Debates of Oct. 19th, 2000

Employment Insurance Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to what my colleague said. He should understand this because he is dealing with some people who are quite impoverished. Under Bill C-44, people who are making between $48,000 and $115,000 a year can still collect EI benefits.

[An hon. member]

Why not?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Why not? Because what is happening is that the government is getting money from all workers, from people who are making $25,000 and people who are making $125,000 a year.

We do not think it is fair to give EI benefits to somebody making $48,000 a year, $60,000 a year or $100,000 a year.

What we are in favour of is for those people who have unexpected, unavoidable job loss that this EI program provide income supplementation so that they can be taken care of when they are unemployed until such time as they can get their job back.

I say to any colleague in the House who can stand and look face to face with somebody making $18,000 a year and tell them that they are paying money for somebody that is making $100,000 a year, good luck to you because I do not think that is moral in any way, shape or form.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting here with the Reform Party is that they keep calling it a temporary unexpected job loss. He is saying they want something there for someone that has an unexpected temporary job loss.

A seasonal worker knows every year they are getting laid off, so what he is really saying is that his government would not have an EI program for seasonal workers because it is an expected job loss. It is a seasonal job.

The Reform Party is very clear. They would destroy the EI program. He can go to Acadie—Bathurst and he can come to Beausejour—Petitcodiac with his leader and it is clear he would destroy the EI program and have those people suffer every winter. Can he answer that?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member to go back to her riding and speak to some fisherman who is making $20,000 a year with dirt under his fingernails, who is trying to put food on the table for his children, macaroni and cheese, and say to him “No, we are going to allow you to pay money to give to somebody who is making $48,000 a year.” I challenge the member to do that.

We are all in favour of helping those who cannot help themselves. We are in favour of an EI program that works to help those people who have become unemployed. Yes, we are in favour of those people who are seasonal workers receiving EI money, but we believe they can do better. We want to work with them to not only give them seasonal employment, but employment 365 days of the year if they want it.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

I rise to speak today with great regrets and much animosity toward this government. After four years of harsh cuts to the employment insurance program, which I still call unemployment insurance, the government has finally decided to soften its policy and hand out some goodies. Yesterday, with its mini-budget, it has handed out some goodies: caviar to those with more than $250,000, peanuts to the middle class. To the least advantaged it has said “Come back another time, we're all out”.

The government is about to call an election, it seems, because everybody is saying “So long, see you later”. I presume the people across the way are in the know. With Bill C-44, the Liberals have proposed some timid measures that are not in line with what workers need.

In my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, thousands of people have protested against the cruel policies of this government's system of wealth distribution.

I am, moreover, convinced that the Minister of National Revenue could testify to that. When he came to our area last week, he did not stay two minutes in the Saguenay. He had to pack up his bags and head back.

Hon. members can see what this government is up to at the present time with funds that do not belong to it, since it is not the one making the contributions.

It does nothing, but takes the kitty and then creates laws that say “You there will have some; but you will not have any under certain conditions”. The people at home are too proud. They have said this to the Minister of National Revenue, who will be coming back tomorrow.

I warn the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region that he will be with us tomorrow. Do not forget to repeat to him what you told him last week. What they are doing with your money is unacceptable.

The money in the employment insurance fund—I still call it unemployment insurance—belongs to the workers of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, of Quebec, of all the provinces of Canada. I think it is theirs. Why does this government ignore that? Contrary to what the Bloc wants it to do, it does not acknowledge that there should be an independent fund administered by workers and employers. These people know what is needed.

Mr. Speaker, let us imagine that you have taken out fire insurance and car insurance. Imagine what would happen if your insurer said to you after an accident “It is too bad, I am changing the conditions. You have signed this, but today conditions have changed”. You would not accept that. This is exactly what the government is doing.

It says everyone agreed to pay into a plan in the event they lost their job, but it says “No, you may well have paid, but I am going to do what I like with it”. I say they are stealing it, I am sorry, that may be a bad word, but it is the fact of the matter. It is helping itself to this huge fund. Even for the next fiscal year, there will be a $7 billion surplus in the fund. And the government will again take that surplus.

In Bill C-44, the government had the nerve to make a minor amendment, which I want to tell you about. In one clause, the government wants to divert and use for its own benefit the surpluses in the employment insurance fund, even though they do not belong to it.

