Debates of Dec. 8th, 1995

Questions On The Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Point Of Order

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before recognizing the minister, I must inform hon. members that I have had time to check the blues. I think it is quite clear this is a point of order. The minister said-it is in English unfortunately-that "if she cannot take the heat, she should not be in the kitchen".

As you know, this was an expression used by Harry Truman. It seems the expression is not equally familiar in both languages, but it is an expression.

With our colleagues, we understood it to mean that women should stay at home, or something like that. I just spoke to our colleagues-I think they were not in the House at the time-and we agree it was a misunderstanding. There is no indication, as far as I can see, that the minister said anything against women or hon. members of the female sex.

I also looked at what was said by all members, and I do not think there were any insinuations against women members, as far as I can see. I want to thank all members for raising this point, and we can now proceed with questions and comments.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the minister was in the middle of debate on the motion before the House but was interrupted by a point of order and therefore did not complete his allotted time. I trust his time will not be diminished by the time taken for points of order and that he will be allowed to continue so that we may proceed to questions and comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am told by the Table the minister's time had expired for his intervention. Accordingly, we are into questions and comments.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request clarification as to whether the time allotted to the minister did include the interruptions for points of order or whether he had used the full 20 minutes to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am reminded that if a point of order is raised during an intervention it is included in the 20 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the floor for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the minister's speech and, in particular, on his statement that 97 per cent rather than 93 per cent of workers will be eligible for the plan.

The Bloc has never said it did not want people to be eligible for the plan. We have always said that unemployment insurance should be one of the tools for creating employment. The government has not offered any other, this reform is its only tool. I think some other tools are missing.

There may indeed be more people paying into the plan, but I would like to know from the minister whether he has had estimates made of the number of new contributors who will be able to benefit from the plan. For people in the regions, where work is seasonal, working 910 hours in a year means working 26 weeks at 35 hours a week.

Even if all the hours are counted, even if people sometimes work a 40 hour week, it will be very hard and will result in an exodus of young people. This will mean that many people will remain on welfare. What I have understood from the reform is that people will have a year to accumulate their 910 hours. The next year, it starts all over again, and we begin at zero. So, there are many people who today are getting unemployment insurance, because their job afforded them between 300 and 400 hours. Now they will have to do 910 hours before they are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

In my opinion, this will mean the following: people who work 12 or 13 weeks in the summer at 35 hours a week will end up with some 400 hours and then will have to leave the region to come up with the other 500 hours. They will have to look for jobs elsewhere.

Over three, four or five years this will reduce the population in the region. This is a negative aspect of the reform.

We are not saying unemployment insurance should not be reformed, we are saying that 910 hours is far too much for someone new to the system to accumulate right off in order to be entitled to benefits, it is inappropriate for our economy.

There is one other point I would like to raise. When the minister terms it an equitable reform, how can he say it is equitable for seasonal workers when their benefits will drop from 55 per cent to 50 per cent after about three years, when they will have used up the 100 weeks after which the reduction kicks in? The people affected, therefore, are in seasonal industries, a sector where, through no fault of their own, they have to be on unemployment insurance year after year. They are not guilty of anything, so why must they be penalized? These are people who work in industries with 12, 13, 14, 15 weeks of work a year. They cannot invent more work than that.

So they are being told their benefits will be cut down to 50 per cent. After three years, they will be down to 50 per cent, and for no other reason except to penalize them and push them into other sectors where they do not necessarily have any expertise. Where is the other side of the coin, the assurance that there will be changes in their regional economy?

Last year, everywhere we went with the Human Resources Committee the people in the regions said they were not opposed to change. They said they wanted assurance that there would be set transitional periods, possibilities of adjusting the economy, of bringing in aspects from new technology, all those things.

But today, instead of a carrot and stick approach, only the stick has been brought out, with no carrot anywhere in sight. There is no sign from anyone in this government, particularly not the Minister of Industry, whose vision of the economy is a century behind the times. There is no vision here of what the positive aspects will be.

I would therefore ask the minister to tell us what percentage of those now under the plan will be eligible under the new arrangements, and what percentage will never be eligible because it will be impossible for them to accumulate 910 hours at any time in their working lives. I feel that this is an important question, because making it so that more people contribute may be very attractive from a budget point of view, but from the human point of view it is equally important to see that people will have enough to live on.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised some very useful and important questions and I would like to provide him with a detailed response. I hope hon. members will listen.

In terms of the question being addressed earlier about part time workers, we estimate that 1.3 million people who have a minor work attachment will now be eligible for a total refund of all premiums paid. That includes 900,000 people who presently contribute benefits but receive no claim or eligibility because they do not have enough weeks.

Those 900,000 people will now be able to receive a full refund on their benefits. In fact, 32 per cent fewer people will be paying benefits into the new employment insurance system than in the old system. Overall, part time and low income workers will be paying $14 million less in premiums in the new system.

Those are hard figures. More people are covered but if they do not receive their full eligibility they get a refund of all their premiums, which means a $14 million saving in premiums for part time workers.

I will deal with the second question the hon. member raised regarding the new entrance requirements for new entrants. I will quote to him because he has quoted back to me several times, with great support, the recommendations of the seasonal task force. The working group told us we should do something about eligibility to stop young people from leaving school to take advantage of the short term benefits of UI to the detriment of their future career prospects.

That was a direct recommendation of the seasonal workers task force. It talked with seasonal worker groups right across Canada.

I recommend the hon. member actually read the legislation rather than listening to his colleague, the member for Mercier.

The new entrance requirement is only a first time requirement. In the second year, if they have worked 490 hours in the previous year, the entrance requirement goes down to the regular number of hours. In other words, if they simply get 490 hours in the first year they are not required to do 900 hours in the next year, as the hon. member asserts. They go down to the regular 420 required hours. I hope that provides some clarification.

I will now come to a very important point. The hon. member made a very good case about the need to help change economies in parts of rural Canada, to help people redevelop new economies, recognizing there are problems.

One of the major elements in the new program is a $300 million transition jobs fund that can be used for the investment in these areas to help small businesses with capital formation, to start new enterprises. It can used in terms of new training programs, new schools in those areas, if that is the choice of people in those areas. Investments can go into new infrastructure to attract new industry.

I recall a discussion I had with people in Atlantic Canada. They were saying there was an enormous opportunity now with the new export potential for developing food processing, food value added manufacturing. They new substantial new sewage treatment plants, new water facilities. This new jobs funds will do that.

I suggest to the hon. member that one of the responsibilities for him as a Member of Parliament is not to rely on the old system because he recognizes, as well as everyone else does, it has been a deterrent to jobs. It has stood in the way of developing new enterprise.

Concerning the new methods we are bringing in, the new employment benefits, $800 million in employment benefits, creating over 40,000 jobs in Quebec at this time, plus the infusion of a new investment fund to start helping those regions to make changes, to adapt, to invest, to create new industries, surely if the hon. member is deeply concerned about people in his own riding would not object to having a new economic development fund to help create jobs and new enterprises in his area. That is what the reform is about, to assist people in that transition and that adaptation to a different kind of economy.

We also do it over a period of time. We are not asking people to go cold turkey into this. We are saying there is a five-year transition. Also in the legislation is a clear requirement for monitoring the impacts, the results, the initiatives which will be tabled in Parliament and will be fully transparent. We will be able to ask in Parliament in 1998 what has happened, what adjustments have to be made, if they have to be made, and what kind of other tools can be used.

