House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was job.
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know when the government will start standing up for human rights. It has been 16 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre and human rights in China have yet to improve. China has the world's largest army, the world's second largest economy, nuclear weapons, and 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan.
When will the minister stop giving money to the undemocratic and repressive communist Chinese government?
Aileen Carroll LiberalMinister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, I will answer really slowly, so the hon. member and new critic can understand. I explained to her predecessor and I explained it very well, so that most people in the House and in committee were able to understand. The government does not give money directly to the government of China.
Instead, we work with a valuable partner such as the Canadian Bar Association in building governance and in building the very basis of human rights that the member wants us to do. In that regard, we are building just the rules-based society that we need with a very important partner like China.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, in November, the Minister of National Defence announced that he would be carrying out a pilot project in July 2005 to recover shells and other projectiles from Lac St-Pierre, which has been designated a world biosphere reserve by UNESCO. These shells pose an environmental threat and are an obstacle to tourism development at the reserve.
Is the Minister of National Defence, who made this commitment last November to the people of my region, going to keep his promise and have these shells removed immediately?
Keith Martin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is actually very involved in this issue. There were technical problems and safety issues with respect to the divers that were responsible for doing this. We opted not to put a diver's life in danger, but when it becomes safe to go and take out these shells, we will do it.
Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government recently announced the allocation of $800 million for public transit, money that will help reduce smog and congestion in communities across Canada. This good news must be highlighted today during Canadian Environment Week.
Can the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities please tell the House about the importance of this investment in public transit?
John Godfrey LiberalMinister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)
Mr. Speaker, David Suzuki, one of Canada's leading environmentalists, had this to say about our investments in Canada's communities:
Over the last few months, the federal government has produced a budget that includes some truly innovative measures and released its long-awaited climate change plan.
That is what our public transit investments are doing. That is why our gas tax funding is crucial to environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure, but all this funding is at risk if we do not pass the budget. I would say, as Canada's big city mayors have said in a unanimous resolution, Parliament needs to put people before politics and get the budget passed.
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the official opposition House leader, I would like to ask the hon. government House leader the Thursday question. Could he project for us the business of the government for the balance of this week and the week ahead?
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.
Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.
There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.
The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 31 by the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington concerning comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre during question period that day about the proceedings of an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for having raised this issue. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the hon. House leader of the official opposition and the hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party for their contributions to the discussion.
In raising his question of privilege, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington charged that in a preamble to a question posed to the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre had referred to events that had taken place in an in camera meeting of the committee held earlier that day.
The hon. member argued that because the meeting had been held in camera, he was unable to comment on the facts as presented by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, which he found to be selective. He went on to claim that the divulging of the committee's proceedings violated the privileges of the entire committee and particularly the members of the Conservative Party.
In response to the hon. member’s charge, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre stated that his comments were factually accurate and were consistent with the rules of the House.
In his intervention, the hon. House leader of the official opposition supported the arguments of the hon. member who had raised the matter.
The hon. House leader for the New Democratic Party contributed to the discussion by pointing out that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre had only spoken to the processes and workings of the committee. He had not identified specific members, nor had he divulged the particulars of the debate or the substance of the motion being considered by the committee.
Following these interventions, I indicated to the House that I had found the question to be in order in that it dealt with future meetings of the committee. I undertook, however, to review the remarks made by the hon. member in his preamble and to return to the House.
As all hon. members know, questions seeking information about the schedule and the agenda of committees may be directed at chairs of committees during question period. This is clearly stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 429. I reviewed the Debates for that day and it is clear that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre asked a question about the scheduling of the next meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Given that questions of privilege have been raised on this kind of matter recently, I believe it would be helpful to all hon. members if I reviewed the procedures pertaining to the confidentiality of in camera committee meetings.
As mentioned on page 838 of Marleau and Montpetit, the Speaker has ruled in the past that divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting constitutes a prima facie matter of privilege. This statement is based on a ruling given by Speaker Fraser on May 14, 1987 at pages 6108-11 of the Debates .
