Debates of Sept. 25th, 1995

Unemployment Insurance

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development's responses would give one the impression that he has a present in mind for Canada's unemployed. Yet we know that the discussion paper, a virtually final document, one that originates in his office, calls for limiting access to unemployment and limiting the duration of benefits, as well as paying less benefits to the chronically unemployed.

If his project were as great as all that, do you not think that he would release it before the Quebec referendum? We know those guys. If the Minister of Human Resources Development is hiding his project, it is because it contains cuts.

Does the minister confirm that the order he received from the Minister of Finance in the last budget to cut at least $1.5 billion from unemployment benefits still stands and that his project responds to that order?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is obvious. The budget document of last February said that we want to achieve a 10 per cent savings in the existing unemployment insurance system so that we can convert those savings to the help and development of

employment in this country. That was the whole purpose and is what the budget stated.

The hon. member would be much better off if he would read the entire budget statement and not half of it, just as he would be if he would stop using speculative, partial, piecemeal documents to try to justify his own case. In both instances I suggest that he should expand his reading.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that, if the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to so much trouble to conceal from the unemployed, the unemployed in Quebec in particular, that they will have to face the music, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, with the reform being planned for them, it is because he wants to conceal from Quebec's unemployed what is awaiting them in Canada, if ever they decided to vote no, which will not happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were the hon. member I would not be talking about hidden documents. It is a bit of a sensitive point with his party.

We have been totally open in this process. We first tabled a major consultation book. Consultations involved over 100,000 Canadians. By the way, during those consultations it was very clear that over 64 per cent of Quebecers were in favour of major significant reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They have already said they want to have major changes.

We have since gone through and tabled major reports on seasonal workers. We have had the House of Commons report and recommendations. We have just released 24 different studies by independent experts dealing with various aspects of the unemployment insurance program.

I would suggest that we cannot get much more open and much more clear in what we want to do than that. What we really need is to get off of the agenda of separatism and get back on the agenda of jobs.

The Senate

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party fully endorses an elected Senate. Not more than two and one-half weeks ago we called for the two vacant seats in the Atlantic to be filled by an election. Even the Liberals endorsed the concept of an elected Senate although it was in a rather emasculated form in the Charlottetown accord. Given all of the above, why did the Prime Minister not use this opportunity to change the upper house from one of a house of patronage to a house that would be truly representative of Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I voted in a referendum that included reform of the Senate which required senators to be elected. The hon. member and his party voted against it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that maybe the Prime Minister is trying for the function of comedian instead of Prime Minister. He knows that the Charlottetown accord proposal was weak kneed and totally ineffective.

Why did the Prime Minister not take the opportunity to work with the provincial premiers and get an elected senator, the same way they did in Alberta with Senator Stan Waters? Why did he go the old patronage route? Is he simply trying to keep control over the entire parliamentary process like a dictator?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I would suggest that the language is getting very, very close to being unparliamentary. I will permit the right hon. Prime Minister to answer if he so wishes.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we had an agreement with all the premiers about an elected Senate and the hon. member and the Reform Party voted against the agreement in the Charlottetown accord.

Unemployment Insurance

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The unemployed will be severely affected by cuts of at least $1.5 billion in the unemployment insurance plan as of next year. Quebec alone stands to absorb more than $600 million worth of cuts. These will be felt particularly in regions with a high proportion of seasonal workers, whose benefits will be reduced, since from now on they will be treated as second class unemployed workers.

Does the minister realize that by making Quebec alone absorb $600 million in cuts in unemployment insurance, he is practically putting whole regions like the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the North Shore, the Gaspé and the Saint-Maurice area on welfare?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered the question which has been asked several times.

The answer bears repeating. The present unemployment insurance system is not working very well. Since 1983 until 1993 we have seen its costs go from $8 billion to up to $20 billion. We found that in many cases it discourages people from taking more work. It is not providing the kind of resources people need to get back into the job market. It does not provide the kind of encouragement and the kinds of tools that are needed.

Other countries around the world spend 30 per cent or 40 per cent of their labour market money on active employment measures. We spend 16 per cent. The fact is we want to make a change in the program to give a much stronger emphasis to the opportunities for employment.

It strikes me as increasingly strange. Members of that party continually say they want change, they want improvement, but when they have an opportunity to make changes that will help people get back to work, they say absolutely no. It is too bad they do not say no to the referendum and yes to unemployment insurance changes.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if his reform is so good, he should table it now, so we can look at it and make up our minds beforehand.

My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister confirm that the target he has set for his colleague at human resources development with respect to next year's cuts in the unemployment insurance program is still at least $1.5 billion?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear, as the Minister of Human Resources Development said, that what we really want is to create a springboard for job creation. That is the basic purpose of these reforms. The minister said that the money would be reinvested in proactive programs in order to put Quebecers and Canadians back to work.

Now I would like to ask the hon. member, who keeps talking about hidden agendas, why the Bloc, why the separatist movement refused to publish a study by Georges Mathews which shows that the deficit will triple. Why will the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ not put the partnership offer on the table? Because it is an empty shell? Because they are not sincere?