This will be an opportunity for members of Parliament to engage in a very clear evaluation of what works and what does not work, to share information and to be part of a process of re-evaluation and monitoring. We are being very open and transparent and clear about it.

Rather than engaging in the wild hyperbole I heard from his colleague earlier this morning, we are putting the onus on the hon. member and others to say let us get the real facts.

Let us get down to what is really going to happen. Let us use these new tools for employment. Let us use the new investment fund. Let us use the new opportunities to extend benefits to part time workers. Let us use the opportunity to extend employment benefits to people who have exhausted their old UI benefits, who want to get back to work but have no assistance right now.

He knows that in Quebec the provincial government has cut off major support for people to get back to work. We are bringing them back in because we recognize that people who have exhausted benefits have as much a desire to go back to work than anybody else.

We are now giving them the opportunity to start their own business, to be able to use a wage supplement with employers to have an income supplement, to have a training voucher if the province agrees, and I hope they will so that we can help people get upgraded.

Employment benefits such as having a job corps in their area, doing reforestation projects, building new infrastructure projects are now available to the hon. member's riding as they are to people across this country.

For the life of me, I find it hard to understand why someone who expresses a concern about jobs for his constituents totally rejects the opportunity of new investment, for new employment benefits, to extend benefits to those who have exhausted theirs, to provide a supplement for families to bring up their incomes, to provide an extension of coverage for part time workers.

All those things are part of the new package. I would think the hon. member would be applauding, supporting and working with us to make sure that the full benefits of all the programs are shared by members of his riding.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the eloquent response by the minister of human resources to the question from the Bloc as to how much the government is providing to the province of Quebec and to other provinces in his vision of the reform of UI.

The motion we are debating today is that this House denounce the government for its massive cuts to the unemployment insurance system that limit access and so on. It seems to me that this type of motion is in line with the pathetic attitude toward this House and this country held by the Bloc. We are trying to build this country and they are trying to destroy it. It fits right in line with all the things they have been doing along the way.

If this is the type of leadership that the Bloc brings to this House I feel rather sorry for the people of the province of Quebec if the member for Lac-Saint-Jean moves over there and starts to lead that province. I feel that they are going to continue downhill rather than climb out of the lethargy of unemployment that currently exists in that province.

I come from the west where Alberta is one of the have provinces. British Columbia and Alberta are a growth area where we are prepared to get up and get the job done. That is the important thing. It is not to sit around and denounce the government. While we do not agree with the way the government is trying to do things, let us acknowledge that it is trying.

I find it rather disconcerting that this Bloc motion again today is to bring down, to denounce what the government is doing rather

than putting forward any constructive efforts to try to put the people of Quebec back to work.

If they were to adopt the get up and get at it attitude that we have in the west, they would be a lot better off. The economy would be better off in the province of Quebec. The country would be better off because those people would feel better with a positive attitude rather than with a negative attitude.

As part of the doublespeak of the Bloc Quebecois, two days ago there was the annual general meeting of the Interparliamentary Union in the West Block. This is an organization that I sometimes call the junket club and the travel club courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. For $20 one can buy an annual membership in the Interparliamentary Union and the government throws in half a million dollars to top it up in order to cover the cost of travel around the world. I have been a little critical of the value we are getting for the money that is spent.

As a result the Liberals and the Bloc typically have joined forces to change the constitution of the organization to say that only those who agree with the aims and objectives of this organization are allowed to sit on the executive. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, the communists handled it even better.

The point I am trying to make today is at that annual general meeting the Bloc supported the Liberals in changing the constitution to deny accountability. We asked the members of the Bloc why they were supporting the Liberals on this issue. They said that they loved to travel around the world to promote Canada. We were shocked.

What are they doing within Canada? They are destroying the country. I believe they should be held accountable for that. I thought it was absolutely disgraceful that they would take Canadian taxpayers' dollars that are paid in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the four eastern provinces and run around the world courtesy of us, accomplish absolutely nothing, enjoy it, then come back and say "we love to promote Canada".

However, as soon as they put their feet back in this country they are tearing it apart, knocking it down and trying to destroy it. Let us recognize where the Bloc is coming from. The attitude of its members is that anything which interferes with their opportunity to spend Canadians' money while they follow through with their objectives is to be applauded. I denounce them for that type of attitude.

This motion is strictly for consumption in the province of Quebec. I listened to the debate by the Bloc member. Typical of their attitude, they want Canadians to pay more so they can receive more. In a totally lopsided argument they want to ensure that money flows one way from the rest of Canada to them. Yet they are so spoiled that they want to break away and build some kind of sovereignty association that continues this idea, however false. It is totally false that we would think about supporting them should they ever separate from this country.

During the referendum the member for Lac-Saint-Jean who was leading the yes forces said: "Remember, they will punish us because we're the ones who are getting the unemployment insurance while all the rest are getting the investments credits". I say to them now is the time to get off their posteriors and get back to work. They should not worry about unemployment insurance but think more about employment. That is what the rest of the country is doing.

We have seen the Minister of Human Resource Development change the name of unemployment insurance to employment insurance. I do not think that words are going to do very much. However, perhaps the idea is a small step in the right direction.

The UI reform that is being proposed is a continuation of this centralist, top down, one shoe fits all approach by the Liberal government. It is not going to work. More tinkering with the system is not what we need. There is nothing that is radically new in the bill brought down by the Liberals. There is nothing refreshing. There is no rethinking of UI. Yes, they have expanded a little bit. Yes, they are going to refund some premiums to some people. Yes, they are going to cover some more groups. Yes, they are going to do a few things.

The Liberals have just massaged unemployment insurance around the edges. They have not said that for the past 20 or more years unemployment in this country has hovered around 10 per cent. It does not matter how much money is spent on the program. Unemployment seems to hover around 10 per cent. If we look around at other countries we find that unemployment is significantly lower. With our friends to the south of us unemployment consistently runs to about 3 per cent less than ours. We must spend more money to fix our problem and yet unemployment continues at 10 per cent.

What is the problem? Perhaps the problem is that there is not enough incentive to work and there is too much incentive not to work. Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not have a new approach to UI rather than just expanding it around the edges.

I will give a couple of examples and perhaps the Minister of Human Resources Development can take notes. I was in Atlantic Canada last year talking to some good Reformers down there. There are lots of Reformers in Atlantic Canada. This particular Reformer was telling me that when she was young going to college there were all kinds of summer jobs in Atlantic Canada for

students: in the hotels, in the restaurants. The tourist season was on and there were all kinds of opportunities.

The last year she was in university the Liberal government, 20 odd years ago, changed the rules to say: "We will now pay unemployment insurance to seasonal workers". Housewives came out of their homes, worked for four months, spent eight months at home. It absolutely destroyed the labour market for the kids coming out of university. That is a simple situation of cause and effect.

I know there are many families in this country who depend on seasonal work and unemployment insurance for their livelihood. It is not that I am denigrating that, but when the rule was introduced 20-odd years ago it should have been foreseen that not only would it cause dependency on UI in a seasonal environment but that it would destroy employment for university students who needed to make some money during the summer. We aggravated the situation.

However, we keep tinkering to try to resolve the problems that we created, rather than looking back and saying: "Look at the Pandora's box that we opened".

The young people in this country are motivated, enthused and they are want to work. They do not want UI. They want jobs. Remember the great theme of the government prior to the last election: jobs, jobs, jobs. They waved the red book and said: "This is going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Vote for us and there are going to be jobs everywhere".

