Debates of Dec. 11th, 1995

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Contraventions Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-114, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Fisheries Act

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-115, an act respecting fisheries.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, certified by the House and signed by 163 residents of Scarborough and east metro Toronto.

The petitioners call on the government to reconsider the national security certificate issued jointly by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada in relation to Mr. Manicavasagam Suresh. This proceeding has caused concern among Tamil Canadians.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on Canada Post signed by 200 constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean, which reads as follows. Whereas the Canada Post Corporation moves home mail boxes around as it sees fit, which forces a number of citizens to use the services of an intermediary to get their mail, we are requesting that Canada Post put an end to its plan to move home delivery mail boxes around as it sees fit, and to respect vested rights to postal services.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.

The first petition is on behalf of 400 of my constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and from people across the country.

They call on Parliament to preserve Canadian unity and parliamentary tradition and to protect the rights of all people of Canada by prevailing upon the Speaker of the House of Commons to recognize the Reform Party as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament of Canada.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 75 constituents.

They call upon Parliament to reduce the federal deficit by reducing government spending and by refraining from any form of tax increase.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from 25 concerned constituents.

They call on Parliament to support laws which severely punish violent criminals who use weapons, to support new Criminal Code firearms provisions which protect the law-abiding gun owner, and to repeal existing legislation which does not improve public safety and has not been proven to be cost effective.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is on behalf of 60 constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

They call on Parliament to protect our children through stringent enforcement of our existing laws by imposing maximum sentence if an offender preys upon children, by denying early release in such cases and by bringing in new legislation to specifically protect children.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is from 110 of my constituents from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

They call upon Parliament to end the legal approval of spanking children by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of the little brother campaign sponsored by Tom and George Ambas of Scarborough, Ontario. The signatures are from in and around the area of Wild Rose.

The petition prays and calls upon Parliament to amend the Young Offenders Act to provide that young offenders charged with murder be automatically tried in adult court, that if convicted they may be sentenced as adults, and that identities should not be hidden from the public.

I am very pleased to present the petition on their behalf.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions under Standing Order 36 to present. The first is from the residents of Smith, Alberta.

The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code which states that in no case may a father or a mother without serious cause place obstacles between the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the modalities of the relationship are settled by the court.

Further they request an amendment to the Divorce Act that would give a grandparent granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and to be given information on the health, education and welfare of the child.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the residents of Fort McMurray in my riding.

They ask that Parliament support laws which severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms; and support legislation which will repeal

or modify existing gun control laws that have not improved public safety, have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 224.

Question No. 224-

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

With regard to work contracted for involving the department of fisheries, (a) does the department of fisheries have a contractual relationship with Bristol Communication, if so, what is the service provided, ( b ) what was the billing in the fiscal years 1994-95 and for the first half of 1995-96, and ( c ) what is the policy or regulation governing contracts with companies in which departmental officials or minister's staff have an interest?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Treasury Board as follows:

(a) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans no longer has a contractual relationship with Bristol Communications.

(b) $63,493.19 was invoiced by Bristol Communications in 1994-95 and $5,382.19 was invoiced in the first half of 1995-96.

(c) Departmental officials (employees) are subject to the provisions of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for the public service (public service code). This code does not make any specific statement "governing contracts with companies in which departmental officals-have an interest". However, there are provisions relating to assets held by employees.

Pursuant to sections 21 to 23 of the public service code, employees must make a confidential report to the designated official of all assets and of all direct and contingent liabilities, where these might give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of the employee's official duties and responsibilities. Such assets might include "interests in partnerships, proprietorships, joint ventures, private companies and family businesses, in particular those that own or control shares of public companies or that do business with the government".

Employees must divest assets where it is determined by the designated offical that they constitute a real or potential conflict of interest in relation to the duties and responsibilities of the employee. Divestment of assets is usually achieved by selling them in an arm's length transaction or by making them subject to a trust arrangement.

Minister's staff are subject to the provisions of the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders (public office holder code). This code does not make any specific statement "governing contracts with companies in which- minister's staff have an interest". However, there are provisions relating to assets held by public office holders, which includes minister's staff.

Section 9(1) requires a confidential report to the ethics counsellor of all assets and of all direct and contingent liabilities.

