House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was work.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is unfortunate that we are limited in time. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke stated that the EI fund had been very well managed by the Liberal government. That is exactly what he said.

My opinion is that a $19 billion surplus which does not exist because it has been spent is atrocious management.

I wonder if the member for Guelph—Wellington would agree that misappropriation of $19 billion is very good management as stated by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party that wants to privatize the plan and that does not wish to help other individual across the country or even help its own citizens in the ridings it represents continually tries to look at the dark side. Reformers do not want to lift people up. They do not want to help their fellow human beings.

The Reform Party says that it wants us to be fiscally responsible. Nineteen billion dollars should be fiscally responsible, should it not?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was really wanted to speak today. I must also say that this is a sad moment, because the subject of the debate is not a happy one at home. Unemployment insurance is always a subject of sadness for us.

In the Atlantic region, as in my riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, many people are suffering as the result of cuts to EI made by our famous Liberal government.

As I keep saying, this is the government whose Prime Minister campaigned in my riding, making promise after promise, saying that he would scrap the GST, that he would make sure seasonal workers did not have to worry about managing to live in our regions. The people believed him. They elected him. And this is the thanks we get. We have not forgotten it.

There is a lot of sadness. As I said earlier, I got another call last night, from a woman who said “I think the employment centre has made a mistake. They did a calculation and included only the past six weeks, the money from the past six weeks, although I worked 26 weeks”. She ended up with just about nothing.

At the same time, we have Liberal members who say they are very proud of themselves, that there is a $20 billion surplus. They are proud of the way they managed the account, but they do not say a thing about the suffering there is everywhere.

More and more people are living in poverty. Mothers come to me and say “It's not just a problem for the seasonal workers. It's a community problem”. They have taken $927 million out of the New Brunswick economy since the cuts, and the government is as proud as punch of having done so.

We will not have the opportunity to see the Minister of Human Resources Development come to our region and face these problems. He does not have the gumption to do so, because he is not capable of looking the poverty and misery he has created in the face. He is not the one getting calls to his office. I am sure he is never there. In my opinion, he is not even aware of what is going on, three-quarters of the time.

I would really like to see him go to northern New Brunswick, to Kent and Albert County, to face the reality of employment insurance reform. The government has found the path to the pot of gold, and now it can boast it has paid off the deficit. Very proud of themselves they are, those Liberals. The only ones who should be proud are the workers. They are the ones who paid off the deficit. Nobody else.

We had the Prime Minister come to tell us he was going to “scrap the GST”. What was the outcome of that? An additional 15% on electricity bills, an additional 15% of workers on unemployment, an additional 15% on the cost of children's clothing, while employment insurance cheques are cut at the same time. Then people wonder why there is more violence in our communities. They blame it on the parents: broken homes, some other problem.

We know the source of the problems. They have been right in front of me for over a year. That is the problem.

I cannot imagine that members on the other side can say they are proud of the society they are creating. At home, in an area where there had never been a bank robbery, there were three in four days in the county of Kent. There was one in a store in Bouctouche last week. These things did not happen at all two years ago.

We used to have a program that had been established to share the wealth. Now we have another problem. Some children go to school hungry. Why? Their parents are poor. We do not find a poor child if his parents are not poor.

The government brags about that fact it has created many jobs. It never talks about the jobs that it has cut, the jobs that were lost, the jobs that will be lost with bank mergers. We do not hear about those things.

We do not hear about the women who were penalized. The Liberal member said a few moments ago that part time workers with three or four jobs now qualify for EI. That is good for urban areas, but it does not do much for rural communities where finding even one part time job is difficult. Those people pay EI premiums but never qualify, while the Liberals keep playing with numbers. Those people pay thousands and thousands of dollars in premiums, but they are not eligible. A distinction must be made.

And what about women who are no longer eligible for maternity benefits? Before the reform, they had to work 300 hours to be eligible. Now, they have to work 700 hours. What is good for women in that program? Nothing. Part time workers in education are also affected. Some of them no longer qualify. In the past, if they did not qualify, at least they did not have to contribute. Nowadays, they must contribute, but they do not qualify. The same goes for health care workers.

The famous dividing factor must also be discussed. They are saying: “Yes, people can qualify with 10 work weeks, as long as they have the required number of hours worked. People can qualify with six work weeks, as long as they have the required number of hours worked”. However, they forget to mention that, in their regions, the number is to be divided by 14. In other regions, it is divided by 18. And then the benefits will be calculated over 26 weeks.

I get calls from people who receive cheques for $32, $65 or $85, and I see Liberal members standing up to congratulate themselves.

I would be ashamed if I had approved a decision that caused so much misery. So many children hear their parents arguing at night about where they will find the money, the $2 they need to pay for their kid's lunch at school the next day. The members opposite never talk about this. No, because most of them are rich. They know nothing about being hungry. They need to learn what it is to be hungry.