The President of the Treasury Board is the minister in charge of doling out the $6 billion in borrowed money to try to create some jobs. He appeared before the government operations committee to explain the wonderful success of the jobs, jobs, jobs program and the wonderful success of the infrastructure program because now the country is $6 billion further in debt. We all hoped that we were going to get something wonderful for this significant investment.

He told us the infrastructure program created 8,000 permanent jobs which is $750,000 of borrowed money per job. We would have been better giving the interest on the money to the people and telling them to stay home. They would have had a lot more money and we would have been a lot less in debt.

Now we have the Minister of Human Resources Development tinkering to change the UI program to help those people who did not get a job even though they were promised one in the last election. There is something wrong here. There is something wrong with what the Minister of Human Resources Development is proposing. There is something wrong with what this government has proposed. By the way, it has not proposed very much in the last two years. However it did put us $6 billion more into debt to create 8,000 jobs.

Where are the young folk? Their hope is waning. Their motivation is waning. They are becoming discouraged, and the Minister of Human Resources Development says: "If you get a part time job we will cover you with EI". That is not what they want. They are motivated and they want to work.

A constituent came into my office a few months ago. He was an enthusiastic young gentleman with a university education. He was willing to work. He had done all kinds of volunteer work. He had spent 600 hours a year volunteering to help the RCMP. He had a dream of becoming a mountie. Can he? No. He is a white male. Reverse discrimination has killed his dream.

The Minister of Human Resources Development says: "I have a program for you. It is not called unemployment any longer; it is called employment. Sit at home and we will send you a cheque". He is a young intelligent fellow who wants to work and contributes to the country of his own free will by volunteering because he wants to get ahead. He wants to do the best he can for himself. He thinks he has a future ahead of him, but employment equity slapped him down.

That is the type of thing at which the Minister of Human Resources Development should be looking. The young, the motivated, the intelligent and the educated should have every opportunity to get ahead. It does not matter who they are, what they are or where they are. If the minister would appreciate that, we would have a lot less need for the program changes about which he is talking.

I talked about the need for some innovative thinking. Today when a person pays unemployment insurance the employer has to pay that amount multiplied by 1.4. There is a direct relationship between what the employee pays and what the employer pays. It is a total, fixed, absolute relationship.

There are employers who on a continuous basis turn their employees over to the UI system. They are seasonal employers. We read about one of them in the Globe and Mail yesterday. General Motors uses UI when it shuts down the factories for retooling and so on. On a regular basis they are turning their employees out to the UI system, hoping it is okay, and hiring them back when they want.

Why do we not recognize that some employers use the system a lot more than others and change the premium according to risk? It is a fairly simple situation. We could count the number of T4s issued at the end of the year, count the number of pink slips issued during the year, find the ratio, determine whether it is a high risk employer or a low risk employer and grade the premium accordingly.

That would give the employer the incentive to keep staff during slack times. It might even give the employer the incentive to create

new work during slack times. The employer knows that if he uses his business experience to extend the employment of his employees he will be rewarded. That is what it is all about. Rather than a bureaucrat in Ottawa saying what the rules are, the decision making should be made on the shop floor by the manager.

The same also applies to the employee side. What about the employee who loses his job, who is laid off for whatever reason and runs out to get a job right away? He is motivated. Then there is the other employee who will say: "I am covered for a year. I will take three or four months off and then I will be slow about looking for a job". He will be employed within the year, before his UI runs out.

What about the seasonal worker who says: "I am quite content to sit at home during the wintertime because I happen to be a greens keeper on a golf course?" Since there is not too much grass to cut in the winter he is not required to look for a job in the winter. UI will carry him.

Since this person is a frequent user of UI he should pay a higher premium than the other person who has stable employment or does not use UI very often even though he changes jobs. We could grade his premium to give him the incentive to stay employed rather than being on and off UI.

It is a relatively simple situation. We grade people on income tax when the employer knows their deductions for income tax. I think the same type of situation could be used for UI. I throw that out for the minister's benefit. I am am talking about a new approach to UI, a decentralized approach to UI, something that merits being explored.

While the minister may have taken a small step on UI reform, he missed the wonderful opportunity of taking a great step forward. Along with his colleagues he has totally and absolutely failed in delivering the electoral promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. This is why we still have a 10 per cent rate of UI and why his program, as changed, will not work.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's discussion. I found it odd what Reform Party members say on this issue. I remember when they first came to the House and how they were to make a positive contribution. They were to support the government.

This piece of legislation is very important for the domestic economy and for making our manufacturing sector competitive within the world. The unemployment insurance rates in Canada are some of the highest in the western world. Many people feel that because of their attractiveness to some extent the rates have had a significant effect on our ability to compete.

I recall in my own practice as an accountant dealing with small businesses. There was an ongoing problem of people refusing to take jobs at a time when they were already receiving unemployment insurance benefits because the cost of physically travelling to the place of employment or having to employ babysitters, et cetera, meant they would receive less than by sitting home and drawing benefits. In some ways this piece of legislation lowers those benefits in recognition that we have reduced the competitiveness of our labour force.

I listened to Bloc members go on and on about the need for underpinning the social structure of the country and possibly workers in Quebec. The Quebec Manufacturers Association recently published a study showing that competitive labour rates within that province were some of the worst in Canada, which makes its ability to compete worse than that of many other provinces. As a consequence it creates a situation of continued unemployment.

The hon. member said that we missed an opportunity. I also heard him say that he wanted to devolve. I think devolve is the operative word of the Reform Party today. Let us call devolve what it really is. It means to destroy or tear down a system which creates labour mobility and allows people to move from province to province to seek employment. Would he reflect on the history and recognize the positive initiative that has been taken by the government to increase our competitiveness in international trade, to keep the underpinnings of a mobile labour force and to recognize the object of employment is to get people back to work and to increase their skill levels?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the new buzzword is employment. Unemployment has gone away. This must be to hide behind the fact that the whole concept of jobs, jobs, jobs has failed and people are still unemployed.

It would be wonderful if all the people who thought they would get jobs and voted for the Liberal Party because it promised them jobs had employment. However they do not and it is unemployment insurance we are talking about. It does not matter how they want to dress it up.

I am glad the member recognized that perhaps our UI programs have been a disincentive and have hurt our competitiveness around the world.

We are debating a motion put forward by the Bloc from the province of Quebec. I remember reading an article some months ago about MIL shipyards in the province of Quebec unfortunately running out of ships to build. The average wage in the shipyards was $34 an hour. They were not competitive and could not get any more orders. They wanted the federal government to give them some work, to build more ferries that we really did not need, until such time as they could re-engineer the productivity of the factory to allow them to break into the international shipbuilding market.

MIL Davie did not have a hope of breaking into the international shipbuilding market because it was paying its workers $34 an hour. They are now out of work. Where are they? They are part of the package of unemployed people the minister of human resources is trying to help.

We have to provide incentives at the managerial level in the workforce. I did not say anything about devolution in this situation. I said we should put the incentives where they can be managed, at the managerial level of the workforce. I also gave a proposition on how we could look at it. I was surprised and disappointed that the member continued to hang on to the idea of centralist decision making: one shoe fits all; the people in the big wide world are incapable of making any decisions for themselves; it has to be done here in Ottawa. As a businessman I would have thought he would have realized that there is a great benefit in giving people control over their own lives and control over their own decisions. The whole government is missing that opportunity time, time and time again.