In the past, it was the employment insurance commission that set the conditions. The act used to state that, for each year, the commission sets, with the approval of the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of Finance, the rate which, in its opinion, is best suited to ensure an adequate income during an economic cycle.

It will no longer be the case. Now, the government will set all the selection criteria. It will decide which rate to apply and it will not be accountable to anyone. When Cabinet is involved, everything is always confidential. This is what the government wants to do with the employment insurance fund. No, we will not let them do that. People will never agree to that.

In my region, there are seasonal workers. What we are asking for, and what I would have appreciated, is for a clear definition to be included in the Employment Insurance Act of what a seasonal worker is, with a degree of flexibility. But this does not bother them at all. They do not pay employment insurance with their big salaries.

I do not understand. Surely they must have seasonal workers in their ridings, just as you do, Mr. Speaker. You do not have problems with seasonal workers? Perhaps the climate is different from what we have in eastern and central Canada. You may have better weather than we do.

There will always be seasonal workers who have to contend with what nature sends them. I would like a definition of seasonal worker. That would help.

I personally have never known anyone receiving EI who wanted to. People want to work, but when they have no job and there is no training to help them find other work, they have no choice. That is what is wrong with this system.

For three and a half years now, I have been listening to lofty speeches about Canadian principles and values, about great Liberal values. Strangely enough, these speeches never bear any connection with the everyday reality of ordinary people.

A few months from now, 250 older workers in my riding are going to lose their jobs. How many years have we been asking this government to restore passive measures to help these workers? And what does the government say? It says that they will have to be retrained.

When people have worked hard in a factory for 35 or 40 years, at the expense of their health, and are reaching 55 or 60, they do not have enough money to retire. These people would like to leave and make way for young people but they cannot. Their health is gone.

We are asking this government to have some compassion. But what does it say? It tells us to retrain these workers and stick them somewhere else. Where, I do not know. Or it says that they should be mobile and go elsewhere in Canada. That is easy to say.

I have heard senior officials who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I think they have a direct line to the values that drive the Liberals. They have no compassion. They do not know what ordinary people are really going through.

I come from a region where people are proud, and we have had enough of this nonsense. It will no longer wash with us. Let the Liberal and Canadian Alliance candidates in the ridings in our area take note: they will never again pull the wool over the eyes of people who have taken steps to improve their lives.

It is painful to see what is happening in Canada at this time. We saw it in yesterday's mini-budget; we see it in this bill. We must put a stop to it; we must think about the people. The real people are the people who vote for us, not big businesses, not lobbyists. The real people are the workers, the ones who have family responsibilities, the ones with hearts.

We must remember that women are the ones with precarious jobs. This government has the nerve to pass a motion in support of women's demands. Then yesterday there was nothing in the Minister of Finance's mini-budget for them.

They do not recognize the value of women. We know that 52% of voters are female. Being a woman, I am proud to say that the demands the women made were very much a reflection of today's reality and that we must move forward.

But government members did not get it, just as they did not get this matter of employment insurance. These goodies they want to give us have no relationship to reality.

I say to them to go back to their books. When they have done their homework, and when they have let people tell them what they really want, then we will talk.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech to the House.

I know she is very passionate and understands this issue very well. Unfortunately there are many who do not.

The reform alliance speak very often about those who make a great deal of money, more than a healthy income, who then access employment insurance. If those members read the rules and understood the dynamics they would understand that there was a clawback that did not create this anomaly.

My question for the hon. member is on two fronts. With respect to what the government has done, this cynical attempt to change the system that it broke, to somehow try to fix the harm that it created when these changes were made and these arbitrary rules came into effect that affected seasonal workers in such a terrible way, it created a black hole. Seasonal workers do not have a choice. They do not put themselves in the position of being in an industry that does not give them employment 12 months of the year. Given the opportunity, any seasonal worker that I have come across would like to work for a full year.

What has happened is that the system has changed. It has created a black hole. When workers run out of work and run out of EI they are left with no way to feed their families.

We heard comments from the reform alliance saying that any motivated, inspired person from the maritimes will move to Toronto. That lacks a great deal of understanding and insight.

