canadians to make sure we have a society that is equitable, that is working, a society where each and every individual is a person of dignity, of worth and able to participate fully in Canadian society.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.55 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 2, 1994, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion in relation to Government Order No. 4, now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour 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 yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 2, 1994, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 8, 1994, at six o'clock.

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

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening under Standing Order 37(3) to discuss a question I had in question period the first day of this session.

I know when I was on the other side of the House not too many members on this side of the House got up under this standing order.

However, I thought it might give me an opportunity to discuss a serious situation in my riding and in ridings across this country regarding Canada's position as it came out of the GATT negotiations regarding ice cream and yogurt. At that time I asked the minister what he was doing and how the negotiations were going with the Americans.

There is a lot of concern out there that over the past few years the government has not stood up for the rights of Canadian farmers when negotiating with the Americans on these issues.

In fact there are many in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk who feel that the government has failed in any attempt over the past few years to put a strong argument forward on behalf of Canadian farmers.

I ask the minister if he would not stand up to the Americans and tell them we are not prepared to cave in to their position on ice cream and yogurt which was essentially to lower those tariffs to zero immediately.

The minister may not be aware of a legal decision that has come forward to us from the dairy farmers of Canada that in fact supports the Canadian position that we can put a tariff on ice cream and yogurt. I know the minister will be very pleased to hear this. In fact Richard Doyle of the Dairy Farmers of Canada says in a letter:

The drafters of the NAFTA text clearly recognized that GATT rights and obligations would not be static, but grow and change with the agreements negotiated under the GATT. In light of the extensive references to developments and future agreements under GATT, it appears unlikely that a successful argument could be made against Canada's decision to reduce tariff levels according to its GATT rights and obligations. In reviewing the legal opinion, valid arguments have been identified to support the position that your government took during the GATT negotiations.

I have here a legal opinion by the American law firm, Cameron and Hornbostel. I am sure the hon. minister does not have this legal opinion yet because it was just sent out. It is dated February 1.

I am sure when he receives it he will look at it and make it very clear to the Americans that unless we can negotiate a deal we do intend to keep these tariffs on ice cream and yogurt. In fact, we will fight as hard as we can to make sure that we have a continued supply management system in this country and a viable agriculture sector.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to my colleague's comments. I commend him for the interest that he has shown and continues to show on this issue.

There are a number of outstanding agri-food trade issues that are being discussed and are problems between Canada and the United States at the present time. The Minister of Agriculture attempted to resolve these while he was in Geneva but the Americans did not see fit to take part in those discussions at that time and unfortunately we were not able to get a bilateral agreement.

Of course, the issues did not go away. The problems did not go away. Canada is still seeking a resolution to these issues in a way that meets Canadian needs. There have been ongoing bilateral negotiations over the past several weeks. The minister met with his U.S. counterpart in Toronto on January 8. Those discussions are not yet concluded and continue to go on at this time.

I would like to state clearly that the government is working to defend the interests of Canadian agriculture in these negotiations. All sectors of agriculture and the agri-food industry in all parts of Canada are being considered and taken into account.

Everyone who is familiar with the Canadian industry has known for some time that the trade regime for ice cream and yogurt was going to be a difficult issue in the conclusion of the Uruguay round. A GATT panel ruled in 1989 that Canada's import quotas on ice cream and yogurt were not consistent with article XI. Canada accepted the findings and agreed to bring its measures into conformity with GATT. In light of that multinational trade union result, the government is continuing to seek resolve of that situation.

The government remains committed to ensuring that our supply management systems can continue.

With the support of the provincial ministers of agriculture, the federal minister has asked me to lead a small task force to consult with all stakeholders to talk about and discuss what changes may be necessary and what mechanisms will be required so that we can continue to have orderly marketing for the supply managed commodities into the future for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take up an issue that was raised in Question Period just a few days ago which related to a large piece of my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River. That is the lands that comprise the Rouge River Valley.

What I collectively refer to as the Rouge Valley lands comprise approximately 10,000 acres in what is now an urban environment. The 10,000 acres, give or take a few, basically include the two river valleys that comprise the two Rouge River tributaries. These lands have somehow managed to survive intact as an integral ecological unit with their evolved flora and fauna.

In recognition of that fact we have to pay tribute to those who over the last 15 or 20 years realized this and made it known before it was too late in the face of the development of these lands. Now the Rouge Valley lands have received a commitment from provincial, federal and municipal governments to preserve them in an ecological park of the sort that is still being negotiated and managed.

To give an example for the record, the Rouge Valley River still has 55 species of fish. It is home to 200 species of birds, 28 species of mammals and 700 species of plants, forest and vegetation. That is in an urban area of Toronto. As hard as it is to believe, we must be thankful for it and make a commitment to it.