That is the unfortunate truth and that is why we are in a mess.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from St. Albert. I wondered at the start whether or not he was talking about the motion before the House. I have lots of comments about that but I will only make one. He complained about the IPU and said that only people who agreed with the aims and objectives of the organization were permitted on the executive.

My hon. colleague represents the party that is constantly pointing out that if hon. members representing Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois are here they are not following the aims and objectives of Parliament, which is obviously to do the best we can for the people of Canada. I am not sure how he can have it both ways. He also mentioned his vendetta against those members who travel on some of these things to learn about other parts of the world and so on. Yet I notice he is very interested in competitiveness around the world and Canada's competitiveness, providing jobs. I do not know how he thinks we are will achieve that by sitting at home in Prince Alberta and gazing at our navels.

He has said all decision making is here in Ottawa and that the bill does not address that. The bill replaces 39 programs, which certainly suggests the people in Ottawa know best where each program should go with five which put a great deal of decision making with the local people. In my riding people are already taking advantage of this.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Oxford had been around here for a couple of years. I have been around here for a couple of years. I thought he was elected the same time as I was.

To think Bloc Quebecois aims and objectives in the House are the same as those of the rest of us, where has he been? Its objective is to destroy the country and the House, while I would hope the objective of the rest of us is to build the country and strengthen the House. Let us get that absolutely clear. If the member for Oxford has not realized that yet, please tell him to wake up, Mr. Speaker.

On the IPU, we have thought police in this town and the constitution of the IPU was changed by the Liberals and the Bloc, not by Reform. We voted absolutely against it. They voted to say only those who agree with the aims and objectives of the organization are allowed to sit on the executive. Who is to police this? I asked the chairman who is to police this. I guess it is something called osmosis or it percolates up to the top where your ideas are better than my ideas or you are right and I am wrong.

The constitution does not say how the IPU is to police this new rule. I stand up for the taxpayers of Canada who are throwing half a million dollars into that junket club so these Liberals and Bloc members can run around the world and bring back pieces of paper to table in the House so they can collect some dust. They call that building on experience and improving our competitiveness around the world. Again I say to the member it is time to wake up.

We cannot afford it. They should not be doing it. We have to get real in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my speech, and considering previous comments, perhaps it would be wise to repeat the text of the motion before the House today. The hon. member for Mercier moved:

That this House denounce the government for its massive cuts to the unemployment insurance system that limit access to the program and hit young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.

The word Quebec does not appear in this motion. The motion clearly includes all Quebecers and Canadians, especially the people in the Maritimes, and I will get back to that in a moment.

First, I also want to say that my comments today also reflect the results of consultations I have conducted since last Friday in the form of a series of conferences, including three telephone conferences, mostly with people from my riding in the Gaspé. There is a consensus that emerges from these consultations which, in addition to the unions and workers, included employers, members of the Chambers of Commerce and people from all walks of life.

Several aspects of the reform proposal have their merits. For instance, the fact that low-income families will have a chance to get higher benefits. However, there are major aspects that need changing, and they are part of the consensus I will share with you.

First, the requirement of 910 hours of work for first-time contributors to the unemployment insurance plan. Previously, to be eligible, the maximum requirement for a first-time contributor was 20 weeks, 15 hours per week, which adds up to 300 hours.

Applying the same principle to these proposals, the government could have said 700 hours, the maximum for regions where the unemployment rate is not as high. But that is not what they did. They set the maximum at 910 hours, to be eligible for the plan.

This means that someone who works 35 hours a week will have to work 26 weeks full time to be eligible, and this means in one year. If the following year you are back to square one, this means, as it says in our motion, young people and women-because in most cases women or young people who enter the labour market will be hit hard by this measure-seasonal workers, plus those who arrive on the labour market and immigrants getting their first job in Canada will all be affected.

What was the rationale for setting this number of hours? How could Liberal members, elected on a platform that stressed jobs, have done that? The best way to get someone a job is to give him an incentive to work. The proposed system will ensure that people who have worked 600, 700 or 800 hours will have to go on welfare as a matter of course. That is not a big incentive to work.

I think something should have been included to give people a taste for better benefits, something worthwhile. So, in addition to not providing any job creation program with the choices it made, and not proposing a way to transform regional economies, the government is waving a stick and telling workers they will have to work 910 hours; that is the way it will get them working longer. But first there have to be jobs.

I think our motion constructively criticizes this position, and the government will have to fix up its requirement of 910 hours. This is the consensus of the people in a region such as eastern Quebec. Why? Because it will lead to an exodus of young people as well. It will swell the numbers of young people who have been leaving over the past 10 or 15 years.

If somebody works 12 thirty-five hour weeks, he will have 700 hours. He will be short 210 hours, but there is no work in his region. Where is he going to find work? He will have to move to a major centre. This will reduce the regional economy in a number of sectors.

This measure severely punishes the regions, it is backward looking and must be withdrawn.

Another point we agree on is the need to eliminate the penalty against seasonal workers. Give me one reason why employment in a seasonal industry, such as forestry, fishing or tourism, should result in punishment for the worker whose benefits will be reduced according to his use of the unemployment insurance plan?

Why is it this way when it is not the case for workers in an industry that is not seasonal? This, to me, is totally unacceptable. I see it as rather an insult to Canada's regions as well, although their development of seasonal industry has been praised. Their contribution to the Canadian economy is readily accepted, and then, suddenly, the rules are changed and the people penalized and no job creation adjustment program is provided.

This leaves a group of very perplexed members, including the Liberal members for the maritimes, members such as those from St. John's East, Annapolis Valley-Hants, Madawaska-Victoria, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in Quebec, all those who come from ridings hit hard by this policy, which offers no remedy to change the situation. I am willing to bet that, when the policy is reviewed in three years, as provided for in the legislation, it will be assessed as having a disastrous impact because there was no program to revitalize the economy of these regions as they were being penalized.

It will have taken three more years to arrive at the same result. I think we might as well correct the situation right away.

I would like to show you what this will mean for people, not in theory but in real life. Someone who works 12 weeks at an average salary of $500 a week can now receive benefits equal to 55 per cent of his or her salary, or $275.

Under the new program, this person will have to work more hours per week for a longer period in order to qualify for benefits that will drop from $275 a week to $214. We in this House make good money. If our pay cheques were reduced by $50, it would not be so bad, we might be able to live with it. However, if someone's earnings fell from $275 a week to $214, he would wonder how he could feed his children every day of the month.

This kind of money is on a par with welfare. You think this is an incentive to work? This is totally unacceptable and I think that the government should use the time when the bill is in committee to correct these problems. The people affected should be able to tell the government what it means in real life to go from $275 a week to $214, to make the government understand how the bill would affect them in real life.

Especially since, with the reduction in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for UI, the end of the tunnel is welfare. What a great incentive.

My arguments are not only those of someone from eastern Quebec. It concerns everyone in Quebec and Canada. Away from the centre every area will be affected by this and confronted to it. We must all join in condemning this government proposal and in seeing to it that changes are made.

We could assume that, perhaps, the government had no choice but to go about it this way. Perhaps there are financial constraints holding it back. But now this: a lower limit. It makes no sense. In the past, the contribution limit was $42,000 in salary. In the future, the limit will be $39,000. This means that high paid workers, the higher middle class and high paid workers will be contributing-listen to this-$900 million less to the UI fund.

This government claimed to be here to create jobs and help the jobless and those whose skills were not adequate for the labour market to find a job. So what did the government do? In its reform, one of its most regressive initiatives, it lowers the ceiling and, as a result, high paid workers will be contributing $900 million less to the plan.