On this issue alone, the reform alliance and members of the party have flip-flopped several times like a fish out of water. We know they are fish out of water when it comes to understanding issues in the maritimes.

The government is now in the cynical position where it is trying to rush this bill through. This is the last minute piece of legislation that it wants to get through. It is dangling it in front of seasonal workers who have been affected by the EI changes. It is holding it in from of them like an ice cream cone, pulling it away and saying that somehow the opposition is to blame for this. The government had ample time to get this bill through if it was a priority.

Why does the hon. member think the government would do such a thing? Why is it that this is such a low priority for the government? Does it have anything to do with the pending election? Is that the only reason the government would try to do this, to buy back voters with their own money?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Progressive Conservative Party member, as I find his question very appropriate.

This is indeed a cynical government. Does anyone know what cynicism means? To be cynical is to do things to get people to believe things, as if to say “I think it is perfect, but you deserve nothing”. That is the Chrétien government. They wanted—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member may not refer to a member by his name, I know she meant to say the government of the hon. Prime Minister, did she not?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. In my enthusiasm, I let my anger with this government carry me away.

This Liberal government says “I like you, worker, here, have some candies”. The public in Canada cannot be fooled. They can see it is ironic, cynical, and they will never understand why it is in such a hurry to give them any old treats. This is a government of goodies.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried to move this motion earlier today. I know we are in the last minutes of today's sitting. Therefore I want to raise this issue again of trying to get unanimous consent to pass this motion.

I want to repeat to all hon. colleagues, because I know some members are perhaps discussing this issue among themselves, that the Senate has officially indicated on the record in Hansard that if we pass this bill today in the House, it will pass it tomorrow and it will be assented to tomorrow, to give Canadians the much needed assistance that this bill will provide.

Therefore I would seek unanimous consent to move that at 5.30 p.m. this day, Bill C-44 shall be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee of the whole, and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

I ask all hon. members one last time to agree to this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal of the hon. government House leader. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. We have been here for three and a half years and the Liberals waited until the last minute to pass a bill.

If they were really serious about the plight of seasonal workers in our regions, why did they not introduce this bill a month ago? They had the majority to pass it, instead of trying to blame the opposition for saying no.

This is regrettable and even disgusting.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe this is not really a point of order, but these things sometimes happen in the House.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I call on the first member to speak on this evening's adjournment motion, may I just express on behalf of the other chair occupants and myself our appreciation for the co-operation of all hon. members throughout this parliament and say that if we do not get together next week, very best wishes to all hon. members.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to rise on this question again.

On May 15 I asked about a program that the government invented to provide $175 million for rural roads in the west. My question was simple. Will the government provide a similar program for the east?

In the east we have an inconsistent hodgepodge of programs. I point out the inconsistency and the unfairness in the way the federal government provides highway dollars in Atlantic Canada. Newfoundland will get $105 million for highway money this year and next year alone. New Brunswick will get $102 million this year and next year alone. Nova Scotia will get zero, not a penny in highway money under a federal-provincial agreement. It points out how unfair the government's policy is toward the provinces and how it distributes the highway money so unfairly.

As a result Nova Scotia ends up by having the only toll highway on the Trans-Canada Highway in the entire country. It is forced to do this because highway money is not distributed fairly or equally. If we had some of the $175 million for rural highways that the government just announced for the west, or if Nova Scotia had some of the money that Newfoundland received or some of the money that New Brunswick received, we would not have a toll highway. Because the federal government is so inconsistent with their money, Nova Scotia ends up with zero.

In Nova Scotia we have damaged highways and dangerous highways now. The Tatamagouche to Truro highway needs to be completely rebuilt and upgraded. Amherst to Parrsboro is a mess. Ecum Secum to Guysborough is another important one, but the Amherst to Parrsboro highway is a rough road. We are trying to generate tourism business and they will not even come any more. When we look at the numbers they show such a terrible inconsistency, a terrible imbalance, a terrible unfairness.

Will the Minister of Transport change his mind and be a little more fair? I am not even asking for $175 million for Nova Scotia but I am asking for fairer treatment. The minister has given $175 million to the rest. He should give Nova Scotia a fair amount, something like Newfoundland received or something like New Brunswick received.