My question involved the seeking of a commitment from federal, provincial and municipal governments and that whole community that comprises eastern metro. We are looking for a commitment from this government to complete a promise of funding of $10 million given in 1987. Part of this commitment has already been used for the acquisition of an aboriginal burial site at the edge of park boundary. There was also a commitment of federal expertise in managing park lands or ecological habitats.

Some believe the park could be jointly developed and managed by the provincial and federal governments. Others believe the park should be managed by an entity developed specifically for that purposes and others who think the municipal government should also have a role.

I am seeking a further commitment from the federal government and I am very hopeful along with all the people I represent and all the people in the southern Ontario community who care very much about this priceless asset. We hope the federal government will commit to further involvement in the project.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Scarborough for his question on the Rouge River Valley.

As the Minister of Canadian Heritage has already indicated to the House, this government remains committed to the creation of the Rouge River Valley Park. In fact this 11,400 acre preserve is North America's largest urban park. Its creation is an excellent example of co-operation among the federal and Ontario governments as well as private organizations in meeting federal government environmental objectives.

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, the federal government has been in favour of the Rouge River Valley Park. In 1988, the Minister of the Environment of the time announced that the Canadian government would invest $10 million for the conservation of the valley.

In fact, the federal government contributed $1.5 million of the $2.6 million purchase price for the culturally significant Bead Hill National Historic Site in Scarborough within the Rouge River Park. This is the only intact 17th century Seneca village and burial ground known in Canada.

As my friend from Scarborough-Rouge River knows, Bead Hill is an example of an important aspect of native history which is under-represented in the Canadian network of national historic sites.

The federal government's commitment to the Rouge River Valley Park remains firm. Upon establishment of a park management agency by the Ontario government, we would be pleased to consider funding further projects for park development within our commitment.

I would like to thank my friend from Scarborough-Rouge River for displaying his continuing interest in Rouge River Valley Park. It is a very important element in the lives of his constituents as well as all Canadians. He should be congratulated for bringing their concerns to the forefront of discussion in the House.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to discuss further the question I asked in the House the other day that dealt with the funding levels for settlement programs for immigrants.

As I mentioned during question period, 59 per cent of the 250,000 immigrants who settle in Canada settle in Ontario but only 39 per cent of the federal immigration settlement program funds go to language training for Ontario. As I mentioned, the budgets of the school boards in Ontario are being cut constantly by the provinces which is resulting in language training programs being cut.

I want to expand a little on why this issue is important and what it means to the future of all people in Ontario. We talk a great deal about the future of this country, stating that higher education is extremely important in order for the young people to be able to build careers, especially in the new knowledge based industries.

If the immigrant children who come to this country are not able to learn the language where they reside, whether it is English in Ontario or French in Quebec, they do not have the basis on which to build an education and a career, thereby being relegated to dead end jobs and being denied, in essence, a proper education.

The problem does not remain just with children. It is a wider issue and affects adults as well. When I came to this country in 1957 there was no such thing as a language program. Therefore we as children had to struggle.

The parents who worked long hours from five in the morning to eight at night either in factories or construction-certainly my parents-were not able to learn the language properly. We are now paying in a social way because if we do not pay up front, we pay later as a society.

Later we will pay for the seniors. We talk about seniors issues in this House. We must remember that there are hundreds of thousands of seniors in this country who came here and worked for the last 35 or 40 years and are not yet cognizant enough of the English language to be able to take advantage of the programs we provide through our taxpayers' dollars. They are not able to take advantage of the counselling programs we provide. They are not able to take advantage of a lot of programs that are available to the average Canadian. This creates an added burden on society.

My question is very important because I am concerned and interested. I want to make sure we look at funding. I am not simply asking questions from the point of view that we want more money because there is money going elsewhere or what have you. It is not a light question. I am looking very seriously at the implications of what it means to people and the effect it has on these people's lives down the road, both the children and adults along with the seniors eventually.

It is a social issue and not just one of immigration. I want to make sure the minister understands that. I want to ask the minister if the discussions I understand the parliamentary secretary to have mentioned that day are in any way anticipated to bring about results in the near future or if we are looking at something that will take still some time.

My concern is that something happen as soon as possible simply because we cannot afford to have children in the school system who do not get a proper education. The school boards get their money as we know from ratepayer taxes. It is a finite source and it is very difficult to deal with added resources.

We as a government and as a nation have a responsibility to assist in this area because we are the ones that set the levels. We work with the provinces in identifying the immigrants we want to come to this country. We have a responsibility to then work with the provinces to make sure there is equity in the system.