Do you know where the government will take the missing $900 million? In the pockets of new contributors, those who did not make contributions before, who will now have to work for 910 hours to qualify for benefits but who, while making contributions, if they work ten hours a week during 50 weeks, for a total of 500 hours in the year, will not be refunded fully.

These measures are unacceptable. The UI program may be in need of a reform. It might have been a good idea to set up an employment insurance system. The problem is that the government gave a nice label to a reform that only seeks to make cuts and help reduce the deficit. We are still wondering: if this is the contribution of UI claimants to help reduce the deficit, then what will others be made to contribute? What will be the Royal Bank's contribution, considering it made one billion dollars in profits last year. One billion is more than small change. It is more than the difference between weekly UI benefits of $275 and $214.

The government will have to show that it is also going to get money from those people. In the meantime, it must amend its reform and it must do so urgently. One wonders what prevented the government from introducing, before its reform or at least at the same time, a job creation policy or a regional economic diversification initiative. What prevented the government from showing people that it was going to take positive measures to ensure that regions such as eastern Quebec can get on the new technology express and fully adjust. Why did the current government not take such action?

Why is it bent on targeting only the most vulnerable people? It would have been nice to hear something like: "As regards our young people, we will, in certain regions, set up job creation programs that will allow them to gain a first year of solid experience, to develop their entrepreneurship, and to see if they want to become entrepreneurs".

Let us look at one of the five aspects of job creation dealing with self-employed workers. Basically, it is a very good program permitting someone on UI to start a business. Interesting experiments have been tried under this program. But now, with the 910 hour requirement for first time applicants, a lot of people are going to be left out in the cold. But, if these people were eligible to UI, they could put forward a business plan, start their own business and eventually take some pressure off the unemployment insurance system instead of remaining dependent on it.

It seems to me that this reform lacks originality, initiative, and the new ideas which might have been put on the table and which we would have hoped to see in here, especially after nearly two years of consultation. This is another part of the reform that should scrutinized.

Lat year, I toured Canada with the human resources committee. We went across Canada to find out what kind of reform people wanted. Nowhere did I hear: "The number of hours to become eligible to UI benefits should be increased, seasonal worker benefits should be diminished". Nowhere in Canada did I hear this kind of thing.

However, I was told, for example: "True, there might be some economic problems in certain areas; some things have to be fixed, and we must be given the means to do it". But, do not present us with a fait accompli, as the government is doing.

What kind of effect is this going to have on regional economy? Take the Maritimes, for example; those of you who represent ridings in Atlantic Canada, figure it out: three years from now, all your seasonal workers will be down to 50 per cent only. They speak in terms of 20-week periods. A 20-week period does not mean a reduction of one per cent a year, it means a reduction of one per cent of the salary each time one receives unemployment insurance benefits for 20 weeks. Therefore, in three years, there will be 5 per cent less benefits paid in the regions.

The spinoffs of that will not be job creation but quite the opposite. When jobs are created, another more convenience store opens somewhere and another service job is offered to someone. But these cuts produce the opposite. There will be less money in our economy so there will be less jobs of that kind, there will be more people on welfare, through one program or another, and more people will leave the region.

Instead of breaking the vicious circle that leads to an exodus from the regions, measures like this will tighten it and the result will the opposite of what is expected. This reminds me of the disheartening experience I had last year somewhere in Newfoundland, in an employment centre, where I found a document in a

display case. It was a Human Resources Development Canada document that encouraged people to move, to give up and to go live somewhere else. That does not ensure the future of a country, be it Quebec or Canada. A healthy country is one which capitalizes on its resources and develops them and one which gives recognition to people who work.

If seasonal workers are blamed for the situation their industry is in and for the fact that they cannot work for a longer period, the mid term consequence will be a lack of manpower in part time industries. The tourist industry already has that kind of problem. I can tell you the new plan will only make it worse and will further widen the incredible gap we have between available jobs and unemployed workers who do not have the skills and training to fill those jobs. The hon. member for Mercier has moved the motion before us because of this whole reform.

The government, through massive UI cuts, limits access to the program and sets goals that are the very opposite of those we should have in a society such as ours and our society should be judged by, that is the best use possible of its human resources.

The present Liberal government perpetuates the ways of the previous government it ousted. People voted for change, but the government has fallen back into the same old ways. It is high time you woke up, and swept out the bureaucrats that come up with such proposals for cabinet. You have to get rid of them, because the current government will be judged not necessarily on the way the richer people are allowed to prosper and the more talented are allowed to perform, but rather on the way it ensures that society reaches its full potential, that all Canadians can make a useful contribution and be proud of what they are doing in building something worthwhile together.

If you continue to penalize the people in this way, you will achieve the exact opposite of what you are looking for.

I challenge the government to let the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development travel to Atlantic Canada and throughout Canada, even to the large urban areas, to talk to the people and realize that seasonal workers are not the only ones who will be affected by the decrease in benefits. The government has now decided to clip the wings of the workers who in the 20 to 30 year age group and who have not had the opportunities that we have had, and that is totally unacceptable.

So, if the government wants to check if its reform makes a lot of sense and if it does not believe the points I just made, it only has to talk to the people to find out what they think. You will see that it will come back with a totally different reform than the one now before the House.

I hope that the Liberal government will take advantage of the holiday season to reflect on this, propose changes and ensure that Quebecers and Canadians can continue to be proud of the balance between the citizens, and realize that the future does not depend on development in big cities, on a lower unemployment rate in Montreal and Toronto, but on the premise that Canadians and their families from sea to sea to sea are satisfied and happy with what they are contributing to.

I think the government has tabled something that needs to be reviewed. That is why the House should condemn the government for its cuts to the unemployment insurance program. This should be in particular the responsibility of the members, who might have reviewed the reform a little in their caucus and may have had the time to express some points. Today, we will see if the members, especially those from the Maritimes, stand for the Liberal Party or for the people they represent.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question the statements made by the member to the House. I suspect he might have selectively read from the reform, rather than reading it from one end to the other.

The hon. member asked a question about the whole issue of incentives for employment and for job creation. He indicated in his speech that he could not see any incentives. I want to ask him about that because I have difficulty understanding that he read this document.

I see items such as $800 million being put into specific programs to encourage employment. I look at wage subsidies to encourage employers to hire people, particularly those who need to be trained. I look at earning supplements to top up wages to encourage people to get back into the workforce rather than having to collect benefits.

The hon. member talked about the self-employment initiative program. That was in UI. It continues to be in the UI reform. It is an excellent program which is going to create a lot of employment. The hon. member suggested that people would not be able to use it because they would not be able to get onto the program. In fact, half a million people who were not eligible for the program because they were part time workers are now going to be eligible for the program.

The member keeps going on that there are no incentives. People are going to be rewarded for every hour they work and for every effort they make. The benefits are based on hours worked, not on weeks. A whole series of things in this reform encourage people to

work. It gives them the incentive to work. It gives them financial support to work.

The hon. member totally ignores those things. He fails to look at those parts of the employment insurance reform which will result in opportunities for people to get a job. The fact is that this is all taking place within a financial context which he totally wants to ignore. He will not look at those things.

My question to the hon. member is very specific. Why do you ignore those things in the UI reform? Why do you ignore the $800 million which is being added to the $1.9 billion that already exists to create employment not only in English Canada but in your province of Quebec as well? Why are you ignoring those things? Why will you not talk about those things? Why will you not admit-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would ask that questions be put through the Chair, not directly to the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, my first response to this remark is this, and I think it is important. The member asked me why we have not read the reform proposal from cover to cover, why we do not have all the details.

