Debates of Feb. 21st, 1995

The House resumed from Thursday, December 8, consideration of the motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service), be read the third time and passed.

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the bill tabled by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur and tell him that we, the official opposition, truly hope that this private members' bill will become law.

It is indeed a flagrant injustice that people collecting unemployment insurance lose their benefits when they accept jury duty. It is an injustice of the kind that could compromise justice in all of the provinces and in all of Canada.

Some people have said that this provision should be covered by provincial law. I think it should be the opposite. In fact, what we have before us is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would guarantee that jurors would not lose their entitlement to UI benefits because they are on jury duty. I must point out that, for the act to apply, the person submitting the claim for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act must already qualify and continue to qualify under this bill.

It is difficult to be a juror. It is certainly more difficult than being a member of Parliament who is trying to deliver a speech when everyone is talking. They have to carry out certain duties and we should at least make it easier for them. In fact, it is thanks to jurors that we have a justice system that is based on decisions made freely by citizens-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Dear colleagues, would you please stop talking and show a little respect for the hon. member who has the floor.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this issue is important enough to give a member of Parliament the right to a modicum of attention, in the same way that unemployed jurors merit to qualify for benefits.

The current provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act prevent UI claimants from accepting jury duty. I believe that one factor should weigh heavy in the decision that this House and eventually the government must take, and that is that, day in, day out, including any allowances to be made for Quebec, on the average 30 per cent of all those who are able to work or have worked are on unemployment insurance. Not everyone milks the

system until their benefits run dry. What is more, with the new cuts we are seeing, it is not everybody who qualifies for unemployment insurance for several months.

There is therefore a significant number of citizens who, each year, rely on unemployment insurance. Something does not make sense when the judicial system must pass over these citizens, who are available anyway, only to call on others.

Furthermore, it hardly makes any sense either that those who must serve as jurors are only paid the meagre allowance of $25 per day.

It is not merely a question of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that people chosen for jury duty may exercise their right to do so-recognizing that they are not handsomely paid since, as people say, no one gets rich on unemployment insurance in any case-and continue to receive at least the minimum to which they were already entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act, thereby allowing them to perform this function which is eminently necessary to a democratic system, namely being chosen at random from the population for jury duty.

I say to the minister that this is not only a reform worth carrying out, but rather one that should have been carried out a long time ago because of the many negative consequences for ordinary people. In that way, we would be sure at least that persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits would not try to avoid this important role which is also very demanding physically and morally.

Since certain responsibilities are already being imposed on them, we would like to allow them to keep at least some peace of mind, which is in any case greatly diminished since unemployment insurance is hardly a king's ransom.

So I would ask the House to vote for the amendment proposed by my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur and I say to him that Bloc Quebecois members will vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of the private member's bill of my hon. colleague which will enable those claiming unemployment insurance to receive their regular benefits while they are engaged in jury service.

First, I congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur for the thoughtfulness and thoroughness he has shown in redressing this problem in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Through his efforts the House has learned that it is difficult or impossible for unemployed Canadians to fulfil their legal responsibilities as citizens of the country when asked to perform jury duty.

However, what is most impressive is that through the efforts of my hon. colleague, the Government of Canada is now in a position to rectify an unfair situation. This is an excellent example of how people can use the system to make changes that benefit all Canadians. A constituent has voiced an important concern and as a result of my hon. colleague's actions we now have a bill before us that will redress an injustice faced by many Canadians.

I am sure we all agree that private members' initiatives such as this one provide a valuable direct link between the concerns of our constituents and positive legislative change. Furthermore, the enthusiasm of our government to support the process can only strengthen the democratic parliamentary process.

The government's support of the specific bill clearly indicates that we are open to reviewing all aspects of our social programs and correcting flaws therein. We know our current programs are far from perfect. Some may have outgrown their usefulness and others have not kept pace with time.

In this case we must ensure the system does not penalize people who are merely trying to fulfil their responsibilities and duties as Canadians. To vote in support of the bill is simply to acknowledge that UI claimants should not be penalized when they engage in jury service. They are, after all, serving their country by doing a stressful job that ultimately benefits all of us.

It makes no sense for one arm of government to force a person into service while another arm of government punishes a person for providing that service. With no alternative at hand, more and more judges have little choice but to excuse UI claimants from jury duty. This is not a solution but merely a stop gap measure. Judges have stated their disapproval with the current system to both the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Justice. Exempting UI claimants from jury duty removes the claimants from an unfair situation. The question we must ask, however, is: Why not simply stop creating the unfair situation in the first place?

Judges have pointed out that by excusing UI claimants from jury duty on compassionate grounds it makes it more difficult to ensure the accused will receive his or her right to a trial by a fair and true jury of peers.