I want to talk about Albert county. People in Albert county which is an hour's drive from Moncton need the same amount of hours as someone working in Moncton. They are down to 18 weeks for the benefit period. I have workers who will be out of employment insurance in January. Those are the workers who qualified. Many are not going to qualify at all because they need the same amount of hours as someone living in Moncton and the minister says this is good. We have proved to the minister a number of times that he is wrong. His arguments do not stand up. He needs to change it. A lot of people in Albert county are suffering because the Liberal government does not want to admit that it makes mistakes. It is making mistakes that are costing lives. How many people are committing suicide because of their difficulties?

We also have to talk about the unfair accusations of fraud because people make a mistake on the form. Even though the Canada employment centre has not paid them one penny, if they happen to not put the right amount on their form they will be charged with fraud. Someone explain that to me. This was drawn to my attention on Friday.

People opened a claim, did the waiting period, kept their claim open, reported their hours and earnings, reported an amount and the Canada employment centre did not give them an EI cheque. If there is a discrepancy, even though the government has not paid them a cent, they are accused of fraud and have to pay the difference between what they actually made and what they reported. It is armed robbery. That is attacking the unemployed, attacking honest people who could make a mistake. A lot of honest people are being accused of fraud. This has got to stop.

It is time to wake up. There is a lot of legislation out there. We have to wake up and show the Liberals that this cannot continue. There is just too much poverty.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just figured out why the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac got elected. She has become a seasoned speaker but, more importantly, she is a person who tells the truth, who describes what is going on in her region, who has heart and tells it like it is in this House.

There is a message in there for the Liberal majority. This member defeated Dominic LeBlanc, the son of the Governor General of Canada. In the neighbouring riding, Doug Young, the sponsor of this EI reform, was also defeated. I think these two men personify the Liberal Party's arrogance in the maritimes.

We will not rewrite history, but I would nonetheless call upon the members who will participate in the vote on this motion tonight or tomorrow to think it through, especially those living in high unemployment regions, as well as any member with constituents who, as a result of the small weeks program, receive ridiculously low benefits that are practically impossible to live on.

At the same time, they hear that there is a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund, that running the small weeks program costs between $100 million and $125 million a year, or 0.5% of this surplus, and that the government is responsible for the increased poverty across Canada. I think they get the message.

If they do not send a clear message to the contrary very soon, the Liberals will pay the political price, and deservedly so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Angela Vautour NDP Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be clear. The pilot project has to go on, and the legislation needs to be amended. If you think we have a poverty problem now, just imagine what it will be like if the government decides not to extend the pilot project.

Some people work part time all winter long. It is not true that these people all end up in the tavern drinking all winter long. That was what the Prime Minister said, and he was quite pleased with himself, when he came back here. These people work during the winter when they get a chance. If the pilot project disappears, these people will be penalized. I cannot understand a government that goes on stomping on people who are in dire straits. It is the only thing it can think of.

Keeping the pilot project alive is not enough. We also need a comprehensive review of the program. Some employers have come to realize this. They have started calling us on the phone and they tell us: “Employees are being penalized. I cannot hire workers anymore, and I do not blame them”. People are getting cheques as low as $65 right now. If the pilot project disappeared overnight, they would get big weekly cheques of $5.

I cannot believe we have to fight the government over this, because we have all the evidence we need. We are told to wait for the reports, to wait for the studies. Send the Minister of Human Resources Development to our region, and he will get his report.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that everybody in the country could listen to that. Then they could understand exactly what goes on when we fool around with the EI concerns.

First of all I would like to bring greetings from the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who unfortunately could not be here today.

It appears that this motion at the outset seems to be an act of desperation. Because of all the changes to the EI legislation since the Liberals got into power, this is the kind of motion one has to figure out.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sorry for interrupting but I first needed to be assured that both the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore were splitting their time. I thought that had been made clear but I was not sure.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the debate the Minister of Human Resources Development said that he has not yet come up with a decision about the issue, but it is only three weeks away. We need a decision within three weeks. I should remind the House that one of those weeks we will not be here.

I have a feeling that typically, like the government did with the TAGS program, it will announce the program when we are not in the House to debate it properly. This is where things should be debated, in the House right here in Ottawa.

I want to talk about the Reform Party for just a moment. Every time we talk about EI concerns or anything of that nature, Reformers very quickly switch the debate to tax breaks but not once do we hear them talk about a reduction of the GST-HST. All they wish to talk about is taking EI funds from workers and employers so their corporate friends can enjoy further tax breaks. They want to take that money from workers and employers.