Pursuant to section 10 to 14, the public office holders then make a public declaration of certain types of assets (such as interests in businesses that do not contract with the government and do not own or control publicly traded securities), and divest themselves of other types of assets which could be directly or indirectly affected as to value by government decisions or policy (such as publicly traded securities and businesses which contract with the government). Such divestment is by sale or by establishing a blind trust or management agreement approved by the ethics counsellor.

For more detailed information on conflict of interest and code of conduct, please refer to the codes.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-111, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor and has a minute left in his intervention.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to finish my intervention with about 60 more seconds of words of wisdom for the government on its unemployment insurance efforts.

It collects $19 billion and it pays out some $11 billion. The other billions of dollars are just to get votes. The government has the opportunity to truly reform unemployment insurance, to truly push it down to the level of government that is closest to the people and let it serve them, to truly eliminate overlap and duplication of services, to save the taxpayers $5 billion, and to lower government

spending. If it is a matching fund between employer and employee it should never go into a deficit whatsoever.

The government had the opportunity to offer some hope and tax relief to corporations through a reduction in the payroll tax. It has chosen not to do any of those things that stimulate the economy. It has chosen not to do any of those things that would benefit taxpayers. Instead it has chosen to continue taxing on the side and overburdening us with more and more taxation.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Calgary Centre I feel we are reading two separate acts. One of his concerns was that we were changing the name of this bill from the Unemployment Insurance Act to the employment act, and even that bothered him. Imagine trying to take a positive stance on getting Canadians back to work; this is just another thing they object to.

Canada works when Canadians work. This is the essence of Bill C-111. The previous Unemployment Insurance Act was basically a passive support system. It in many ways encouraged people not to seek employment in other areas. The Canadian economy is very much evolving from what some economists would like to call the old economy into a new economy. It is very appropriate that as Canada approaches the 21st century it attempts to evolve its legislation in the area of encouraging skills and skill development in our workforce.

There is always the question of cause and effect when we get into the issue of unemployment or employment benefits. Many of our younger people are joining the workforce. Alarmingly, over 60 per cent of new entrants have received only a high school education. It is apropos that the government has recognized that and wants to upgrade the basic qualities of skills in the labour market.

Many of us can relate stories from their own ridings, anecdotal or whatever, of people who have purposely chosen not to work because the incentive to work was not there. In other words, they received unemployment insurance benefits and for them to take a job, with possible babysitting costs or whatever other costs attributed to going to work, it was cheaper to sustain themselves on unemployment insurance.

I do not believe unemployment insurance was ever intended to be an income support system. It was basically supposed to encourage and develop skills so that people would seek employment.

It is interesting how Canadian economist Nuala Beck said the economy in Canada has been changing over the last number of years. More people work in the sophisticated electronics industry than in pulp and paper. This is even true in British Columbia. More Quebecers have jobs in health and medical care than in the traditional sectors of construction, textile, clothing, furniture, automobile, forestry and mining combined.

More Nova Scotians work as teachers and university professors than in fish processing, forestry and construction put together. The province has the largest number of universities per capita of any province, making it one of the best knowledge intensive regions in the country. Why I submit that information during this debate is that sometimes we forget how our economy has been changing. We often look at the unemployment statistics and they also follow some of what people would call the older economy.

Basically we want to not subsidize and underwrite people staying with an old economy that possibly is leading to dead end jobs. Rather, we want to give them the skills and the incentive to move along within the workforce.

Canada has one of the highest benefit plans of unemployment insurance in the world. Many have suggested this has created a situation in which people have been reticent about seeking new employment in other areas. In a sense it has actually contributed to the immobility of our workforce and has possibly made it not as dynamic as it should have been.

We have watched the unemployment insurance system change in the last 12 years. In 1982, 15 per cent of workers were repeat users. By 1994 over 40 per cent of the people who accessed the unemployment insurance system have also done so at least one other time in the last five years, which tells us that more and more people have been using the unemployment insurance system not so much as an avenue for getting back to work or looking for new work but as a way to maintain their income levels.

Another aspect affecting our economy is a tremendous change in the remuneration for young people. Those under 24 years of age are today earning less than a similar age group in 1969. Many of these younger people are finding it difficult to access the labour market. Many aspects of this legislation create an open door which allows some of our younger people to get work experience.