The case in question involved the disclosure by a member of the results of a recorded vote held in an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. The matter was found prima facie and referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
In paragraph 8 of its seventh report on the question of privilege presented on December 18, 1987, the committee stated the following about in camera meetings:
An in camera meeting is one which occurs behind closed doors. It is a confidential meeting in that the public is excluded. Your committee firmly believes in the value and importance of in camera meetings to committees of the House. While committees often meet in public session, there is no doubt they must retain the option of meeting behind closed doors, deliberately excluding the public and the media. In camera meetings are often essential in the preparation of committee reports and in the hearing of sensitive testimony. This practice allows committees a measure of independence and enhances the collegiality of members, something which is necessary to effective committee work. The success of in camera meetings depends upon their privacy; their confidentiality must be respected by all involved. Without that respect, the work of all committees would be seriously imperilled to the detriment of the House and all Members.
The report goes on to state, in part, in paragraph 10:
When a committee chooses to meet in camera, all matters are confidential. Any departure from strict confidentiality should be by explicit committee decision which should deal with what matters may be published, in which form and by whom...Equally, committees should give careful consideration to the matters that should be dealt with in camera and matters that should be discussed in public.
If the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so wishes, it may consider whether this exchange in question period on May 31, 2005 constitutes a breach of its confidentiality and if so, report to the House. As I have clearly indicated in previous rulings, there has always been considerable reluctance on the part of the Chair to intervene in any matter which the committee itself ought to decide.
I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this very important matter.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Mr. Speaker, while I was getting warmed up in my speech before question period, I was talking about the fact that we seemed to have two competing dichotomous approaches the issue of income for people who were no longer able to earn their income, either because of retirement, or layoffs in their plant, or illness or whatever.
The dichotomy is in the sense that to some degree we want these people to fund their own income for the when they retire and they need income aside from their earnings. On the other hand we have these public programs.
The problem I recognize with them is they fight with each other. It seems that individuals have set aside savings for the time when they may unexpectedly lose their jobs are disadvantaged. If they have too much income from their savings and investments, they are disqualified from benefits under unemployment insurance. I still call it unemployment insurance. I know the new term is employment insurance. The fact is it does not insure employment. It is a program designed to help people when they are unemployed. Even though that change was made a number of years ago, it is unemployment insurance.
In terms of the motion before us today, we need to make some fundamental changes to the whole approach that the government uses. We need to reconcile these two different tracks on which people can provide for themselves with the aid of a government program for that time when their income ceases from employment.
Personally, I would like to see a system whereby, in unemployment insurance collections, there is not a disincentive to taking a part time or a low paying job. I know a number of people who cannot makes ends meet on the benefits they receive. If they were to go and get a low paying, part time job, those additional earnings would be clawed back at the rate of about 100%. In other words, if people earn an extra $100, they lose $100 of benefits. That is a total disincentive for people and it is a discouraging one.
It is unfortunate when individuals who would like to help themselves are discouraged from doing so because of the administrative details of the program in which they are involved.
The motion put forward by the Bloc today calls specifically for an extension of benefits for people, if they are in the later years of their earning career, who lose their jobs due to plants or factory closures or whatever. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a substantial need to recognize and address that problem, which is a large. Many people find themselves in that position.
When they are at that age, it is very difficult to go to another business or another manufacturing place. Even if jobs are available, it is difficult to persuade them at that stage in their life to embark on a program of training and integration into the new business. Many of them end up in real dire straights.
The more we can do to change our public policies with respect to our retirement and EI programs and the more we can do in policies to address those issues and give some substantial solutions to people who find themselves in these difficult places, the better job we would be doing for our constituents.
While this addresses only a part of the problem and while I would like to see much more done, I believe, based on my present analysis of it, the motion goes in the right direction. My preliminary estimate is that I am inclined to vote for the motion when it comes to a vote.
I thank the House for the opportunity of being able to address this issue on behalf of many Canadians in this situation.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Drummond.