The remarkable thing is that the Reform Party constantly talks about Atlantic Canada as if it were a basket case. I am from Atlantic Canada and it is not a basket case. The fact is we have some very serious problems. We have some very serious concerns, but as everyone knows after the Swissair disaster, Atlantic Canadians and especially Nova Scotians are some of the finest people in the entire country. Atlantic Canada is not a basket case.

Shortly after the last EI reductions were brought in last year by the finance minister and the human resources minister, I think to the tune of $1.4 billion, the finance minister went to Halifax to speak to the chamber of commerce. They said that he had not reduced it enough and that he should have given them a further reduction in EI premiums. The finance minister in his wisdom said “If I reduce it another 20 cents, how many jobs would you people create tomorrow?” The entire chamber of commerce was silent. They could not guarantee one extra job if the EI premiums were reduced another 20 cents. They could not do it. Yet the Reform Party stands here with its right wing policies and says that if EI premiums were reduced, all these jobs would be created.

I would like to tell the Reform Party that if it wants to give tax breaks to people, then reduce the GST and the HST. That would be the biggest job creator for every single Canadian in this country from coast to coast to coast.

We never hear Reform Party members talk about reports or objective concerns from labour. They never discuss the concerns that come out of the CLC, the CAW, the PSAC or the FFAW.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am very sorry to interrupt, but the time has expired.

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

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

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on an issue of grave importance to my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and, in particular, Guysborough county.

It is an issue that I have vigorously pursued with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans through personal interventions, correspondence and, as well, through statements and questions in this House.

The issue is this Liberal government's continued refusal to work with the fishery workers in communities such as Canso and Mulgrave to ensure that these communities remain economically viable.

Although the government's treatment of Mulgrave and ACS Trading has been extremely disgraceful, I am going to focus my comments tonight on the community of Canso and, in particular, on the efforts of the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op which has been championed by Pat Fougere.

This is an extremely timely adjournment debate because this coming Saturday there is a large public meeting taking place in Canso on the future of the fishery in that community.

Canso is the birthplace of the modern era fishing industry. I say this out of respect for our First Nations fishermen. Since 1504 when Basque sailors first set up camp on Nova Scotia's shores, Canso has been known as the hub of the commercial fishery.

In more recent years, despite the overall downturn trend in the Atlantic fishery, the Seafreez company has been operating a processing plant in Canso in which a number of species are utilized.

I am pleased to highlight that it was through the efforts of former Progressive Conservative governments, both federally and provincially, that Seafreez commenced operations in Canso.

To cut right to the chase, the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op has developed a proposal in conjunction with Seafreez to catch an additional 2,200 tonnes of northern shrimp out of the additional 7,000 that the Government of Canada was planning to allocate this spring.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans denied the application from Canso, as he did for three similar applications from Nova Scotia ridings, including the riding of Bras d'Or. The minister's trite answer at that time was “The fish come first”.

While nobody would take away from the importance of conservation, least of all the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op, the fact is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to allocate every single additional tonne of northern shrimp quota to Newfoundland and Labrador, pitting two regions in the country against one another.

Nothing was given to Nova Scotia. Nothing was given to a community that has nearly 500 years of tradition at stake within the fisheries. So much for Liberal fisheries policy that is based on fairness and equity.

I do not know whether fish actually come first with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but I do know who comes last with this minister and that is the people of Nova Scotia and, most notably, those of Canso.

The Canso Trawlermen's Co-op has made more than 50 requests to meet personally with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. They want to advance their cause. They want to put a face to the disastrous consequences of the minister's decision. They even travelled all the way from Canso to Ottawa so they would have a chance to meet with the minister, but did not get a chance to meet with him.

Did he have the courage to meet with them face to face? No. I have repeatedly urged the minister to meet with them in Canso and again his answer has been no. Even the premier of Nova Scotia, a former colleague of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has asked the minister to meet with the co-op. Again his answer was no.

It is further proof that the current premier of Nova Scotia has no clout with his former Liberal friends and is therefore of no great use or advantage to Nova Scotia.

Who does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans think he is when he will not show the decency to meet with hard-working people like those from Canso? Pat Fougere of the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op said that the minister demonstrated complete disrespect for the area's fishermen and that he must take responsibility for the slow death of the fishing community in Canso.

Pat Fougere is absolutely right.

As I said, there will be a meeting in Canso on November 1. Members of the provincial government, representatives of DFO and other community leaders will be present. I urge and challenge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have the courage and the guts to show up at that meeting and tell these people to their faces what their future will be if his decisions are not changed in the near future.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I am aware and I fully understand the concerns of some Nova Scotia communities with respect to their lack of fishing opportunities. However, this is not just a Nova Scotia phenomenon. Every year DFO receives many requests for access to various fisheries from people in similar situations. The total allowable catch, TAC, increases in the northern shrimp fishery announced in May 1998 were allocated according to principles which were developed for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stakeholders, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec to ensure that the benefits of the fishery were shared in as fair and open manner as possible.