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a hidden agenda, the agenda of a separatist movement that is afraid of the truth.

House Of Commons

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I am dismayed by the pattern in this House and in committee of sexist and racist comments that demean all members of Parliament. The last election greatly improved the representation in this House of people who represent the diversity of Canada.

Could the chair please tell me what measures are being considered by his committee to demonstrate and ensure that those MPs who demonstrate sexist and racist behaviour are dealt with most seriously?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the committee are striving to make this House a more welcome place for persons who represent the diversity of this country.

To that end, at our meeting in June of this year there was a discussion that took place in the committee about the advisability of adopting more rigid rules in respect of members who abuse their freedom of speech in this House by using abusive, racist, or sexist language. In that regard, we studied briefly and intend to go back to studying the examples set in other jurisdictions where for example members are suspended for a more extended period than is now the case, where there is a loss of pay for members who engage in this kind of conduct, where there is a loss of travel and telephone privileges in respect of those members, and where there is expulsion from the parliamentary precinct, not just from the House, for members who engage in this kind of conduct. All those matters are being considered by the committee at this time.

Criminal Code

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Forget, a cop killer, was convicted five months ago of shooting two Montreal police officers while he was unlawfully at large. Because this justice minister refuses to get tough with hard core criminals, Forget could be set free following a parole hearing.

Since the justice minister believes a harsher sentence for hate crimes will act as a deterrent, when will the minister enact harsher penalties to deter criminals from shooting police officers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his question is not fair to the facts. There are already in the Criminal Code penalties, including life imprisonment for the kind of crime to which he has referred.

The Forget case on its own facts involves indeed an issue having to do with the calculation of sentences. As the hon. member well knows, Bill C-45, which is already before the House, the Solicitor General's bill, deals with many of the issues presented by that case.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what it really deals with is a weak-kneed Liberal system.

The Solicitor General's press office says there is nothing that can be done to prevent Forget from having a parole hearing in just a few months.

If this Liberal government can pass retroactive legislation nullifying the Pearson airport contract, why does the Solicitor General believe a parole procedure change cannot be enforced retroactively for dangerous current criminals?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the fine contributions made by the hon. member in committee. I would also like to remind the hon. member that we have a mechanism in place. We have the National Parole Board, which is going to review that case, no doubt. I am sure that a number of the concerns raised by the hon. member as well as the victims will no doubt be taken into consideration when this will be deliberated by the National Parole Board of Canada.

Unemployment Insurance

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister foresees requiring young people to work 26 weeks at 35 hours a week in order to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits if they lose their jobs.

Given that young people already have difficulty finding stable employment and have to go from one contract to another in order to survive, will the minister not acknowledge that his proposal will deny them the support of unemployment insurance and keep them out of the labour market? Is this what the federal government has in store for young people the day after a no vote?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of what the federal system is doing for young people to help them get employment.

We have worked out a series of partnerships with the private sector where we are able to provide internships this year for close to 25,000 young Canadians to get major training as they move from school to work. We are investing our money in developing good skills to meet the job requirements so that they can make that important bridge between formal education and the workplace.

Fortunately, I was able to work in co-operation with the ministry of education in Quebec and Chrysler Corporation just a month ago to sign an agreement that will give us a new program of internship on car maintenance and repair in Quebec through a partnership. That to me illustrates how if we work together in partnership we can really help our young people, as opposed to always trying to split things apart.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the minister's fine words, the level of unemployment among young people has hardly gone down since the last federal election, and young people did not benefit from the slight increase in employment in 1994. In Quebec, the number of young people on welfare has remained at 75,000 since the last federal election.

Will the minister acknowledge that young people need help between jobs and not a push into social assistance?

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

Mr. Speaker, just to make sure we have the facts clear, in the province of Quebec in the month of August the social assistance rolls dropped by 13,000. So when the hon. member says that nothing is being done to help them, we are investing.

I would remind him that just last summer we signed an agreement worth $80 million with the Government of Quebec to help people on social assistance, including young people, to get jobs, to get training, to get back in the market. That is something that did not happen under the previous administration, of which the hon. leader of the opposition was a member. We were able to do it. We were able to get an agreement and we are helping 25,000 Quebecers get back to work today because of that agreement.

Gun Control

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice minister.

On December 7, 1994, the minister, in response to my question in the House regarding consultation between the minister and the provinces on the gun legislation bill, said that "consultation was engaged in continuously with officials in the offices of every provincial and territorial attorney general-every one of them".

In light of the collective opposition of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and B.C., as revealed this summer, does the minister still stand by that answer?

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

Of course I do, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say that I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. I do not agree that all of the governments he has referred to are against the bill. Second, as I said last December, we engaged in continuous consultation with the officials of provincial governments as we went about preparing that legislation. The mere fact that some of them, for their own reasons, have found parts of the bill they do not agree with is no proof that consultation did not occur. It certainly did.