There are two reasons for this. In regions of higher unemployment, for instance, the routine exemption of potential jury members because they are on UI arbitrarily decreases the pool of jury members available, often to the point where it is difficult to ensure that a jury is selected from a broad cross-section of society.

Furthermore, as my hon. colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur has pointed out, in trials where the defendant is unemployed the automatic exclusion of all UI claimants from the jury could have a serious bearing on the defendant's right to a trial with a jury of peers who understand the circumstances and life situation of the defendant. Under the current system, however, judges

have no other road open to them except to excuse UI claimants from duty.

There are good reasons Canadian citizens are legally obligated to engage in jury service when called upon. Each one of us has a right to trial by a jury selected from among our peers. This is a principle we cannot afford to tamper with. The principles involved and their accompanying social consequences surely warrant the small increase in unemployment expenditures that would be involved.

Finally, we must emphasize that most employees continue to be paid their normal salaries while fulfilling jury duty obligations. Their collective agreements protect them from the injustice of losing their jobs or losing income when they perform this service. It therefore seems unfair for the federal government to cut off UI claimants when so many employers are not permitted to lay off or fire employees for the same reason.

The bill will help our fellow Canadians to fulfil their civic duty without undue hardship. It will also help to ensure that the fundamental principle of a fair trial by jury is maintained. For all these reasons I am convinced all my colleagues in the House will vote in favour of the bill.

I thank my hon. colleague for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I encourage all members of the House to support the bill before us today.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to speak against this private member's bill. The bill would allow unemployment insurance claimants to collect unemployment insurance while serving on juries. It clearly demonstrates why the country is in such a serious financial crisis. Instead of finding ways to save millions of dollars, the government is busy running around finding more ways to spend millions of dollars.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

I hear the jeers coming from across the floor. I would appeal to members of the House to listen to reasoned debate. If every member would listen to the issues at stake in the bill and each vote according to his or her conscience, I believe the result would be very different from voting along purely party lines.

It is essential to look at the issues. I have heard the description of the problem but there are some options the government has refused to consider. That is why I oppose the bill. I will speak to it and give the reasons for opposing it.

I will say right now, and I will say it openly, that the Liberals just do not get it. Canadians are sick and tired of governments that spend more than they take in. Canadian taxpayers are sick of members of Parliament who are more concerned about paying unemployment insurance claimants to sit on juries than they are about them looking for work.

I listened to the hon. member's intervention. It reminds me of somebody who looks at his bicycle and sees that one tire does not look the same as the other. One is flat and one is not. He decides he is going to make them both look the same and punches a hole in the one that looks good. Then they both look the same. That is the Liberal way of solving some of these problems. If we have a problem with the justice system we do not fix it with the UI system. It is that simple. We are creating inequities. I am getting ahead of myself. Let me get into this reasoned debate that the members need to listen to.

The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur quite rightly identifies the problem with the poor compensation that provinces pay citizens to sit on juries. Rather than doing something about the specific problem, he attempts to avoid the real problem by giving jurors a handout from the unemployment insurance program.

Do you think it will ever be properly solved once you do this? The answer is obvious, no. Once we start going along this path, it will not be properly solved in the justice system where the solution should take place.

In this bill the hon. member proposes to break the fundamental insurance principle that all UI claimants should be available for work in order to collect UI benefits. The government has strayed so far from the rules of a true insurance program that many Canadians already think that unemployment insurance is a social program, and that is a fundamental mistake.

I am here to remind the hon. member, the Liberal government and all taxpayers in Canada that unemployment insurance is an insurance program, not a social program.

When the Reform Party forms the next government we will put an end to all this social engineering nonsense and return the UI program to its original purpose, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss. That was the original intent.

The hon. member says that this non-insurance measure will only cost $2 million or $3 million. Does he really think that voters want their government to spend $2 million or $3 million more to pay UI claimants in this way? Has he asked the voters in his constituency if they had $2 million or $3 million to spend if this would be their priority?

I do not think this member would get this support if he had gone to his constituents. I do not think they would support the direction of this government and the way it is heading with this bill.

He gets several individual complaints. I have talked to the member. People are giving comments across here, but I have talked to him directly and he has received several complaints. This is not a big push from across the country, believe me.

Here we are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis the country has ever faced and the best bill that this member can come up with is a bill that would spend $2 million or $3 million more. If we eliminated all the special handouts like the one proposed by the hon. member which the Liberal government has added to this UI program since 1971 we would save billions of dollars.

Why has this government got its priorities so mixed up? Again, I say it just does not get it. Taxpayers do not want to spend more. They want to spend less. Workers and employers do not want high UI premiums. They want lower premiums. This will force them up.