I would appreciate it if the minister would address that aspect of my question.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a long and distinguished background in settlement work in her home province. She can take pride in the fact that the government has already introduced regulatory changes that will allow refugee claimants to work while awaiting the outcome of their claim.

The government is committed to enhanced co-operation and co-ordination between the two levels of government. We will have to work together to use scarce resources more effectively.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration met on Monday with his Ontario counterparts to discuss the very matter raised by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine. I am pleased to say that the province of Ontario and the federal government will begin negotiations with a view to establishing an immigrant

agreement. Ontario is one of only three provinces that does not have an immigration agreement with the federal government.

With this first step we have clearly demonstrated our willingness to enhance co-operation and co-ordination between the two levels of government. The federal government has a series of settlement programs and services designed to help immigrants access services available to all Canadians. These programs are designed and delivered on the understanding that settlement is a process that involves new and established Canadian residents.

Canadians are involved as sponsors, service deliverers, volunteers and hosts. More than 300 external partners have entered into contribution agreements with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the delivery of services to newcomers.

The program allocations for the various settlement programs for 1993-94 will be over $251 million. We understand and share Ontario's concerns about settlement and integration, and we are certainly prepared to listen. This immigration agreement will be the first step in addressing Ontario's concerns.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced yesterday and again today, he is placing this House in front of a fait accompli with respect to the appointment of a new President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He has refused to subject this appointment to a parliamentary committee for approval in a free, binding vote, as the previous government had promised.

Yesterday, I asked the minister to explain to the House why this policy was changed and why candidates for the position of president and chief executive officer of the CBC had to send their resumés to the Prime Minister's Office, to the official in charge of appointments, who is a long-standing Liberal Party activist.

The minister told us that the policy had changed because the government had changed and went on to refer me to page 454 of Hansard . That was an obvious statement if there ever was one. And the reason I am rising again on this question this evening is that the minister's answer was totally unacceptable as it did not address my question.

I did refer to Hansard as the hon. minister had so kindly suggested and here is what I found, and I quote: ``The government will announce shortly the appointment of the new president of the CBC''.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question. The previous government had instituted an appointment process designed to be non-partisan, in which nominations were to be sent to recruitment committees. Since coming into office October 25, the new government has been telling us that they were following in the tracks of the previous government. Let me tell you that they have gone off the track and that openness has been thrown into the ditch.

Today, I asked the minister again why his government had made that change? To no avail.

Why did the minister not submit the appointment to the parliamentary committee on Canadian Heritage?

Why does the minister refuse to table before that committee, meeting in camera, the list of candidates who have turned down the job as reported in La Presse today.

Why does the minister refuse to be more transparent about political appointments when his Prime Minister is boasting left and right that he wants to restore the confidence of the people of Canada and Quebec in their public corporations and federal institutions?

Is it only because the minister is not an expert on parliamentary procedure, as he said himself?

At the first opportunity the government has to make good on a promise, namely to run the country with transparency, it has candidacies sent to the Prime Minister's Office instead of an impartial recruitment committee.

I think that the people of Quebec and Canada are entitled to see for themselves that the people running their public corporations are chosen on the basis of objective criteria.

Need I remind you that we are entitled to question the government's openness on this? Indeed, we have no grounds to believe that the credibility of the process of appointment to management positions in federal institutions has been improved by the recent change of government.

How many candidates refused the position in the CBC? Why did the Prime Minister break with tradition and prefer to choose a candidate from inside instead of from outside the organization? The minister had many meetings with the candidate while he was acting president of the Corporation since November. Did the minister discuss his candidacy during those meetings? Did the minister support the candidacy? Did he personally recommend it to the appointments director? Who really made the decision? The minister, Mrs. Collenette or the Prime Minister on the advice of his special adviser, the former president of the CBC?

All these questions are unanswered. Could the minister answer them directly tonight, without referring me to Hansard this time?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata on the appointment of the new president of the CBC.

As the minister said, the selection process for the new president of the CBC was very transparent. On November 13, 1993, a call for candidacies was printed in The Canada Gazette, and all interested candidates had the opportunity to apply for the position. Also, many people were consulted on this issue.

The CBC needed someone with experience who knew the nuts and bolts of this institution and was ready to go into action immediately. Mr. Manera is such a person. He has been working for the corporation since 1985, holding the positions of senior vice-president, Resources and Administration, and more recently, acting president.

The appointment of the new president comes with a series of measures the government has undertaken to allow the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to assume its own destiny, one of the commitments the Liberals included in the red book.

The appointment of Mr. Manera and the series of measures announced will assist the CBC in reinforcing its role as public broadcaster and as a national institution serving the Canadian public.

Of all our cultural institutions, the CBC is undoubtedly the one which plays the most significant role in defining our national identity.

