Debates of Dec. 8th, 1998

Energy Efficiency Strategy

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have already asked a question in the House on this issue concerning women in my region.

They have crewed for their husbands for the past 8 years and have always qualified for employment insurance. In recent weeks, the Department of Human Resources Development has refused employment insurance benefits to 40 of these women because of the arm's length provisions.

There is cause for concern about the way the Department of Human Resources Development interprets the arm's length provisions when it comes to people working for a family member.

As I said, these women have fished for their husbands for eight years. They got up at 4 in the morning, and put in their day of fishing, for 8 years. Suddenly the government decided to look into the situation and said “This is a matter of arm's length”. It was the same last year, and the year before that. Then they ask them to repay $15,000 or $20,000.

Even today I asked a question in the House, during Oral Question Period. The government keeps giving us the same answer, that 78% of Canadian workers qualify for employment insurance. In the House they say things that are not true.

It is not true for the simple reason that only 38% of people paying into employment insurance qualify for it. That is unfair. That is why when I asked my question I had asked whether the government had something against women. Is this now discrimination against women?

They not only checked women married to fishermen, but the daughters of fishermen in certain cases. They did not check boys, sons working for their fathers. Why do it for a daughter working for her father? Why only the daughter or the mother?

This does not only occur in New Brunswick. In the Magdalen Islands, a lot of women work with their husbands. I find it really discriminatory to take it out on women the way they did. Even the investigators were saying it is a matter of time. Very soon, not one woman working for her husband now will get employment insurance.

Fishing is essentially a family business. Is the department telling fishermen they do not have the right to hire their wives?

I find the way the government is going after these people completely intolerable. They get up at 4 a.m. and head out fishing. They stay out until 2, 3 or 4 p.m., and fishing is not easy.

There is one investigator who told a woman that she had not been out fishing on the morning in question, but never went to talk with her at the time. How could he know whether it was a woman or a man under all that fishing gear? How can they base a decision on someone telephoning them to say that the woman had not been out fishing, or whatever, without any proof?

The government should conduct another investigation and allow these women to collect EI.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important question. He has basically made the allegation that the Department of Human Resources Development Canada is discriminating against women, specifically in the choices it makes during the evaluation of eligibility for employment insurance benefits.

The people involved in the member's concerns are a group of women who participated in the fishing industry in various forms. They basically came to the hon. member with what I would call a serious complaint. They felt that they were not receiving due process.

It may be worth pointing out that the people in question received what appears to be due process in that the Department of Human Resources Development Canada received complaints from members of the community in which the hon. member is actually a resident himself. When there is an allegation that a person may not be fulfilling the requirements under the arm's length provisions of the employment insurance eligibility criteria, the department has a responsibility to review it. It is quite often referred to Revenue Canada for investigation.

Departmental notes show that under these circumstances the evidence did not indicate that there was full compliance with the requirements for insurable earnings. Again, these allegations of abuse came from the community members themselves. They were not generated by departmental officials per se, but in many instances came from the community.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only four minutes in which to speak about the aberrations of the employment insurance fund, in particular the aberrant responses of the Minister of Human Resources Development. That is far from enough.

Last October 20, I asked him how he was going to improve the program. I also asked whether he was going to allow the Minister of Finance to dip into the employment insurance fund. I am sure he had given some thought to the response he gave us, because the Minister of Human Resources Development is a great thinker, such a thinker that he does not meet our expectations. He does not act. I am certain that his inaction is evidence of his refusal to budge on the issue of the employment insurance fund surplus.

His reply to me was that this new “employment insurance lite” met the needs of the unemployed. He also told me that those who were not covered are those for whom the program was not intended, people who have not worked and therefore have not contributed.

According to Statistics Canada, 38% of the unemployed received employment insurance in 1997. On the other hand, the Minister of Human Resources Development's magic figure is 78%, that 78% of those who have lost their jobs are eligible now.

Looking at the table of employment insurance coverage, we can see that some people are excluded. One hundred thousand are excluded because they left their jobs without valid grounds. The only reason that is accepted is sexual harassment, and even that has to be proved.

A total of 142,000 people are excluded because they do not meet the eligibility requirements and another 35,000 have exhausted their benefits.

We know that many people are disqualified because of the tougher criteria.

So, all the while, there is $20 billion building up in the EI fund. The government is quite happy to dip into this fund but, at the same time, it wants to give the rich greater tax breaks.

What we are asking is that the system be improved. The Minister of Human Resources Development has been boasting about the millions of dollars he is putting into two programs. He keeps telling us how wonderful the transitional jobs fund and the youth employment strategy are.

He has invested only $300 million over three years in the transitional jobs fund and another $150 million over three years, compared to the billions that are being taken from the employment insurance fund. It is shameful. That is what the great generosity of the Minister of Finance boils down to. We know very well there is a flow between the consolidated fund and the employment insurance fund.

I suggest to the Minister of Human Resources Development that he step down from his limousine and visit the ridings that are affected by employment insurance. He will discover the welcome is not so warm and his answers to our questions are insignificant and insipid.

He is also telling us the Bloc Quebecois wants people to be unemployed. When we were defending economic issues in order to keep jobs in the Quebec City area, such as Quebec 2010, the Quebec-Nova Scotia gas pipeline and the cruise ship casinos, did we hear from this minister?