How is this new act better than the old unemployment system with the problems I have mentioned? It is better in a number of ways. It assists employers in keeping assistance to small and medium size businesses. Premiums for workers will drop from the current level, which the previous speaker neglected to mention, of $3 to $2.95 in 1996, while employers will pay $4.13 per $100 of employee insurable earnings as compared with the current $4.20. This combined with a reduction in the annual insurable base from the current level of $42,380 to $39,000 means employers could save as much as $170 per worker in 1996.

Time and again employers have told us as a government that payroll taxes kill jobs. Payroll taxes, whether unemployment insurance or Canada pension plan and other benefits paid to employees, mean a cost to the employer to hire that extra employee. The government has realized that, has heard those concerns of employers and has changed the legislation to give employers more of an incentive to hire new workers.

This new system will streamline paperwork and simplify reporting requirements facing employers, thus reducing administrative cost. The elimination of weekly minimums and maximums to determine insurability means employers will save in the order of $150 million in administration costs.

The old system basically made people account by weeks with I believe 15 hours per insurable week of employment. One can imagine where an employer who had employees, some working 15 hours, some working 12 hours, some working more than that, would have a horrendous accounting procedure trying to figure out who was insurable and who was not. It also created a barrier. Some people wanted to get 15 hours in so they could have insurable employment. Many relationships between employers and employees were about who could get these hours and so forth.

It created an administrative nightmare for small business. It also created abuse in the relationship between employers and employees. The government has recognized this impediment to hiring people and has changed it in this legislation.

It is estimated that 60 per cent of small firms that currently contribute to the unemployment insurance system actually pay less under the EI while another 16 per cent will pay the same amount. This is a significant factor. Remember, small and medium size businesses are the employers of the future and have been almost the sole creator of jobs in the past. Over 76 per cent of small businesses will realize a significant reduction in their payroll costs. This will give them an incentive to hire more people.

In addition, further relief will be provided by a temporary premium refund for those small businesses that experience a significant premium increase over the next two years. Some 300 small businesses will be eligible for these rebates. This is another area where the government has heard the concerns of small and medium size business and their desire to create new jobs and a new economy.

In addition, we have recognized the importance of people being able to find that new job. Often the problem has been with the changing workforce and also a changing economy. In moving from the old economy to the new economy people have been displaced. Their displacement has also created a situation in which they were reticent about accepting lower paying jobs which may get them into a new labour force.

This legislation provides up to a $5,000 a year subsidy over a three-year period to allow them to access those new jobs. Eight hundred million dollars will be spent for new employment benefits, and on and on.

There is also the recognition of low income families. It was often cheaper for them to go on welfare than it was to work. The government has recognized that by subsidizing the child tax benefit provisions of the unemployment insurance system to providing more benefits for those young families trying to find a job, find a career. This is only a part of what is a very excellent piece of legislation.

These changes will assist Canadian corporations and their workers in providing new jobs for the young and for all workers in Canada in the new economy and putting the old economy behind us.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-111 runs counter to the historical demands of Quebec and to women's rights to equality.

Let us travel back in time, stopping in the year 1864 during the discussions leading up to Confederation. The future central government wanted to have jurisdiction over higher education. It would appear that this did not suit a good number of participants, because the provinces ended up with full jurisdiction over education.

Now, after a long jump forward in history, let us stop in 1940. This is the year, you will remember, in which, after an unsuccessful attempt to legislate on an unemployment insurance proposal, the government succeeded in having the constitution changed by the British Parliament and was accorded a new jurisdiction-unemployment insurance.

This jurisdiction over unemployment insurance was interpreted by the courts, and the decisions are very interesting indeed. The well known constitionalist, Mr. Beaudoin, covered the subject briefly in his La Constitution du Canada .

The courts decided the federal government's jurisdiction over unemployment insurance included the right to determine the types of jobs that were insurable, the sorts of jobs that involved a risk of unemployment and could perhaps be covered by the program, the sorts of income that could be taken into account in calculating unemployment insurance contributions and, finally, the eligibility criteria for benefits.

From these powers, one conclusion is obvious: Parliament's jurisdiction covers unemployment insurance solely. That is, like all other forms of insurance-life insurance, fire insurance, disability insurance-the risk is insured, period.