Will the Minister of Transport treat Nova Scotia fairly and allow us some highway money this year and next year in the same way as he did for Newfoundland and New Brunswick?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government appreciates the opportunity to correct the impression left by the hon. member's question, namely, the Atlantic provinces are not receiving their fair share of federal highway funding.

I remind the hon. member that the $175 million referred to was for improvements to the grain roads in the four western provinces as part of the grain handling and transportation reform announced on May 10. To suggest that the Atlantic provinces need an equal program ignores the numerous programs that we have put in place for Atlantic Canada.

The government established the Atlantic freight transition program which provided the four Atlantic provinces and Quebec highway funding of $326 million between 1995 and 1996 and 2000 and 2001.

Under the auspices of the highway improvement program the federal government committed to allocate $462.8 million to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to fund highway projects. A balance of approximately $100 million remains to be spent in New Brunswick.

The government also contributed $43 million to New Brunswick and P.E.I. to assist with the additional highway contribution associated with increased traffic due to the construction of a fixed link.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to benefit. The Newfoundland transportation initiative provides $640 million over five years from 1997-98 to 2002-03 for major improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway and to regional truck roads following the termination of the Newfoundland railway.

All provinces also receive funding for the strategic highway improvement program. It allowed the federal government to invest $515 million between 1993-94 and 1999-2000 in highway projects all across Canada.

In the 2000 budget speech the Minister of Finance announced over $2 billion for municipal infrastructure and $600 million for highways.

Federal-provincial-territorial agreements for Infrastructure Canada have recently been signed with several provinces. Negotiations are still under way with other jurisdictions and it is hoped that agreements will be signed shortly.

The formal negotiation process for highway infrastructure has not yet begun. Funding for the strategic highway infrastructure program only starts in 2002-03 and the program design is under development prior to the start of negotiations.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on June 14 I asked a question in the House and the government has still failed to answer it. It was a simple question.

In 1995 the justice minister promised the Liberal gun registry would run a deficit of only $2.2 million over five years. In the year 2000 the current justice minister delivered a deficit of at least $308 million.

The facts are available in black and white, written in the justice department documents tabled in the House in 1995, written in financial spreadsheets provided to me under access to information earlier this year and in a letter written by the Minister of Justice published in the Toronto Star .

One of only two justice ministers is responsible for making this $300 million mistake. Canadian taxpayers want to know who is responsible. Why did the government ignore our party's warnings about its low ball cost estimates? How did the government allow this waste of hundreds of millions of dollars to occur?

Two weeks ago in the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice only added to the confusion with a totally inaccurate statement about the costs of the gun registration scheme. On October 5 the parliamentary secretary stated that “The benefits of this program represent an investment of $2 per Canadian for the past five years”.

I have known grade 4 math students who are better at arithmetic. How did the justice minister's parliamentary secretary arrive at this bogus number? Before he answers, I will give him the real numbers so he can do the arithmetic himself rather than rely on the crooked calculators in the minister's department.

Spreadsheets from the justice department show gun registration costs for the first five years at $324.7 million. If we divide that amount by 30.5 million Canadians, Statistics Canada population estimates for 1999, it equals $10.65 for every Canadian, not $2 per Canadian. That is more than five times the untrue figure the parliamentary secretary told the House on October 5.

Why did the justice minister mislead parliament about the true costs in 1995? Why did the parliamentary secretary mislead the House only two weeks ago? Why did the current justice minister mislead Canadians when she wrote the Toronto Star on July 19, 1999, saying “User fees would cover the entire cost of the gun registry program?”

On September 11 the Department of Justice sent me a response to one of my access to information requests which said that as of August 11, 2000, “ the total amount of revenue received by the receiver general in respect of fees imposed under the Firearms Act is $17,139,993”.

In the same access to information request the department estimated that the Liberal gun registry project owed $1.2 million in refunds to firearms owners. No wonder the minister and her PR staff have quit saying that user fees will cover the entire cost of the program. She came up more than $308 million short over the first five years.

How much is the gun registration scheme costing taxpayers this year? So far the officials in the justice minister's office have refused to respond to my access to information request. They have even refused to provide their proposed budget allocation as they have in previous years. Why?