It is a pleasure for me to participate today in the debate on this very important issue. For the benefit of people who are following our debate, I would like to read the Bloc's motion:
That, in the opinion of the House, due to the increasing number of factory closures associated with globalization, the government should establish a strategy to help older workers who lose their jobs, a strategy that should include income support measures.
Since POWA was shut down in 1997, there has been no income support program specifically developed for older workers who are victims of a mass layoff or business closure.
The numbers are revealing in this regard. Workers aged 55 and over represent only 3.5% of cases in regular skills development programs, that is to say, in training programs.
We all know that the POWA has saved families. To get a good idea of what can happen to a 55 year old or older worker who loses his job, we only have to look at many Quebec companies and at any of the Quebec ridings. Lately, because of globalization and all the changes happening in the markets, plants and companies have closed and will never reopen again. They were, for the most part, specialized in sectors that have now been taken over by other countries, like China and others.
The workers who were specialized in these areas did not necessarily have a high level of education. These people learned a trade and specialized in certain areas. They learned on the job. They worked for 30 or 35 years for the same company and now, at age 55, they have lost their jobs and have nothing in front of them. They never finished grade 12 and we all know that today in Quebec, if you do not have a grade 12 diploma, it is too bad, but you cannot find a job anywhere.
These people who had a good salary had managed to acquire assets that they deserved, a house, a car, etc. They found themselves out of a job and lost almost everything they owned. When they stopped drawing EI benefits, they were not automatically allowed to collect social assistance.
These are not people who can easily retrain. They can not necessarily go back to school. Most of them did not even have any high school education. Just imagine those 55 year olds going back to first year high school. It is hard to imagine.
The POWA program that existed before allowed these people to reach retirement without having to give up their assets or their pride. We spend our lives accumulating and collecting things, trying to live better and suddenly, a misfortune like this occurs and we lose everything. It is difficult to go through. Often, these are people who live in the regions. It is even more difficult to find a new job in the regions. This program would allow people to make the transition.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities tabled a unanimous report in this House that included 28 recommendations. Among these recommendations, the committee called for an improved POWA. None of the 28 recommendations was implemented. They were completely ignored. Today, there is a $47 billion surplus in the EI fund.
We calculated the cost of this program and it is not exorbitant. This program could cost roughly $500 million. What is $500 million when there is a $47 billion surplus? We would be helping people who lost their job through no fault of their own, and who are in a difficult situation, make the transition until their retirement. We are not asking for the moon or for charity. We are asking that the money paid into EI be reinvested or returned to the workers, as we have always said. Currently, that is not the case.
We are, however, trying to make progress. I find this motion quite interesting. I hope that my colleagues opposite will have a good word to say about our older workers.
You have probably heard of the company in my riding that used to make the skates for all the hockey players on the Montreal Canadiens team—it is true they need specialized skates. This company closed its doors, but it used to be able to make a pair of specialized skates in 24 hours. A hockey player could order and receive a pair of skates within 24 hours. This company had more than 2,000 employees barely seven years ago. Over the years, because of globalization, these jobs were lost to China.
Some people who worked in this company learned their jobs there. They eventually earned wages that were quite attractive and advantageous. The layoffs occurred 500 at a time. Those are quite large layoffs.
It is less a problem for younger people because they can take advantage of programs or training to find another job, even if it is hard. But it is much more difficult for people of a certain age to get in somewhere.
With an improved POWA, it would be nice to see these people continuing to live well. They contributed to the economic growth of Quebec and paid taxes for years. In view of the surplus that the government has, it would be shameful not to help them get over this transition period. I think, though, that there is a desire here to change things. I sincerely hope so.
The company that I was talking about closed its doors. It was still possible to help the youngest people, but some of the older people suffered terribly, even so far as losing their houses. That is not what we want. After working all our lives, we do not want to lose everything and start receiving social assistance, simply because we lost our job and cannot find another. I hope that the government will again adopt a measure like this to enable people to get through this difficult situation.