There is a contradiction between the member and his government. The government has used closure to limit the debate to three hours on Monday. It is muzzling us because it does not want a real debate on this bill at second reading. It is doing that because it wants to hide this reform before the Christmas holidays, so that we will have to go home without having had the time to show Canadians that it is unacceptable.

About the $800 million, it is obvious that it is not $800 million at all since it is just money being transferred from the consolidated revenue fund and the unemployment insurance fund. The government has tried all week to confuse us on this issue, getting quite confused itself in the answers of the various ministers. It is certainly not today that it will succeed in convincing us.

I want to make a last comment. It is simple and obvious. Go back to your ridings to explain to the people that the 910 hour minimum requirement is reasonable. Ask your constituents if they think it is reasonable to require that people who participate in the unemployment insurance program for the first time work a minimum of 910 hours in order to become eligible. You will all come back with the same answer after the Christmas break, or maybe even next week.

Is it reasonable to require that these new workers-I am talking about our young people, about women who enter the job market, about immigrants who come to Canada-work a minimum of 910 hours when the previous requirement was 300 hours and when the highest requirement for people who are already contributing to the program is 700 hours? Is it reasonable to impose a 910 hour minimum requirement to those people to whom we claim to want to give an incentive to work, when it is obvious that this kind of measure will do exactly the opposite? We will see within a year that a vast majority of people will be discouraged. This will stimulate the underground economy and force Canadians onto welfare.

If the government has not understood that, it will have to make some adjustments; otherwise it will have to face a lot of angry people. As Gilles Vigneault once said, "it will have quite a storm on its hands".

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty understanding why the Bloc does not want to look at the initiatives surrounding employment which are being brought forward by these reforms.

Are the Bloc members aware that the insurance program will cover 500,000 more people? Are they aware that the family income supplement will go to 350,000 low income families? Are they aware that 380,000 workers will have their premiums refunded? Some 2,700 workers will eligible for two additional weeks of benefit. About 45,000 seasonal workers who currently are not eligible for UI will, despite making payments, become eligible under this new act.

Are they are not interested in putting people back to work? Do they not see that this reform of ours on the employment side is doing just that? I ask the hon. member to tell me and tell the House why he and his party cannot see that these changes on the employment side will be very beneficial for the whole country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the same question I asked the minister this morning. He said that there would be 500,000 more contributors to the program. We all know that there will be 500,000 more contributors, but what we want to know is how many of these 500,000 people will ever get benefits.

How many will pay and never benefit from the program? I am very surprised. Many of the questions we would like answers to are like this. Before the referendum, the government did not want to introduce this bill, because it had to be looked at carefully. Today, they are in a great hurry. They want us to pass this legislation on the double.

What is behind this new position of the government?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 1.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81, proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, December 6, the business for the current supply period will be concluded on Monday, December 11 of this year at 6.30 p.m.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

moved that Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on my Bill C-323. Prior to the last election I served as a probation officer and family court counsellor in the British Columbia provincial attorney general's ministry. I served for over 20 years. I spent each day working with the Canadian Criminal Code and I learned firsthand the system's weaknesses and strengths. I also discovered the loopholes that aided offenders to walk when they should have been properly held to account. Far too often I saw justice not being served. The criminals were benefiting and the victims were not served. There was little neglected victims to do. Advancing the plight of victims of crime is one of the motivations for me to serve in the House.

When constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby elected me as their representative in 1993 I made a commitment to take a firm stand on behalf of the victims of crime. Whether changes to the Canadian Criminal Code or to some other statute, I promised something would be done to protect the public and to change the balance of the operation of the law to be more in favour of victims.

On May 1 of this year I had the distinct pleasure to introduce Bill C-323. Today there is even a greater satisfaction that the bill was deemed a votable item with a chance of becoming law. Small changes such as those in Bill C-323 may not sufficiently change the overall system to the way we would like but it certainly represents a good start.

Approximately a year and a half ago a Vancouver area lawyer approached me with a concern that a loophole in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was enabling offenders to be relieved of their commitment to pay civil court judgments. It was a loophole that was causing victims further suffering. It was clear that a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would eliminate the possibility for a person to use personal bankruptcy to escape from any owed damages awarded in civil court. Thus I have been working to bring forward my private member's bill.

When a person commits an assault or battery, a wilful act that harms another, the victims can sue for damages through a civil lawsuit. However, under the current BIA if the offender claims bankruptcy after being found liable in court the damages awarded to the victim are cleared, causing the victim to once again suffer hardship.

Subsection 178(1) of the bankruptcy act lists various things an order of discharge does not release a bankrupt person from. The law has long recognized there are some things that cannot be forgiven and will remain. It takes into account alimony, maintenance and support of a spouse or child, debt arising out of fraud, embezzlement or a fine, penalty or restitution order imposed by a criminal court in respect of an offence.

Therefore according to the way the act currently reads a bankrupt person cannot be relieved of paying a traffic fine yet can be relieved of paying damages for something like sexual assault. I do not think any member of the House would disagree the statute must be changed as soon as possible. We must provide some appropriate balance.

In April I read an article in the Vancouver Province newspaper about Sherleen Hackett who was awarded $145,000 in damages for sexual abuse by her stepfather on June 28, 1991. Stepfather James Hackett was ordered to make payments of $500 a month. According to the article he made one full payment of $500, four payments of $100, and then filed for bankruptcy. It was as easy as that to turn the legal system on its head.

Allow me to cite several other examples so those following can fully comprehend the severity of the fundamental flaw in this statute. Tammy Carr of White Rock, B.C. sued her stepfather for sexually assaulting her for six years and was awarded $42,513. Her stepfather, David Graham, filed for bankruptcy six months after the judgment. Payment to date: none.

Cynthia Shefford of Alexis Creek, B.C. was awarded $357,743 by a supreme court jury for the sexual abuse committed by her father, Leonard Klassen. The father was ordered to pay his daughter $500 a month for 12 years. Three months after the trial Klassen filed for bankruptcy. Payment to date: none. The amount of Shefford's award is the largest awarded in the country to date, but what good is it to have such a record amount if not a penny is received by the one who needs it most, the victim?

My bill would make a simple amendment to subsection 178(1) of the act, as part (a) of the act currently says that an order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from any fine, penalty, restitution order or other in similar nature to a fine, penalty or

restitution order imposed by a court in respect of an offence or any debt arising out of a recognizance of bail.

Bill C-323 would make an addition to this part:

An order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from any damages in respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant to a judgment rendered in a civil proceeding and any interest on the damages before or after judgment ordered by the court or payable by law.

The amendment is a brief but fundamental change to the act. Not only would it strengthen the statute in legal terms, it would strengthen the public's view of the operation of Canada's justice system. Some of the imbalance and absurdity in law would be removed.

I do not think many Canadians know debtors may currently avoid substantial payment on sexual assault judgments by making an assignment in bankruptcy. However, as more and more people file their cases in the courts, public awareness will increase. The more our legal system gives the offender a loophole, the more disregard will arise.

If is nothing is done to such a small section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act the justice system as a whole will be in danger of being viewed as completely in disrepute. The sad thing is Canadians already look at our justice system and think it is not reflective of them.