This leads us to the question of where Parliament got its so important authority over job training, because it has none over education. Training, education, are we not talking about the same process? Basic logic would say it was, and yet, in reality, quite the opposite is true.

The question is simple and so is the answer: Parliament's power is not derived from any formal document. No province has ever said to the federal government: "Here, you have control over unemployment insurance, you should also have it over job training. Take it, I give it to you".

It did not happen that way at all. It happened surreptitiously. The federal government said: "Since I am the one collecting the money and redistributing it among those meeting the criteria, I think I should also arrange it so that I do not have too many clients. I will look after their training. I will provide nice programs, special courses, counselling centres, all kinds of goodies. I will see to it that they do not come back begging too often, so that I can use the money for other purposes as I see fit".

That is what happened. All thanks to the famous federal spending power. There was a hitch, however: Quebec, this king of spoilsports, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, protested.

Quebec society as a whole said no to federal control over job training. We told the federal government: "Leave our jurisdictions alone. We have a very good idea of the kind of job market we want to develop. We know what kind of society we want, what our economic priorities are, what family policies we want to include in our programs, what markets we want to open".

In short, Quebec society told the federal government: "We know where we want to go. We have the skills needed to do so. Get out of here and do not take the money with you; it belongs to us".

Again, as history has shown on many occasions, the federal government does not understand anything. It continues to deny us through this bill. Worse yet, it has broken all records by changing the name of its constitutional jurisdiction, an amendment adopted in 1940 when the federal government was given jurisdiction over unemployment insurance; it has now decided to call it employment insurance. This throws the door wide open to new encroachments, since any new initiative can be justified in the name of a so-called jurisdiction over employment insurance. The government is acting in bad faith, in obvious bad faith.

I do not know where this bad faith comes from. What I know is that overlap and duplication will not stop there and will continue.

I also know that the federal government is maintaining and even increasing the amount of duplication and overlap. And it does so in many areas, such as health, education, agriculture, culture, communications, the environment, natural resources and fisheries, just to name a few.

I also know that the 10,000 unemployed workers living in my riding are no better off with the HRD minister's new UI reform; in fact, they are being penalized. They have nothing to gain from this reform. In my riding, the unemployment rate hovers around 20 or 25 per cent, with a welfare caseload of 28 per cent. This percentage will keep growing as the number of people looking for work who no longer qualify for UI increases. What choice will they have other than going on welfare?

I also know that the 2,000 people who gave up looking for a job in the Quebec City area last month and were therefore struck off the UI rolls as they joined the ranks of the welfare recipients have nothing to gain from this reform.

Women and young people in particular have nothing to gain from the minister's reform proposal. With this bill, women continue to be penalized. For example, the new conditions to qualify for benefits will penalize women, since 70 per cent of part time jobs are held by women and since women are the ones who re-enter the labour force after extended leaves of absence for child rearing purposes.

It is so unfair for a government to add to the negative impact that being away from the labour market had on the careers and financial position of women instead of recognizing the value of the work these women have done with their children. Such an attitude is far from promoting equal opportunities for women.

I ask the government: whatever happened to the funds that were going to be used to create daycare spaces? Where is that money? The government promised 100,000 new daycare spaces. This is another election promise that was quickly forgotten because it did not affect the interests of wealthy contributors to the party's election fund.

After promising to create massive employment, get rid of the GST and eliminate overlap, this is yet another unfulfilled commitment that will adversely affect women.

History will soon show that the federal government should have been content with its already large powers under the original constitution. History will also show that Quebec women have become tired of being treated like second class citizens.

They stopped believing in nice rhetoric a long time ago. They only believe what they see now, and that is a bleak future for them, a future without work, which will hurt the poor in particular, a group with which women can identify.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to enter into the debate on the bill today and on the motion before us.

I will begin by talking briefly about the problems we will have if we send the bill to committee prior to second reading. It is a problem for me because I was a member of the committee when Bill C-43, the Lobbyists Registration Act, was first tried in Parliament. At first I eagerly accepted it. I said it would be a really good thing because then we as ordinary members, backbenchers, would have input into the bill at the very beginning. Hopefully we would be able to craft the bill so it would include from the beginning the necessary changes that would produce widespread approval among all the parties.