We did it to protect jobs in the region, not to make people unemployed, as the minister says in his senseless answers. I could provide a few other examples, such as the shipping policy, MIL Davie, where the government showed up too late. I could have used four minutes more.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I think if we had 40 more minutes there probably would not be too many more new ideas coming forward from the Bloc. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly tried to mix and match figures to suit their particular purposes when it comes to discussing this particular issue. They have not wanted to look at the true facts.

The Bloc Quebecois fails to mention that the recent analysis on EI coverage clearly concludes that the EI program is indeed meeting its key objective of providing temporary income support between jobs to workers in Canada. It concludes that about 78% of the unemployed who lost their jobs or quit with just cause were indeed eligible in 1997; not 43% or 42% as alleged by members opposite, but indeed 78%.

The employment insurance system is a major tool to help unemployed Canadians, but it is just that. It is a tool. Contrary to what the Bloc and the opposition insists, employment insurance is not a panacea and is not for all unemployed Canadians who are not automatically covered. For example, people who are not entitled to EI are people who have never worked, people who have quit their job to go back to school, or people who are self-employed and do not pay EI premiums.

What the Bloc has consistently failed to mention is that in addition to the significant measures under the EI program to help put Canadians back to work who are indeed eligible for this particular insurance, the Government of Canada is also providing additional benefits and support through the youth employment strategy, through the Canadian opportunities strategy, through the transitional jobs fund, through the post-TAGS program in many areas of Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé of Quebec, and indeed active employment measures through the Part II funds of the Employment Insurance Act, as well as the new hires program.

What members have failed to mention is that we are putting $1.1 billion in employment insurance premiums back in—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked on October 23 the following question and did not receive an answer. I asked:

The APEC issue is about the constitutional rights of Canadians; the right to speak out against injustice, the right not to be arrested for only political purposes, and the right to fair process before a tribunal. These things have all been suspended by the government. Now the fix appears to be in and the commission has been adjourned to November 16. We do not know where this is going to go. We need a judicial inquiry to clean up this mess. What will the government do to restore the constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?

Most Canadians are very familiar with the ongoing saga of the APEC inquiry. The inquiry has been a sham since the outset, and today we know that the inquiry is in complete disrepute.

Reform is asking for an independent judicial inquiry and Canadians agree. The only group that disagrees are the Liberals and perhaps they are too afraid of what might be uncovered at such an inquiry.

The students who protested at the Pacific Rim summit of APEC leaders had every right under the charter of rights to do so. This was the premise of my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The constitutional right of Canadians was suspended so the Prime Minister would not be embarrassed.

No place in the charter of rights and freedoms does it state that the rights of the prime minister supersede the rights of ordinary citizens. In fact the charter is mainly there to restrain governments.

The Deputy Prime Minister in his response to me outlined that I should have praised the Prime Minister for his part in establishing the charter of rights and freedoms. If the Deputy Prime Minister is so proud of the charter, perhaps he might want to go the next step and actually honour it, live by it, not just when it is convenient.

Section 2(b) of the charter speaks of freedom of expression. It guarantees that everyone has the right to express thoughts orally or through writing or through pictures. If the government restricts these thoughts it is trenching upon the guarantee. Many students had their banners torn down because the content was not in support of Suharto.

Section 2(c) of the charter speaks of freedom of assembly. The rights of an accused cannot be restricted on a speculative concern of danger. With the fear of something going wrong the RCMP used clean-up tactics the day before the motorcade event. This type of practice is commonplace in some other APEC countries but should not happen in Canada according to the law but apparently not Liberal law.

Section 9 of the charter says everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Law student Craig Jones was tackled, arrested and imprisoned for holding up a sign that said “free speech, democracy and human rights”. It almost seems that every section of the charter was overridden to save the Prime Minister from embarrassment.

When the RCMP went in to deal with these protesters the charter of rights was tossed out the window. Whether or not the Prime Minister gave the directive is a question Canadians hope will be answered in an independent judicial inquiry. However, the Prime Minister has always supported the action taken by the RCMP and because of this support has told Canadians that he is above the law and the charter.

Let me remind the government member who will be answering on behalf of the government that Canadians are interested in the truth. They want to know that the charter of rights works for them, not against them. Canadians want to know that they are able to speak their mind on any political issue without suffering punishment. If the government is so proud of the charter then it should prove to the House that it works and prove that the students in Vancouver had the charter on their side.

The question remains: What will the government do to restore the constitutional rights of Canadians that it has tossed aside?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the charter also protects parliament and the operations of parliament. Quite frankly the public complaints commission was enacted and brought into being by an act of parliament.

The allegations that are constantly being brought forward by this member and members of his party do not reflect the fact that a specific complaint was lodged against a specific police force. There is an act of parliament which governs, enshrines and protects the laws of Canada. It has been brought into force to review the particular complaint in that situation.

We are asking, and I am quite confident we have the backing of all Canadians, to let the commission do its work. That is a very simple request. It is within the scope and the purview of parliament. It has been enacted by parliament. It operates at arm's length from the government. We have no active role. That is all we are asking for, to answer to the specific complaints and the specific allegations.

The posturing, the rhetoric and the ill conceived political grandstanding that have been constantly the trademark of the particular party across the way cannot interfere with the due process that must proceed and should proceed. The process was formulated by parliament in a non-partisan way. It was voted upon and enacted by parliament and should be outside the purview of parliament. It should proceed on its own merit and in its own way.

I simply ask for due process and justice to let the matter proceed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 8.02 p.m.)