House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I could quote the hon. member because in fact his position was 100% contrary to that last week.
The forest industry across Canada is united in wanting free and unfettered access to U.S. markets. Is the government prepared to assure that it will stand up for all Canadians and will not settle for anything short of free trade on lumber with our friends to the south?
Lumber IndustryOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, at no time last week did I take any position other than that the Government of Canada believes that Canadian lumber exporters produce a quality product, that we pay fair stumpage and that we should have free and clear access to the U.S. markets. That is in fact what I said all week, what the Minister of International Trade has said and, I am sure, what the Prime Minister will be saying in his discussions with the U.S. president.
We happen to believe in this industry. We will work hard for this industry. We want to see this industry succeed based on quality, competitive pricing and a market where we think we have an advantage.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, access to employment insurance is constantly deteriorating, to the extent that only four out of ten unemployed people have access to it.
The situation is all the more serious when one realizes that there are billions of dollars of surplus in the fund and the bill introduced last week does nothing to improve the plan's accessibility.
Does the minister agree that her bill includes all measures necessary for getting her hands on the surplus, but nothing, absolutely nothing, for responding to the underlying problem, which is access to the plan?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, we did consult Canadians on the need for change in the employment insurance bill. We coupled that with our own research. We believe that we have presented a balanced package that speaks to the concerns and the needs of Canadians.
I am sure, as the bill makes its way through the process here in the House and in the Senate, that the hon. member and his party will participate fully in the debate.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister has most certainly not consulted the young people who are leaving the regions because they cannot accumulate the 910 hours they need to be eligible. Only one in four young workers can qualify, even though all four pay into it.
Can the minister explain to us just how the few changes proposed in her bill are going to do anything at all to improve the situation for young workers?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, from our point of view, the best way to help youth is to ensure that they stay in school and get an education to build a strong career.
The hon. member might be interested to note that youth have enjoyed the most significant job growth since 1990. Their employment rate today is 12.5%. In 1999 about 80,000 full time jobs were created.
From our point of view, benefits are only one piece of the puzzle. Getting a job is the most important.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his ministers made commitments during the last election campaign to major changes to employment insurance, in order to remedy their past errors.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain that she is back again with the same bill, which gives the unemployed only 8% of the $6 billion annual surplus?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, what we promised to the Canadian public was that should we be elected we would reintroduce these amendments as quickly upon our return as possible. The bill was introduced on Friday. The debate continues today.
Canadians had the opportunity to look at those amendments. What did they do? They returned a Liberal government in greater numbers to this place.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, as the bottom line, is the government going to acknowledge that the only purpose of this legislation is to legalize, without improving access to the program, the misdirection of the surplus in the employment insurance fund into the pockets of the government?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the Employment Insurance Act is comprehensive and speaks to Canadians in the best possible way.
From our point of view, we did consult Canadians. It was called an election, and the results are clear today.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question for the government has to do with what the Prime Minister might be saying to President Bush when they have their meeting this evening.
President Bush is in favour of a continental energy policy. The Liberals have gone some way down that road, considerably so, by signing on to NAFTA. My question is: How deep is the Liberal desire to mimic the policies of Brian Mulroney?
The Minister of Industry has already apologized to the former prime minister. I want to know if that is a sign of things to come. Has the Prime Minister gone down there to agree to a continental energy policy or will he be standing up for a made in Canada energy policy, insofar as that is possible within the NAFTA?
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I do not know who my hon. colleague is trying to mimic but I do not think his question is getting anywhere.
The purpose of the meeting between our Prime Minister and the new U.S. president is not to reach deals. It is a “getting to know you” type of meeting. It is a meeting to exchange ideas on a whole range of subjects. I am sure our Prime Minister will speak strongly on behalf of Canada's interests, whether it is with regard to energy or any other subject.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, one would think that on the first date the Prime Minister could at least indicate what might be permissible behaviour with respect to energy.
While we are talking about energy and given the continuing controversy about the fuel rebate, does the Minister of Finance have any intention of reviewing this program in order to address some of the inadequacies, particularly with respect to those people who need help but who are not getting it?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question on this last week and a number of members in our own caucus have raised this matter with me.
We stated at the time that because we wanted to get the cheques into the hands of people as quickly as possible that there would be flaws in the process, that there were anomalies and that we have asked our officials to look at them.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that HRDC has admitted to interrogating 34 witnesses in an effort to gather evidence in a Revenue Canada-DFO-EI shakedown of seasonal workers.
Will the minister explain why her departmental officials are engaged in these heavy-handed tactics? Incidentally, the workers are not given the benefit of legal counsel.
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the hon. member in his new role as critic to the files in my department. If he would like to share the details of that with me, I would be glad to look into it further.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, this morning in the House and later on today we will continue to debate Bill C-2, the reforms to the EI system.
The minister's officials, who were here this morning, know full well the issue. It is hard to believe that they have not informed the minister at this point of some of the infractions going on in the fishery community where seasonal workers, the disenfranchised, are being abused by her officials.
Will the minister act and act quickly on the abusive behaviour by her officials?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such undertakings in my department. Again I would ask the hon. member that if he wishes to bring that information forward I would be glad to look into it.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Canada community investment plan was a red book commitment to improve access to venture capital in remote communities. A $600,000 grant went to guess where? It was Shawinigan, after it was named “the most eligible community in Canada”. However that screening panel included several good Liberals who said “the panel was sensitive to regional and other political considerations”.
Why money was funnelled to supporters of the Prime Minister in Shawinigan, two of whom are now charged with embezzling in two other cases?
Government GrantsOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the member has given me absolutely no notice of the question. In any case, the notice she has served to the whole House is that she is not interested in information. She is interested in making accusations and allegations.
If the member has something substantive to put on the floor of the House and to me as Minister of Industry, I would be glad to give substantive answers. I think these questions are mere allegations, more of the same, and more of the same answers.
Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I believe more of the same answers. That is for sure.
Out of the 24 communities applying for this investment money from the Canada community investment plan, Shawinigan was rated number one by a screening panel that included two failed Liberal candidates in Quebec and a prominent Liberal from Saskatchewan. Surely that one is not a surprise to him. Surely he is up to speed on his department.
Is that what the red book really meant, that the government would manipulate departmental programs to funnel money into Shawinigan?
Government GrantsOral Question Period
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador
Liberal
Brian Tobin LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, unless and until the member gives me some notice of the question and allows me to look into the matter properly, I cannot give her a more detailed response.
The only information or knowledge I have about funnelling of money is the member making an investment in her pension plan.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, as part of its family policy, the Quebec government is about to establish its own parental leave program, which will be much more comprehensive and will include all new parents.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Will the federal government finally see the light and negotiate with Quebec, so that the federal funds available for parental leave can be added to those of the Quebec program, as provided under section 69 of the act, this in the best interests of young parents in Quebec?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the government realizes that workplace family challenges can be dealt with through appropriate legislation. One of those is recognizing that a great percentage of families are two working families.
We are very proud to have been able to double parental leave for all Canadians, including Canadians living in Quebec, within the very short period of time of one year. The program is now in place and all Canadians are eligible to benefit from it.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development does not understand the real issue. Her attitude is detrimental to young parents in Quebec.
Is there anyone in this government who can tell me if he or she realizes what is meant by a true parental benefits program for all parents without exception?