The broadcasting industry is undergoing massive changes, and it was imperative that we appoint a president capable of dealing with the financial problems of the Corporation and of reasserting loud and clear the role of the CBC as a public broadcaster serving the Canadian public. That is exactly what we have done, and an announcement on this issue was made this morning.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the minister of Human Resources Development ended his answer to my question on a potential Unemployment Insurance costs increase by inviting the Official Opposition to co-operate with him in a thorough examination of social programmes, and thus study the question of government's social expenditures as a whole.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister of Human Resources Development that we should also take a look at the evolution of certain of our social policies, and I am particularly referring to the lack of a family oriented policy in Canada, since 1994 year is the International Year of the Family.

With the emergence of a certain form of neoliberalism in the eighties, a new view of family responsibility has come to the fore; it has now become an individual responsibility, thus freeing society from a seemingly embarrassing load.

Federal social policies are often based on a concept of the family where the husband is the only wage earner. Thus, we have a married exemption in our tax system. In our old age security plan, the wife's benefits are cut in half when her husband dies, but if the wife dies, her husband keeps all his benefits.

As a result of complex changes in the tax system and the deindexation of family and child benefits, a Senate committee says that, from 1986 to 1991, the federal government grabbed $3.5 billion out of the family and child benefits program. A Quebec family with two children and an income of $70,000 a year pays as much tax as a childless family with the same income.

Thus, a couple who chooses to invest in a pension plan will have generous tax deductions, but if it prefers to invest in the future of the Quebec nation by having children, it has to fend for itself without any help from Revenue Canada.

This lack of family oriented policies at the federal level carries tragic consequences. In 1991, the number of children depending on food banks in Quebec and Canada was estimated at 700,000. One year later, it was 900,000. Many teachers throughout our school system complain that they are now social workers because of a sharp deterioration in family life and because of the number of children they look after.

The following case shows the great inconsistency of federal family-oriented policies. In Toronto, a young mother, owner of a small business with nine employees, had to be on her job in her business two days only after having a baby. That person contributes to plans insuring a significant percentage of her employees' salaries when they are on maternity leave, but nothing in the social policies of the federal government provides for maternity leave for that small business owner. Such a situation is unacceptable.

The establishment of a universal day care program, maternity leave and special leave granted to mothers to provide care to a sick child are but a few of the issues that have to be debated in initiating a true reform of social programs, and especially the establishment of family oriented policy.

Simple things such as allowing children to have lunch at school so that they do not have to travel, offering flexible work schedules and offering a flexible transit system to seniors would also foster the emergence of a family oriented policy.

In the past, the federal government, and this includes the Liberal government, showed a lack of vision and a lack of courage towards Quebecers and Canadians with respect to family oriented policies.

We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, are convinced that a review of our social programs starts with the development of a real family oriented policy in Canada as well as in Quebec. Whatever options the Liberal Party has, it is difficult for us to think that this government can ignore the fundamental changes that family structures have undergone in Canada and Quebec since the introduction of social programs.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the UI premium rate for 1994 has been set at the minimum rate required under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The rate will not be increased during 1994. Furthermore, the government will introduce legislation to prevent the UI premium rate from rising in 1995 as would otherwise occur under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The UI program is self-financing from premiums paid by employees and employers. The federal government temporarily finances UI deficits but premium revenues must eventually match UI costs. We therefore might have paid for the freeze by allowing the deficit in the UI account to rise, thus postponing the day it would return to balance, but we decided that would be imprudent.

There is widespread recognition of the need for a comprehensive reform of Canada's social security programs. No department or government on its own could design all the appropriate changes. Therefore we hope members of the House from all parties will participate in the reform of social programs including unemployment insurance.

As the Minister of Human Resources Development said in response to the hon. member's original question, the review of the social security system that was launched in the House on January 31 will consider the issues of unemployment insurance rates and premiums in a broader context.

The hon. member will agree that the problems facing Canadians in the 1990s go far beyond the financing of the UI system. Unemployment, poverty, global competitiveness, changes in the work place and skill shortages are only some of the factors we must consider in the process of rebuilding the social security, labour market and learning framework of our country.

The scope of the review will include UI but will extend beyond it to include training and employment programs, social assistance and income security, education and learning, labour practices and rules affecting the workplace, and taxes and premiums that affect job creation.

Our goal is to reduce reliance on programs like unemployment insurance by helping people to get back to work. This is the mandate we received from the Canadian people in the October 25 election. This is our commitment and this is what the social security reform process is all about.

As the hon. member knows, the minister outlined a process for reform that will consult widely with Canadians from all walks of life on these important issues. The process respects the jurisdiction-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to say that the member's time has expired.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)