I have another example. There were two companies in my riding that specialized in bathing suits. The labour force consisted mostly of women who were specialized seamstresses. Here too, production was transferred abroad and these jobs were lost. Many of them were single women, who had raised their children on their own and have now fallen on hard times. Solutions have to be found to help them. I hope that the government will be receptive and that this motion will pass, in order to create a program.
We must not forget all the other measures. This is important because all areas of Quebec are now affected by the massive closure of industries that used to support entire regions. One need only think of what is happening in Huntingdon. That is not what we want. They must be given a chance to find a way out.
I sincerely hope that we will have an improved POWA. I hope that all the hon. members here in this House agree and vote in favour of this motion. That would be a fine gesture, but one that is owed to them because they have paid taxes for so many years—a gesture for older people who are going through difficult times.
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for a motion that Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a second time, read a third time and passed on division; and, that Bill C-53, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime) and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and to make consequential amendments to another act, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to a committee and reported to the House without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
I listened carefully to the remarks of the Bloc Québécois member, and I share many of her views, but I would like to point out something she may not be aware of.
It is true that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, tabled a unanimous report. But when the hon. member says that this government did not take any action, I would like to remind her that Liberal members took part in the preparation of this report. It has been accepted by the government, and we made five amendments to the employment insurance legislation. Members opposite keep forgetting that.
The Bloc Québécois thinks we never make enough changes, and it never gives us credit for the changes that are made. We criticize, but we also take action, as any government should. Improvements to EI were made concerning the 14 weeks for those who are eligible. We changed the regional limits to be able to enhance benefits for seasonal workers.
We are respectful of Quebec and the provinces in terms of their jurisdiction over manpower and training. We provided over $600 million to ensure workers have the money they need for training. When the PQ separatist government was in power, why did it do nothing for older workers?
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
When criticisms are made in this House, the word “separatist” often comes up. My colleague will have to get used to criticisms, because it is a fact that they have a $47 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.
The measures in the budget are trifling, put there to shut people up. It will not work. It is not enough. They cannot even look at the 28 recommendations and try to find solutions. They operate on a case by case basis and they do so because we prod them so much that they have no choice but to act. They wait till they have their backs to the wall and then they react.
Do not tell me that this is how to run things. We do not need any lessons from them. We will stay on their case, because the $47 billion they stole from the unemployed must be returned. This program is important, it is necessary. It is urgent that it be reinstated and it is their responsibility to put the necessary funds into it.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment for my colleague and a question.
My riding is primarily a resource dependent riding, fishing, mining and forestry, and we are finding that a number of economies are in transition. Changing the nature of the way the work is being done often lowers the number of people actually required to do the work.
Many people question me as to why it is required that someone is either fired or laid off in some extraordinary measure before some sort of just transition process can take place and the federal funds, to which they have contributed over a number of years of their working lives, is triggered.
They are confused as to why, when sufficient funds are in place, when known transitions are coming and when the industry is shifting, be it mining, forestry or fishing, the government has no procedure in place that would allow workers in those industries to apply for funding so they can transition out of those industries into sunrise industries as opposed to sunset.
Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Mr. Speaker, earlier, I talked about globalization, as did members from all parties.
With globalization and sectoral markets, changes and problems are a given. We must be in a position to find solutions. In Quebec, as everybody knows, when industry changed, we tried to find solutions. We suspected that the textile industry would collapse and we tried to devise transition programs to retrain workers. But that is not enough. We need more help.
There is a lot of room for improvement in Human Resources Canada and EI. I sympathize with my colleague. I wish the government had a real desire to make serious changes to all aspects of EI so as to really help workers—instead of what it has been doing since 1993. Workers pay taxes and EI premiums but do not get the services they need. I sympathize and have said what I would like to see. I only hope I will be heard.
(Bill C-2. On the Order: Government Orders:)
June 6, 2005--the Minister of Justice--Report stage and second reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Raymond Simard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am assured that discussions have taken place on this issue and that you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act, be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage, read a second time, read a third time and passed on division.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill concurred in, read the second time, read the third time and passed)