As one of these principles is that those adjacent to the resource will have priority in fishing the resource, new entrants from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. were not included in the temporary sharing of northern shrimp. Nova Scotian interests received a share of the increase through existing licences held by Nova Scotian companies, which represent two and a half licences out of seventeen. The existing licence holders received 90% of the increase off northern Labrador and 10% of the increase off eastern Newfoundland.

Fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, northern Quebec and the lower north shore of Quebec benefited from the increase. In addition, those who received temporary access in 1997 received the same level of quota in 1998. The traditional offshore fleet also shared in the quota increases.

Following the May 15th announcement, DFO approved temporary sharing of the gulf shrimp and Scotian shelf shrimp resources with fishermen in Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec. The sharing in these fisheries was also consistent with the principle of adjacency, with access based on the department's sector management policy which governs the access of inshore vessels.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1998, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question. He answered that there were ongoing negotiations about the millennium scholarships. In particular, he said, and I quote:

We are trying to arrive at an agreement to co-operate with the provincial government, and our negotiations are continuing.

We know today that all that was simply a smoke screen, and that the federal government, at the urging of the Prime Minister, had decided that the millennium scholarships would be established in spite of the opposition: against the wishes of the Quebec government, against the wishes of the Quebec student federations, against the wishes of the Canadian student and university federations, which today still ask that they be turned into something else.

Two and a half billion dollars were set aside for the millennium scholarships. Quebec's share is thus some $600 million. At the same time, transfers to the provinces were cut.

Quebec has the best student loans and scholarships system in Canada. That is recognised by all the players. In fact, it is the only system where scholarships are given based on financial need. There are also loans that are provided based on financial need.

As for the Canadian system, it provided loans only. This has created a much higher debt load for Canadian students. In Quebec, there is a consensus that this $600 million should be reinvested in the system.

Of course, Mr. Charest came and softened the position of the Liberal Party of Quebec. As we know, Mr. Charest does not have any constitutional demands. He has no demands for Ottawa. Besides, the Prime Minister told him so very clearly.

Saturday, the Prime Minister of Canada put it back in his face, saying “What do you think Quebec needs? My allied in Quebec, Mr. Charest, tells me he needs nothing.” That is a problem we face.

But everyone in Quebec still wants this money to be returned to Quebeckers, to the Government of Quebec so that it can invest it in accordance with its priorities.

Out of this $600 million, Quebec could invest $20 million in the Lower St. Lawrence region that I represent. We could use the $20 million to better purpose in our schools, in our colleges, by allowing them to offer professional options better suited to the new economy, to offer agricultural programs on new production methods, on all sorts of very important sectors.

The millennium scholarships program is probably the measure that shows most clearly the government's centralising approach, but we still hope to see the government back down, and give the money back to the provinces, which are the real experts in education.

Is it possible to make the government see reason, to make it reverse its decision and give the money back to Quebec, thus allowing Quebec's educational institutions and students to redistribute the money in accordance with their needs and not to use the money for scholarships based on merit that nobody wants in Quebec?

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Guelph—Wellington Ontario

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to comments made last May by the member opposite on the millennium scholarships.

My colleague raised comments made at the time by the three largest employer organizations in Quebec on the scholarships and on the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec.

The Government of Canada recognizes that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We are not interested in stepping into provincial jurisdiction in terms of education. What we believe strongly about is helping Canadians have proper access to the good education and the knowledge provided by the provinces. That is why we introduced the millennium scholarships. We have always stated that the enabling legislation offers all the flexibility needed to meet much of what Quebec wants.

The millennium scholarships will be managed and delivered by an independent foundation that will work closely with the provinces to establish criteria and to avoid duplication with what the provinces are already delivering.

The foundation will be undertaking consultations over the next few months with the provinces and the educational community to increase access to post-secondary education everywhere in Canada for low and middle income Canadians in a manner that avoids duplication and builds on existing provincial programs and processes. This makes good sense for students, for the provinces and for Canada.

Quebeckers should feel confident that the millennium scholarship foundation will act responsibly and will work with all the provinces in a way that will avoid duplication with provincial systems. Jean Monty, the president of the foundation, is a well respected and responsible individual. We are confident he will work well with all provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, to ensure students have better access to education provided by the provinces.

The foundation will make every effort to establish the millennium scholarships in a manner that respects the needs of each province, including Quebec.

I urge the hon. member to recognize that both orders of governments have a role to play to increase the equality of opportuntiy for Canada's young people. Through partnerships we can achieve results which are beneficial to all Canadians, each and every one of us.

The millennium scholarships are not about jurisdiction. Rather, they represent Canada's unique way of celebrating a new millennium by investing in all Canadians and their future.

SupplyAdjournment Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

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

(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)