One need look only at the Young Offenders Act to see examples of ineffectiveness. The government continues to claim what it is doing will save lives and make Canadians feel more safe. In the last two years the Liberal government has made several changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, and yet my constituents still complain to me they feel afraid to walk the streets.

The government says these changes need time to be implemented but I believe it knows that all the time in the world to discuss and defer will make absolutely no difference to the crime statistics. The criminal law changes made so far by the government are anaemic and do not sufficiently respond to the desires of mainstream Canadian values.

The situation is similar to that with intersections and street lights. Before a municipality will put up a street light at a busy intersection it waits for a certain number of serious accidents to occur. If no accidents occur, it is believed a street light is not needed. Usually someone has to die first.

Therefore a responsible government would address a problem before it gets out of control. The amendment in my bill should have been introduced years ago or at least near the time that such cases were coming before the courts.

This is the job of federal departments. There are legal experts who must know the bankruptcy act inside and out. They knew there were loopholes in subsection 178 for years but until now nobody has addressed them.

In 1992 British Columbia's legislature took a lead with this issue by amending its own limitation act. The amendment removed any limitation period for bringing action for damages for sexual assault. This is interesting in that the issue was addressed in a provincial legislature in 1992 and yet it takes the federal government another three years to address it at the federal level.

The government is not in the vicinity of the eight ball at all. It has not recognized as a matter of urgent priority those victims suffering because of legislative inadequacy.

In 1994 an ad hoc committee of women for reform of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act submitted a discussion paper on why subsection 178(1) needs to be amended. I will summarize some of the benefits it believes will result by amending the act.

It avoids a negative public perception regarding the impact of bankruptcy on sexual assault judgments and consequent disrepute of the act. It sends a clear message to sexual abusers that the act cannot be used to avoid payments as a result of judgments.

It deters abusers by eliminating a means of escaping the cost to be paid for sexual abuse. It provides greater certainty for victims, the courts, trustees in bankruptcy and the superintendent.

It provides a greater likelihood that victims who are able to realize civil judgments will be able to pay for their own treatment and will be less likely to be dependent on an already overburdened social services resources.

It provides consistency with current federal initiatives to lessen the burden on the social safety net. Abusers will be made to bear the costs of the victims' recovery process rather than society as a whole or the victims themselves.

A lawyer friend of mine who suggested the amendment has been pressing both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry to make such changes that I have included in my bill.

I will read a letter the Minister of Industry sent to my friend on April 6, 1995:

My colleague, the honourable Minister of Justice, recently sent me a copy of your letter of August 16, 1994 recommending that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be amended to include awards of damages in serious assault cases among those not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. I regret the delay in replying to you.

Your letter is quite timely, as I am now considering a number of possible BIA amendments to be included in a bill targeted for introduction later in the spring or in the fall. Among the amendments under consideration is one along the lines you have proposed. Your letter argues strongly in favour of such an amendment, and it will be given due consideration.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the government's attention.

On November 24, 1995 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-109, which included amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including a change to subsection 178(1). I applaud the minister for his recent initiative. I wish the change could have come about sooner, but I understand the minister wanted to make many amendments to the act besides my proposal.

On page 61 of Bill C-109 and carrying over to page 62, there is a small section that reads:

Subsection 178(1) of the act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a): (a.1) any award of damages by a court in civil proceedings in respect of an assault;

The minister's bill finally attempts to fill in the loophole, but I am suggesting my wording is better. The government bill deals only with the word assault, which is from the Criminal Code. My bill deals with both assault and the purely civil tort created from the historical term battery.

It also deals with interest on moneys on such civil awards, which the government bill overlooks. I am also now suggesting that in view of further advice, the term interest on moneys awarded should apply to the whole section 178, not just to the assault award section as suggested.

In addition, the bill should include the term wrongful death.

Currently the government bill envisions that an assaulter will not be cleared of civil liability damages and bankruptcy, but if the assault is serious enough to eventually cause death then the offender becomes free. The inherent message is for the perpetrator to do more harm and actually kill the victim. Then the civil liabilities will not survive the bankruptcy. That angle must also be covered.

I have discussed these provisions with the minister. I will be looking for some positive moves from him in the next week. He should publicly promise to approve the appropriate clauses of Bill C-109 so that perhaps I might find it acceptable to withdraw my bill and have the government fully take over my initiative.

So far the minister has appeared co-operative and open to discussions. I compliment him for bringing Bill C-109 forward. It is a technical clean-up of many outdated sections of the old statute which was based on reviews and consultations that were started by the Conservative government of the last Parliament. The minister has appropriately built on that beginning and we look forward to speedy passage. I hope I will be able to report to Parliament that as legislators we will get this thing done.

Victims of crime should wear no political label. I commemorated again for our party on December 6 the national tragedy of the murder of the 14 women from Montreal. The 14 roses on display in the Commons lobby on December 6 were a sober reminder of the obligation of Parliament and what it owes to victims of all kinds from every region of the country.

The platitudes have reached high levels in the House for years now about the remembrance of December 6. Yet little in actual legislation has been passed that directly uplifts the plight of victims. However, with my bill we have a practical and concrete chance to act positively. We will see if the Liberals social philosophy can measure up to the expectations of mainstream Canadian values and the hopes and aspirations of Canadians even from an ignored British Columbia.

I am being very direct in my comments, for the hopes of hurting children and grandparents were dashed by uncaring Liberals on the justice committee this week when a private member's bill from the member for Mission-Coquitlam granting grandparents legal standing in divorce courts was summarily dismissed. It was shot down by the government after many brave Liberal backbenchers dared defy cabinet signals on the bill and actually vote for change. They voted for the real people's agenda. They voted for the people. Then the top down Liberal mindset took over and the old style political games were played by the government against the hopes of ordinary people.

Here we have it again: Liberal members not supporting victims. They cannot deny it. Their jaws are quivering, but their votes are now forever part of the parliamentary record. The pattern runs deep with them. It has been allowed to run too long for our country's well-being.

Can one wonder when I reflect the cynicism about government from my constituents? They feel government is something done to them rather than for them. In mock amazement the justice minister said to me on national television that I was too cynical when I recounted to him a few of the missed justice system reforms that he as the minister had chosen not to pursue. I cannot be too hard on him. After all he has an educational handicap in that he is a lawyer.

Here is another initiative placed right in the lap of the Liberals, private member's Bill C-323. This measure is not supposed to be handled in a partisan manner. The country is watching. I hope the House will get it right this time and fully support the kind of initiative I have brought forward to help victims of crime and have perpetrators pay for and restore what they have done. Let us have offenders directly accountable to victims.

I am encouraged that uncharacteristically of Liberals the Minister of Industry might not be as misguided as the justice minister when it comes to being in touch with mainstream Canadian values. We all know how good people can become rather strange when they acquire an extensive legal education and then call themselves

lawyers. This minister seems reasonable enough to spread the credit around and advance the people's agenda rather than merely a Liberal agenda. In view of the early signals I have received from the Minister of Industry, I am hopeful that my bill, or more correctly the people's measures, will get to the next stage.

I urge members to dig deep, overcome themselves, be generous of spirit and support a good idea. I am also calling upon the Minister of Industry to give the proposals most serious consideration.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

It has been two weeks since the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-109, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.

The bill contains more than 70 amendments to the BIA. The amendments fine tune the laws regarding commercial bankruptcy and introduce new features involving consumer bankruptcy. The legislation has been designed to assist Parliament in its three-year review of the BIA.

