Debates of May 26th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the issue of employment insurance is raised, we get the impression that the minister lives on another planet.

He may keep saying that everyone loves his reform, the fact remains that three out of every four young people who are jobless do not qualify for employment insurance benefits.

Will the minister finally admit that, because of his reform, 75% of young Canadians who lose their jobs are left to fend for themselves?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, eligibility criteria for employment insurance may be tougher for young people.

However, we on this side of the House are not trying to make it easier for young people to collect employment insurance, but to ensure that they stay in school as long as possible, benefit from the youth employment strategy and have access to higher education and knowledge. We have greater ambitions for young Canadians.

The Bloc Quebecois basically wants us to encourage young people to leave school as early as possible by making it too easy to collect employment insurance. This would not be good for the future of young Canadians.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, such comments make no sense.

Will the minister admit that his system is ridiculous and is much too hard on young Canadians, given that only one in four is eligible for employment insurance? Can he not admit and understand that?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what young people need is not easy access to employment insurance. What they need are placements in businesses, community work, useful experience they can put on a CV to help them get a job. This is a sensible job strategy. It is a strategy of providing opportunities for access to knowledge and education so that people can improve their future and raise a family. This is what young people need, this is what they have told us, and it is what we are giving them.

The Environment

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the environment minister was asked about the state of Canada's environment: budget cuts, staff cuts, bad policies and devolution.

The committee report on CEPA enforcement and today's environment commissioner's report confirm that basic standards are not being met.

Will the minister continue to dismiss the facts and ignore the truth or will she admit today that there are insufficient resources for the environmental protection of this country?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government considers the two reports that have been tabled in the last 24 hours to be very important and ones that I will take very seriously.

It is very interesting that the Prime Minister's appointment of a commissioner for sustainable development has not resulted in the whitewash of this government's environmental program as was suggested by the opposition. The commissioner presents very important detail about my department. Some of it is already outdated because we have acted upon it.

But we will continue to review what he has to say and make necessary and important improvements to the environment for all Canadians and their environment.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Overall this government's environmental leadership got a failing grade from Canada's environmental watchdog. Canada is threatened by pollution. We will not meet our international obligations in climate change and our environmental assessment process is not working.

Does this failing grade reflect on the competence of the minister or is it a failure shared by the whole cabinet?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the important work that is accomplished by the people in my department. They work very competently and efficiently. We are fulfilling our obligations. We are absolutely committed to meeting our Kyoto protocol commitments.

We will continue to review everything that is said and look to improving our practices, but we are now doing a very good job on behalf of all Canadians.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, going into Kyoto the government was more interested in one-upping the Americans and greenhouse gas targets than on showing leadership, but the environment minister could not even accomplish that.

Now the commissioner for the environment has stated that there is no federal leadership on climate change and no targets to measure whether Canada is meeting commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Does the minister have any idea about how Canada will meet its Kyoto commitments?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the government is absolutely committed to achieving its Kyoto protocol commitments.

The Prime Minister has put in place a secretariat to assist the Minister of Natural Resources and me to lead on this initiative on behalf of all of Canada. We have a secretariat in place which is implementing a national or a federal strategy. We are working with all our partners, provinces, territories, business and industry, communities and individuals, and we will achieve our target.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the government will be waiting 18 months before it implements anything.

Canada's watchdog on the environment has said that the government does not have a workable plan to reduce greenhouse gases. He has also stated that the federal government has a responsibility to lead the nation in developing a realistic, broad based and cost effective response to climate change that minimizes any negative impact and maximizes any positive impact on Canada's economy.

Will the House ever see such a plan from the government?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share with my colleague the government's comprehensive plan on how we are working today with all partners to find the most cost effective way to reduce emissions and to achieve our commitments at Kyoto.

The government set aside $150 million to be used over three years to develop our plan, but that does not stop us from implementing measures right now, which is what we are doing.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government received its environmental report card today and it got an f . Regarding the Kyoto protocol on climate change the environment commissioner gave the government an f for lack of an implementation plan, an f for assigning targets, an f for designating responsibility and an f for accountability.

My question is very straightforward. Who in the government is willing to take the blame for this dismal failure?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, after our engagement at Rio in 1992 we have realized that we did not meet voluntary obligations we set for ourselves at that time.

We are in the company of many other developed nations in the world. That is why we went back to Kyoto and determined that we had to enter into legally binding obligations.

The commissioner's observations were made prior to our negotiation at Kyoto and prior to the action we have taken since then which has been very significant and will be successful.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has antagonized the provinces, has antagonized industry and has confused the public. The auditor general clearly states in his report that the Kyoto agreement is bound to fail because of government bungling.

Why did the minister go to Kyoto without a plan and then sign a protocol when she knew full well that the government had no intention of following through?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government is totally committed to reaching our objectives, our Kyoto commitments, but what is confusing is the stand of that party, the party that denies the science, the party that says we ought not to take any action, the party that today is not involved in working with all Canadians to help us meet our objectives.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we heard terrible stories about the disastrous results of the EI reform.

Take the case of Bertrand Duval, a seasonal government employee working 24 weeks a year. For years, employment insurance meant he had an income all year. Now, with the minister's reform, his family must live with no income for nine weeks a year.

Since he no longer has an employment insurance cheque for nine weeks of the year, what active measure does the minister suggest to Mr. Duval to help him with his problem?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we could mention the transitional job fund, which has created thousands of jobs in disadvantaged regions. We could mention targeted salary measures to help him find work.

We could tell this seasonal worker that, under our new hours-based system, whenever he works 42 or 45 hours, he can build up many more insurable hours and get EI more easily because he has not perhaps worked as long, but the number of hours means he has faster access.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the new system that has placed Mr. Duval in this situation. And his case is not unique.

For the 1994 reform, the Department of Human Resources Development estimated that there were about 800,000 individuals whose average benefit period would be shortened by seven weeks.

What would the minister do if he were in the same situation as Mr. Duval and the 800,000 other claimants?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, they are ignoring what I just said. I clearly demonstrated that seasonal workers with 45 and 50 hours in intensive weeks now have a better system to serve their needs.

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reports that more than 24,000 serious offences were committed by youth last year.

Does the justice minister think this is a minor offence she can justify sloughing off until next fall?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member means by his question. I do not think anybody is sloughing anything off.

I think the government has taken a very responsible approach to the renewal of the youth justice system. We tabled our response and I look forward to the constructive comments of the hon. member and others in the official opposition.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are the statistics that the justice minister has been sitting on for almost a year: 32 murders; 23 manslaughters; over 1,400 sexual assaults; 482 assaults on police officers; and more than 13,000 cases of break and enter, many into private dwellings, all in a single year.

Does the justice minister believe it is justifiable to slough off all these statistics and this situation until next fall?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that neither I nor the government has been sitting on the statistics to which the hon. member refers.

I also reassure the hon. member that in our government response we are proposing a renewal of the youth justice system that makes the exact distinction between violent and serious violent offenders and non-violent young offenders that Canadians want us to make.

Employment Insurance

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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

The minister goes on and on about his reform saying that workers in vulnerable situations benefit most from it.

How then does the minister explain the case of Monique Rainville, a UQAM teaching assistant, who in the past was eligible for unemployment insurance with a teaching load of only one course, and now, after the reform, is no longer eligible, even with two courses? This is a fine example of someone with a diploma, minister.