What kind of petitions has this member received in his office? Has he received any petitions? How many hundreds of letters has this member received complaining about this issue? Has any MP received even one petition concerning this? I receive petitions and letters complaining about the government's gun control proposals and I receive many petitions and letters opposing the government's plan to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I receive many petitions to balance the budget and not raise taxes. Is this hon. member saying that he has received these petitions? I doubt it.

If he is I have to question the hon. member on his priorities in bringing this bill before Parliament. Who supports this bill besides some Liberals who have their thinking locked into the 1970s?

The senior officials at unemployment insurance certainly do not think it is a good idea. Talk to the people there. They know it goes against their own insurance guidelines and they were opposed to it until it went to the standing committee.

Their claims adjudication guidelines state:

As a general rule, a UI claimant who is on jury duty is not considered to be available for work during a trial. The unemployment insurance plan was not designed to provide compensation for lost wages in such circumstances.

The experts at unemployment insurance add that the problem is not with the UI rules on availability but rather the poor compensation provided for jurors. Reformers agree.

There is the problem. That is where it should be solved, not with the unemployment insurance plan. The research branch of the Library of Parliament also concurs with us:

The primary issue in this matter seems to be that adequate remuneration for jury duty is the responsibility of the provinces rather than that of the employers and employees who contribute to the unemployment insurance program.

Those are the experts in the Library of Parliament.

If the government actually gave the employers and employees who pay for the UI program a real say in how their money was being spent, I do not think they would agree to provide benefits to claimants while they are serving on a jury.

If the voters are not clamouring for this change, if the experts at unemployment insurance say it goes against insurance principles, if the researchers at the Library of Parliament agree it is the responsibility of the provinces, and if the workers and employers who pay UI premiums are not asking for it, who is? Only the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur and his misguided supporters in the Liberal caucus can answer that.

The law is simple. If UI claimants are serving on a jury, they are not available for work. If they are not available for work, they are not entitled to unemployment insurance. Fix the system where it is broken.

UI claimants are supposed to be looking for work while they are receiving benefits. If they are serving on a jury, they cannot be actively looking for work. Unemployment insurance is not a guaranteed annual income and should not be treated as such.

Everyone collecting unemployment insurance must be actively looking for work and ready, willing and able to accept a job immediately. If the Liberals compromise the insurance principle of availability to allow jurors to collect UI, who is the next group they will designate as deserving special treatment and special status? They opened the door and they are going to have to accept other people with similar excuses.

Reformers say the UI program must be returned to a true insurance program. In order to do this all of the special programs, exemptions and exceptions, including the discriminatory elements such as variable entrance requirements and regional extended benefits, have to be eliminated.

If unemployment insurance ran like a true insurance program, anyone who collects UI repeatedly would have to pay higher premiums. Any employer who regularly lays off workers would also have to pay higher premiums. This private member's bill takes us in the opposite direction to where Reformers want to take unemployment insurance. This is the main reason we cannot support this bill, but not the only reason.

I hope everyone is listening carefully to this next point, because for a government that claims to be the champion of equality, it goes against that basic principle. If this bill were adopted even the principle of equality would be jeopardized. An

employed person is expected to take time off work for jury duty. Often they are not compensated for their lost pay.

Now we have the situation with a worker sitting on a jury, losing money because he or she is doing public duty. Beside him is someone being paid by the public purse, a UI claimant getting paid by the government to do the same job.

No one I have heard speak from the other side or even from the Bloc has addressed these two problems. Fix the system where it is broken. Fix the justice system. What are they going to do about the inequities they create with this kind of system?

That answer has not been forthcoming. It should be answered before he supports this bill. The hon. member raises the point that often employers pay their employees while they are serving on a jury and that it is unfair to UI claimants to have their benefits cut off.

If this charge were allowed to pass, what does the member think will happen? If a worker is called to do jury duty, the employer will lay him off so that he can go on UI and collect payments. In other words, one is opening the floodgates to have many people collect UI who normally would not be able to do so because they are laid off by their employers when they have to serve on a jury.

Those members are creating a problem. They are not solving a problem. They are making two flat tires instead of fixing the system where it is broken. This would undoubtedly lead to an increase in UI claims for people serving on juries and therefore an increase in cost to the UI program, which is already billions in debt.

While there may be a problem of fair compensation to all persons who serve on a jury regardless of their employment status, we do not believe that tinkering with the Unemployment Insurance Act and intruding into this area of provincial jurisdiction is the way to solve it.

A simpler solution we propose is for judges to use their discretion to excuse UI claimants from jury duty, as has been done in the past, or else have the provinces deal with the problem. It is their problem.

In closing, it is obvious that jurors are not fairly compensated and on this point my hon. friend and I agree. It is inexcusable that jurors are asked to work for days, weeks and in some cases months for $15 or $20 a day.