The House welcomed the opportunity to look at the bankruptcy laws in more detail. After all, Canada's bankruptcy laws must protect the interests of borrowers, lenders, insolvent practitioners and government. These interests are so varied and complex that over the decades bankruptcy laws have been very difficult to reform.

Bankruptcy laws are an integral part of the framework legislation that established the rules of the marketplace in which buyers, sellers, lenders and borrowers can make transactions with confidence that the law will treat them fairly.

Among the issues covered in Bill C-109 was the treatment of court fines in assault cases in the event of bankruptcy. The government proposed that people who had been accused of sexual or physical assault should not be able to turn to bankruptcy as a way of avoiding penalties imposed by the civil courts. Fines for physical or sexual assaults become non-dischargeable in the event of bankruptcy under Bill C-109.

The legislation is now before the House and when it is in front of the committee, the committee will have the opportunity to study it in detail and to make appropriate amendments.

One such amendment should be the proposal before us today, that section 178 which lists non-dischargeable debts also includes the following:

-any damages in respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant to a judgment rendered in a civil proceeding and interest on the damages before or after judgment ordered by the court or payable by law.

The key difference between Bill C-109 and Bill C-323 is the addition in the hon. member's bill of including interest on damages as part of the non-dischargeable portion of a bankruptcy debt. This is an excellent amendment. I commend the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby for it.

I would like to see the same principle applied to all categories listed in section 178, not just the assault cases. I would prefer to see the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act amended so that either the interest issue is addressed specifically in each category or, conversely, have it addressed generically so that it is clear that it applies to all categories listed in section 178.

I do not believe debate on a private member's bill is the most appropriate place to make these changes. All of us are concerned about the efficient allocation of House time and I would rather see the issue discussed in committee when it reviews Bill C-109. That being said, I congratulate the hon. member for his worthwhile contribution to the amendment of Canada's bankruptcy laws.

Too often in the House we fail to acknowledge the perceptiveness and integrity of suggestions that come from the other side of the floor. Perhaps this is one reason Canadians have become impatient and cynical about politicians. They see us perform during question period. They are witness to the bickering and sniping that show politics at its worst.

What Canadians do not see in the clips from question period that make the nightly TV news is that behind the scenes and in committee there is a common purpose among members of the House. We are working hard to make things better for Canadians.

Perhaps we ought to make more of an effort to congratulate one another in public. Behind the curtains we often have a kind word for our colleagues on the other side of the floor. Sometimes we will ruefully congratulate them on a political point well scored. The time has come for us to acknowledge without shame when members across the floor come up with good ideas that ought to be a part of government policy.

This is one such occasion. I commend the hon. member for his work on bankruptcy reform. I look forward to hearing what he will have to say to the committee if he agrees the committee is a more suitable forum for his ideas to be discussed.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the bill introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.

I listened carefully to the hon. member's arguments. Members with whom I spoke in the Bloc Quebecois, and I personally, are in favour of this amendment. It is clear that individuals who are ordered in civil court to pay damages in respect of an assault or battery or any another act that could lead to a conviction in civil court, should not be able to shirk their responsibilities by declaring bankruptcy.

Like our government colleague, I think this amendment to the Bankruptcy Act is admissible and useful.

There is also the aspect of interest payments which may be useful in an amendment to the bill introduced by the minister on the same subject.

However, I was less inclined to appreciate the arguments presented by the hon. member to justify his amendment. I agree there is a problem. In Canada, individuals convicted in civil court of causing damage as a result of violent acts or sexual abuse should not be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions. However, I think the hon member-and this is just a comment-was putting his amendment in a rather negative context.

There was a lot of talk about crime, a list of people convicted of sexual abuse or acts of violence was mentioned, cases were cited, and so forth. Perhaps the climate in my riding, in my region, and even elsewhere in Quebec is not quite the same, but I have not met many people in my area who are afraid to go out at night for fear of being assaulted or abused. These things can happen, of course, but they are not so widespread that they can be used as arguments to justify otherwise quite worthwhile amendments.

The hon. government member also noted that, last November, the Minister of Industry tabled in this House a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act. This bill is much broader than the amendment proposed by the hon. member because it kind of overhauls the Bankruptcy Act. Like the hon. member who spoke before me, I did notice that there is an identical clause in the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry and in the bill presented by our colleague from the Reform Party today.

I even think that, had it realized this sooner, the committee in charge of determining which bills shall be considered as votable items might have decided that this bill was redundant in light of the minister's bill.

When I went over clause 105, a little paragraph further down caught my eye. It has nothing to do with this debate, but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are quite lenient on the issue of relevance. I do not know if my colleague from the Reform Party saw this paragraph that makes it more difficult for students who are out of school but are unable to find a job to declare bankruptcy.

They are told they cannot do so within two years of finishing their courses. This is, I feel, an aspect which merits attention perhaps. I wanted to bring it up here in the House, and my party will debate it when the time comes. I believe that, after all of the Reform member's justifiable severity concerning people getting out of their responsibilities after a civil judgment, he ought to focus the same amount of energy on the student situation in order to determine whether there is a problem. We know that in Canada, and in Quebec, my region in particular, getting into the work force is a huge problem for students.

I feel therefore, that in the bill to be introduced by the Minister-I know I am not in order, but I feel this will have to be examined carefully. It is all very fine to want to be strict, to want to see people pay their debts, but one still needs to have a proper understanding of the situation. My colleague has justifiably pointed out that people found guilty in civil suits ought not to be exempted.

Looking at the student situation, however, we become aware that the minister's bill is very severe, considering that at the present time the job market for young people in Canada is very bad, and when it comes right down to it, one realizes the amendments proposed by the minister are unfavourably biased against students. A student who is unable to pay his debts after graduation is judged initially as in some way guilty of fraudulent intent in not wanting to repay his government loans. This is, I feel, not the case for the large majority of students. The bulk of young people forced to declare bankruptcy at the end of their studies do so because they really cannot pay.

Certainly there are some people who will take advantage of such possibilities to commit fraud. However, as was said this morning concerning the whole unemployment insurance question, when a system is put into place there are always some people who will try to cheat, but it is my belief that not everyone using the system ought to be tarred with the same brush as the dishonest few.

I hope that the government will take this into consideration when the time comes to examine this legislation, particularly since the unemployment insurance reform will mean that students who have terminated their studies will be hit hard by that as well. We realize that a student completing school and finding a first job will have to work 910 hours in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.

Lots of students today are on contract, and it is rare that anyone gets 910 hours in one go. Young people will not qualify. If they cannot qualify, they cannot pay their student loans. If they cannot pay their student loans, they will have difficulty meeting their obligations. Under the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act the minister has tabled, young people will not be able to pay and therefore will not be able to declare bankruptcy and will be unable to pay. It is not clear where they will end up.

In any case, I hope that, when the committee studies the legislation, it will look carefully at the amendment the member proposed, because I think it is acceptable, but I hope it will also look at other aspects of the legislation, which are tightening and toughening up the system. Basically, Canada's entire social system is becoming harsher. It is our whole way of looking at our young people in school and people having difficulty finding a job.

Our whole approach, that of Canadians and of Quebecers, is getting tougher. We accept the situation, because it is always being presented in the light of our difficult economic situation, but still, in such a situation, things have to be taken into account, as I suggested my colleague have done in connection with the whole issue of crime and its control through more severe measures.

I think we have to take things into account as well in our attitude toward Canadians and Quebecers who need a little more support from the government in a time of greater economic difficulty. I thank you for having tolerated my wandering slightly off the topic of debate.