Debates of Nov. 17th, 1999

Speech From The Throne

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 53

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That the address be engrossed and presented to Their Excellencies the Governors General by Mr. Speaker.

(Motion agreed to)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 1999, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a question concerning a Labour Congress study that confirmed what we have known for a long time.

Women are penalized by the employment insurance reform. Ultimately, children are also penalized. In her answer, the minister ignored the substance of my question and spouted statistics, which proves clearly that the Liberal government does not care at all about women's needs.

The employment insurance plan designed by the Liberal government completely ignores the real conditions on the labour market. It is designed for men who have been working full time throughout their life.

It is about time the government woke up and realized that we are not in the 1950s anymore. Women are now on the labour market and they deserve protection under the EI plan.

The current labour market also includes a substantial number of workers in seasonal industries. The Liberal government scorns these workers. It blames unemployment on the unemployed.

It is not the fault of the workers if they cannot fish under the ice or exceed lumber quotas. The government should assume its responsibilities and invest in an infrastructure program to try to diversify these local economies.

Besides women and seasonal workers, the employment insurance program is also ignoring self-employed and part-time workers.

Instead of hiding behind statistics, the Minister of Human Resources Development should realize what is really going on in the labour market and set up an employment insurance program that really meets the needs of all workers.

The employment insurance program is at a critical point. With only one third of the jobless eligible for benefits, we are obviously dealing with a crisis.

Do the Liberals opposite not realize that their policies have real consequences and that poverty and the popularity of food banks are increasing because of the changes they made to the EI program?

There is a $26 billion surplus in the EI fund. The Liberals are refusing to help workers, but not because they are out of money. They are refusing to meet the needs of the workers because they want to protect the interests of their bank buddies.

Enough is enough. The government should stop making the jobless feel guilty or feel like they are criminals and change the EI system to ensure that it is in sync with the realities of today's labour market.

Canadian workers contribute to the employment insurance fund and they should get benefits when they lose their jobs. After all, the reason we have an employment insurance program is to help workers when they are out of work.

I hope the Minister of Human Resources Development and her officials will really take note of what I said, will follow up on the issue that I raised and will amend the employment insurance program, so as to meet the needs of workers and, above all, eliminate child poverty in this country.

As we saw today on Parliament Hill, there is an increasing number of poor. This is why they came to Ottawa to protest. The changes made to employment insurance have even generated a 10% increase in the number of people going to food banks.

The Liberal government claims to be a responsible government. But a responsible government should take concrete action to eliminate poverty. This is absolutely not what this government is doing. The government must act now.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is recognized throughout the world for its quality of life. We are committed to helping Canadian families, as the government said it would in the Speech from the Throne and in the Prime Minister's speech.

The government made a commitment to introduce legislation in this parliament to redesign parental benefits. We are extending employment insurance maternity and parental benefits from the current maximum of six months to one full year. We are making these benefits more flexible to meet the different needs of families. We are also making these benefits more accessible by increasing the number of parents eligible for support.

Presently there are several features of the EI program that are important for women. Through EI reform, every hour of work is covered and women working part time or holding multiple jobs can now be eligible for both EI regular and special benefits.

It is encouraging to see that maternity claims have remained virtually unchanged and that the duration of these benefits has remained the same. This is despite the fact that between 1995-96 and 1997-98 the birthrate has gone down by 4.6%. Prior to EI reforms, no women working part time were eligible for EI, let alone maternity benefits.

We also know that two-thirds of those who receive the most generous family supplement are women. Fifty-eight per cent of those participating in the small weeks adjustment projects, which provide workers in high unemployment regions with higher benefits, are women. The reach back provision for the active employment measures expands eligibility for women, providing increased help for stay at home mothers to get back to the workforce.

We also have a number of initiatives outside EI aimed at helping women enter or re-enter the workforce. These initiatives include: projects to promote the self-sufficiency of lone parents, 80% of whom are women; grants to help women pursue higher education; and programs focused on helping young women at risk. Two programs, the legislated employment equity program and the federal contractors program, were introduced to ensure that women have equal access to employment opportunities.

Canadian women have made major gains on the labour market. They now account for close to half of our manpower, compared to only 30% in 1966. Over the past four decades, the employment rate has increased more rapidly for women than for men. In the last 20 years, that rate has been the highest among G-7 countries.

In 1998, women of all ages had lower unemployment rates than men, and in October 1999, adult women had their lowest unemployment rate since 1975, 5.8%.