The Reform Party was founded on the principles of equality, fairness and common sense. That is lacking in this bill. We find that this is an area that needs to be addressed, but this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. Reformers believe the federal government should not be interfering in areas that are clearly a provincial matter.

The flawed logic behind this type of thinking has this country $550 billion in debt. Every time there is a problem, they do not fix it where it is broken. They simply throw more money at it. This type of thinking costs us $40 billion in interest payments every year; it is this type of thinking, this debt and the interest payments that are the biggest threat to the future of most of our social programs.

Canada cannot afford to make these kinds of decisions with our hearts instead of our heads. Reformers will vote against this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no other members who wish to speak, I will call on the sponsoring member to close the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time. It has been four years since this subject came to Parliament. Much has been said in committee and in the House. Rather than review all that, I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party who supported me.

I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the support provided by the Bloc Quebecois

I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Reform Party who have certainly enlightened us on their point of view in this debate. I appreciate that. They have their point of view. I appreciate their point of view, but again we have ours.

I would like to thank every one of my colleagues but I would be remiss if I did not thank the officers of the Chamber who have helped me immensely. They have guided me whenever I needed guidance with regard to the bill. Also my own staff have been very efficient in helping me with this bill. The clerks and personnel of Private Members' Business have been super in giving me information and advice. I thank them this evening and I look forward to their support on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

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

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asking the Minister of Agriculture about agricultural subsidies, and, more specifically those allocated to grain transportation in western Canada. On the eve of the budget, my concern was to try to find out a little more about the intentions of the minister, who wants to review all agricultural subsidies.

The Minister of Finance ended the suspense this afternoon. The budget will finally be tabled at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, that is, in a week's time. We will then discover the fate of agricultural subsidies. We will discover, finally, whether existing rail carrier subsidies will be replaced by direct subsidies to western grain producers.

So, in answer to my question, the minister gave a rather vague response. He said his colleague in transport and he had been involved in discussions with the primary stakeholders and that the details of the discussions would be made available once the budget was tabled in this House.

The message is clear. We will not have any more information until next week. The minister's response to this, in a minute or two, will be, I expect, a good couple of minutes of fine speech-making, devoid of content. Why do I bother, you might ask, Mr. Speaker? I do so to protest the government's attitude in this matter.

Yesterday, the minister said that Western grain transportation reform had been debated quite often during the past 25 years. As far as I know, his party, the Liberal Party, has been in power for the past 25 years, longer than it deserves, and it never had the guts to take action in this respect. What we have been seeing lately seems to be a rerun of what happened in the past. And that is what bothers me.

Last summer, the Minister of Transport announced that the Crow rate would be abolished. His colleague at Agriculture and Agri-Food hastened to say his department would pick up the slack by making the necessary changes. The committee on payments to producers examined the question and made a number of recommendations, which included transferring the subsidy directly to producers to help them adjust to the new situation.

We expected the minister to let us know whether he supported this approach. Not a word from the minister.

Since that time, it seems the minister has seen talking and consulting quite a lot. That is why I am anxious to hear what kind of measures the minister will implement to make this an effective and satisfactory subsidy for producers, while meeting international trade standards.

There is a risk, however, and this will affect farm producers across the country, that the $566 million paid to Western rail carriers will be paid directly to Western producers only, who will then be able to diversify their operations and, in the process, compete with farm producers in the rest of Canada, which would improve their competitive position.

Imagine, for instance, that with the help of the subsidy, Western producers would be able to raise hogs more cheaply than producers in Quebec or Ontario. This would mean unfair competition with the help of public funds. Can you see farm producers in Quebec and Ontario paying Western farmers to compete unfairly on the hog market? I am using hogs as an example, but it could any kind of livestock that would allow Western farmers to compete with producers in Quebec or Ontario or the Maritimes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry but I did not notice the hon. member's time had expired. We will now proceed with the response from the parliamentary secretary.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food meets regularly with industry leaders, including l'Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec.

These discussions have led to legislative amendments to the Western Grain Transportation Act which were tabled in December. These amendments will ensure better use of scarce taxpayer dollars as well as protect our producers from potentially damaging trade actions.

While important, Bill C-66 will not be sufficient in itself to fix all that ails our grain handling and transportation system. Broader reforms are necessary for four very strong reasons.

First, we must deal with the harsh reality of fiscal limitations and the battle against the debt and deficit. Second, we must comply with the requirements of the new GATT agreement with respect to the disciplines that apply to trade distorting subsidies. Third, we need to unlock new grain handling and transportation efficiencies leading to a lower cost and faster system overall.

Fourth, we need to foster greater agricultural diversification and a trend toward more value added processing.

To accomplish these objectives the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Transport have been conducting two sets of comprehensive consultations for all the players in the Canadian grain handling and transportation system. This will go far to solving the problem.