The minister's officials are even stonewalling the investigator from the Office of the Information Commissioner. The investigator informed my office last week that when he examined the department's firearm registry project files there was no—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. I also understand that he has suggested that some hon. members misled the House. I know he will want to withdraw any such allegation.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to impugn motives to anyone. I withdraw that comment, but I feel the figures and the statements that were made were misleading.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that. I rose on a point of order to bring that to your attention. He also referred to the minister's crooked calculator. I think he should withdraw that as well. However I will respond and you, Mr. Speaker, can deal with that accordingly.

I have been clear about the cost of the firearms program. I said publicly that we have spent a cumulative total of $327 million on the program between 1995 and March 31, 2000. The government of Canada is responsible for this program and is proud not to have been shirking any of its responsibility concerning this major public safety initiative.

The government is accepting its responsibilities, including its financial accountability. It would be refreshing if the members opposing this valuable legislation would accept their responsibility for playing a positive role respecting the public safety of all Canadians.

As of October 14, we have more than 1.3 million Canadians who hold or have applied for licences under the legislation. More than 1.6 million firearms are registered. Since December 1, 1998 more than 959 licence applications have been refused for public safety concerns and 1,207 licences have been revoked from individuals deemed not to be eligible to hold a licence because they pose a safety risk. The number of revocations are over 20 times higher than the total of the previous five years.

The problems that I acknowledged with our start-up in the spring are now well in hand. We have an aggressive program in place to deal with providing enhanced service to Canadian firearms owners. Elements of this include the following. We have been providing face to face assistance to help people to complete their applications for licensing. We have drastically simplified our forms. We have implemented processing and system efficiencies throughout to provide better service to Canadians more quickly. We have enhanced our call centre services to provide better and faster individualized assistance. At the same time as we are providing better service to firearms owners, we are providing better public safety to all Canadians. We are now able to background checks before any legitimate firearm sales can proceed.

We have had good results from these initiatives. Our outreach programs have contributed to over 528,000 applications and the numbers continue to increase. Our advertising program has been appearing on prime time and specialty TV, in national and ethnic press and on radio consistently reminding owners of their—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 19 I asked the Minister of Industry whether the competition bureau would investigate recent media mergers. At the time the minister replied that these mergers were reviewable under section 92 of the Competition Act but he did not indicate he would request an investigation be launched.

These media mergers are becoming a matter of concern to Canadians and let me explain. In July CanWest-Global Communications Corp. of Winnipeg acquired more than 200 Canadian publications as well as half of the National Post from Toronto based Hollinger Inc., combining them with its Global Television Network.

The announcement came just a month after CanWest had bought the television assets of WIC, Western International Communications Ltd. Then in September Montreal based publisher Quebecor acquired Quebec's largest cable company, Groupe Vidéotron Ltée, also of Montreal, for $4.9 billion. On September 15 BCE Inc., the Thompson Corporation and the Woodbridge Company announced the creation of a multimedia company that would combine CTV, the Globe and Mail , Globe Interactive, an Internet content provider, and Sympatico, an Internet portal. The result is the boundaries between print media, broadcasting, the Internet and telecommunications companies have been blurred so much that the industries are now virtually indistinguishable.

The CRTC held hearings on September 18 on BCE's change of ownership application. The decision is still pending. The CRTC's mandate is to regulate broadcasting and telecommunications in the best interest of the Canadian public. It is trying to deal with these multiple mergers and the rapidly changing technology. But while the CRTC regulates broadcasting and telecommunications, it does not have a say about newspapers or the Internet.

All three media mergers include both newspapers and Internet services as well as broadcasting. The CRTC in reviewing the BCE-CTV transaction asks broad questions about its impact on the broadcasting system and on Canadian content, but it does not address whether these transactions result in convergence in the Canadian market.

In light of these mergers, we can define convergence as cross-ownership of newspapers, television stations and Internet assets, plus possibly a giant phone or cable company.

Clearly it is the competition bureau's responsibility to maintain and encourage fair competition in Canada. It can determine whether these mergers result in lessening or prevention of competition in the marketplace. It is clear also that such massive concentration of power in the media is detrimental to the public interest.

Again, I would like to ask the minister through his parliamentary secretary whether he would launch a comprehensive investigation in the public interest.