Women are getting better access to knowledge based jobs. In fact, women are enrolling in university at a much higher rate than men. Over 13% of women between 18 and 29 years of age were enrolled in university in 1997 compared to about 11% of young men. The number of women with post-secondary education is rising rapidly. In 1998, 28% of working women had a university degree, up from 22% in 1990. Despite this—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am very sorry but the parliamentary secretary had two minutes to respond and her time has run out.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for one more minute.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary has asked for one more minute. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will be worth it if they listen.

Despite this positive news, we want to be sure that women in the workforce are provided with proper support systems. That is why we are examining the issues of accessibility to the EI program for women.

As part of EI reform, we have put in place a monitoring and assessment system. Every year we receive information about how the system is working. We are looking forward to receiving this year's monitoring and assessment report to get a better understanding of how the EI program is working.

We are committed to making sure that EI is fair and accessible to all women.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, public life, especially work as a member of parliament, has its exhilarating and rewarding moments occasionally, but most of the time there is a real sense of frustration, especially when we are unable to mobilize public resources in the interests of the public good.

Tonight is one of those occasions as I revisit the issue of youth smoking. As we deal with this issue, I am certainly faced with one of those moments of very deep frustration and anger.

Since my question on October 25 on tobacco taxation, the Liberal government has blown another opportunity to strike a significant blow against youth smoking and as a result the health and lives of more Canadians will be sacrificed.

The government cut taxes on tobacco in 1994 in response to the smuggling crisis. At the same time, it promised to launch a major campaign against youth smoking. More young people are smoking today, and on top of it all, tobacco profits continue to rise.

Statistically we know that the trend to non-smoking dropped off immediately in provinces where taxes were cut in 1994. The differential over the last eight years is 24% where there were no cuts and 8% where there were cuts. In young adults, smoking rates have rebounded to pre-1989 levels.

It is bewildering as I try to conceive of what it will take or what we can do or say tonight to prompt the government and the health minister to take action.

We have heard from the scientific community that youth smoking carries the severest of all tobacco's health consequences and that youth smoking sets up the most difficult problems to overcome. We know internationally that there are health organizations and also, of course, the World Bank that endorses high tobacco taxes as a weapon against youth smoking.

We know that stable high prices in neighbouring states mean a significant tax hike here will not trigger renewed smuggling. We also have Canada's leading health groups on tobacco unanimously calling for a significant $10 federal-provincial increase in tobacco taxes.

We should all commend the work of those groups: the Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada and the Quebec Coalition for Tobacco control.

What does the government, which claims to be committed to ending youth smoking, do? It raises taxes 60 cents. There is no logical reason and no obstacle standing in the government's way from introducing significant enough tax increases to make a difference, significant enough to discourage young Canadians from needlessly endangering their health. Instead, what does the government do? It chooses to talk the talk but do nothing.

In closing, let me remind members opposite and the government that it is not only tobacco taxes that we are talking about. We are talking about the government's cave-in on tobacco sponsorship legislation. We are talking about the government's obstacles to and blockage of Bill S-13. It promised to bring it back in some form, but it is not here. It is buried somewhere in some Liberal caucus committee.

We are talking about the government's refusal to call the tobacco companies to task for the kind of health care costs that we are incurring as a society because of tobacco advertising and because they are pushing tobacco products on young people. We are talking about the government's commitment to spend $100 million on tobacco cessation and smoking prevention and barely a fraction of that has been spent today.

Today I call on the minister once more to take some action. I say to the government that it is not too late. Act now for the sake of our young people and for the health of our nation.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned about smoking by young people. That is in fact the key reason why it has continued to increase tobacco taxes on a regular basis.

Since the implementation of the government's anti-smuggling initiative, in 1994, the federal government and the participating provinces—Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island—have been working together to jointly increase taxes on tobacco.

The tobacco tax increase announced in the House on November 5 was the fourth such increase since 1994. In total, taxes on cigarettes have been increased by $4.40 per carton in Ontario, $5.00 per carton in Quebec, $3.40 in New Brunswick, $3.80 in Nova Scotia, and $5.80 in Prince Edward Island.

We will continue to work with the provinces and enforcement agencies to implement increases in tobacco taxes in a manner that will minimize the risk of renewed contraband activity.

In addition to these tobacco tax increases, the Minister of Health has indicated that the government will intensify its efforts to reduce smoking, particularly by younger Canadians, through tough anti-tobacco advertising and upcoming labelling and information reporting regulations.

These initiatives demonstrate the government's concern with smoking and its resolve to take steps to discourage smoking by young Canadians.

[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 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.08 p.m.)