However, I was greatly disappointed. During the time of the committee everything went really well. We had a good chairperson and it was a time when we built good collegiality among ourselves. There were many times when we discussed these things. We came to a consensus but I was very disappointed when finally we came to the end of the process. Even though we thought we had agreement on a number of issues we raised on behalf of Canadians we represent, the members of the committee on the day of the voting of the clause by clause came in with their little check sheets and voted according to a pre-plan, which greatly disappointed me.

I was really distressed. A number of the things they voted against were things that I thought we had reached consensus on. In the end, it simply did not materialize that the individual members were able to express their convictions.

I would like to be on record as being opposed to this process. I know it was supposed to be new and innovative but my experience is that not only does it not work at that level, but it cuts off the next level of amendment possibilities and further debate which is very important in the House; to go through the regular procedure of having first reading, second reading, committee and then third reading.

I am against that part and urge all fellow members to preserve the functioning of Parliament by rejecting this motion to send it to committee at this time. It ought to go through second reading in a normal sense first.

I would like to now speak about the whole question of unemployment. Unemployment is a very severe problem. In the downturn of an economy many businesses respond of necessity by laying off some employees. Those employees now have lost their jobs and because generally the downturn in the economy produces fewer opportunities in other businesses, as more and more people get laid off the probability and the availability of getting other jobs is reduced.

Obviously something has to be done. The present plan and the plan by the Minister of Human Resources Development are not long term solutions to this problem.

The types of policies the government is embarking on further erode the employability of Canadians. The real task before us is to provide a climate in which there are jobs available, in which there are employment opportunities and in which it is possible for people of all skills levels to find their niche and to contribute to society economically and in other ways. Tinkering with the bill will not do anything to achieve that fuller goal.

With respect to meeting the needs of those temporarily unemployed, Canadians should begin to recognize they are getting a very short shrift from government, from the unemployment insurance commission and from the whole system which is designed to tide them over through a difficult period. Many people would much rather have a job than rely on the limited benefits of unemployment insurance.

I will go even further. I reiterate what I have said many times at public meetings and in private. A number of employers have spoken to me since the time I became involved in the political process. They find it very difficult to obtain and keep workers because they are competing with unemployment insurance. They are competing with a situation in which an individual says: "I get this much if I do not work. Why should I work for you?"

I was at one time the recipient of this policy. I owned a small business with a partner. We hired someone who worked for us for a short time and then abruptly quit. When I asked him about it he listed the salary and benefits he received from us and said: "It costs me only about $200 less per month to not do anything, so I am out of here". Unfortunately the business we were in required us to have accessibility to our employees at very odd hours. It was not a very pleasant working situation. We did not have the financial flexibility to pay huge bucks to persuade people to stay. We went through a continuing line of people who worked for us basically long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance and then they were gone.

One thing which really annoyed me was that those employees, all of whom were male, as it was heavy industrial work, when they filed their income tax returns, in every case they were able to receive a refund on their overpayment to UI. They were unemployed and under the limit, so they overpaid. However, we as employers struggling to keep the business going ended up paying the maximum to the UIC and to the Canada pension plan and we were ineligible for rebates comparable to the overpayments the employees were making. That was a great unfairness.

Unemployment insurance is exactly what its name implies. It ensures we will have unemployment. The name is now being changed. It is a cosmetic change. All the principles remain essentially the same. There are a few cosmetic changes being proposed, none of which will produce any profound changes in how the system operates and the disincentives built in to take part time work.

A number of years ago I worked at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and once again our UI premiums increased. It was at the time when they crossed the $100 per month threshold. I talked to my fellow instructors. We did some calculating. There were approximately 750 instructors at the institute. We were paying $100 per month each, which means a monthly contribution of $75,000. Our employer, paying 40 per cent more, contributed an additional $105,000 per month, making a total of $180,000 per month, sent to Ottawa for the UIC from our little group of instructors. That makes a total of $2.16 million per year.

Instead of being involved in that coercive system, we would have been able to keep the money and invest it or use it. We would have been able to provide the equivalent of 54 jobs based on a salary of $40,000 per year. Meanwhile, our fellow instructors were being laid off because of pressure of taxation and other things. We were forced to pay people to leave work when we would much rather have shared the workload with them. Fifty-four of those people were being subsidized.