Debates of Nov. 19th, 1997

Child Benefit

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that things are not as simple as he puts them. There has been much discussion in this House on this issue. Despite what the hon. member said, we are on the record as saying this is a serious issue and we are taking it very seriously. The minister will be taking it up with her provincial counterparts.

I remind the hon. member, as a member of the justice committee, that the justice committee has already stated that we will be dealing with the issue of drinking and driving as well as with the issue of victims rights.

This debate shows that it is obvious that impaired driving is a problem we dearly want to see resolved, whatever our political persuasion. Although members do not all agree on the best solutions to this problem, they all share the same goal, which is to reduce the number of cases of impaired driving.

Recent statistics from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics were released yesterday. The rate of persons charged with impaired driving in 1996 went down by 7% from what it was the previous year. The 1996 rate showed a marked decrease of 47% compared with the 1986 rate. That does not mean we are proud of these statistics or that we should all say the problem has been solved, but contrary to the statistics mentioned by the hon. member, these recently released statistics indicate the rate of persons charged with impaired driving has gone down. For 1996 all the jurisdictions in Canada reported a decrease in the rate of persons charged with impaired driving.

The centre stated that in looking at the adult court survey data included in the Juristat that unlike other offences under the Criminal Code, persons charged with impaired driving are more likely to be found guilty.

The minister is very committed to bringing forth some solutions to this problem. She will be—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. The member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, I reminded the Minister of Human Resources Development that 300 miners in Black Lake had lost their jobs, that their average age was 52, that the region is suffering high unemployment, and that these workers were calling for a modified POWA program.

Louise Harel in Quebec is in agreement. Jean Dupéré, the president of Lab Chrysotile, is in agreement. Only our Minister of Human Resources Development in Ottawa is refusing to budge.

The minister should sit down and take a serious look at the issue of these men from the BC mine in Black Lake. Black Lake is four kilometres from Thetford, and the small a asbestos region is not the same as the large A Asbestos region. The guys from the BC mine are not workers from British Columbia, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation claims.

Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development himself not reply to our questions regarding the creation of a modified POWA program for the workers of the BC mine? The department is completely adrift.

All the big shots in the Liberal Party are getting involved: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation, and tonight, the reply will probably come from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

That is why they think the BC Mine workers are from British Columbia and that is also why the minister himself is wrong in portraying the city of Asbestos as the capital of the asbestos industry.

The minister should leave the war veterans aside and take care of the BC Mine veterans. Furthermore, he should address the issue of cooperation between Quebec and Canada instead of letting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation stumble in his place.

The people in the Black Lake region would be better served if cabinet knew that Black Lake is not Asbestos and that the BC Mine is in Black Lake and not in British Columbia.

Most of these workers are over 50 and they are entitled to a modified POWA because, on March 7, 1996, an application to that effect was submitted to the Minister of Human Resources Development; furthermore, the program must be modified because Jean Dupéré is ready to make his own contribution to this POWA.

So I am very eager to hear the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, despite the fact that he is not here, is sensitive, open and always willing to listen to Canadians.

As we have previously indicated, the government recognizes difficulties experienced by Canadians who lose their jobs, particularly those affected by the closing of the mine in Black Lake, in the hon. member's riding. However, this layoff cannot be considered under the program for older workers adjustment.

The POWA ended last March because, among other things, it was not fair and equitable to all older workers in Quebec and Canada. The program was offered only in some provinces. The Government of Canada assumed 70% of the cost and the provinces 30%. There were so many restrictions to the program that a good number of older workers simply could not qualify.

The government generously offered almost $3 million to help the miners at the British Canadian miner re-enter the workforce. The Department of Human Resources Development went from passive income support to proactive measures in order to help workers re-enter the workforce. Provinces also worked along that line.

The employer has always indicated its willingness to help workers. The Government of Quebec is prepared to pay its 30% share of a program which no longer exists because of its inequities.

Our government wants to work in co-operation with the company and the province of Quebec for the benefit of Quebec workers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)