Andy Scott

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis for editing the reports which guided our deliberations late into the night.

I would like to explain the amendments. In order to explain the need to make the amendments I want to put on the record why I personally believe the legislation was worthy of amendment rather than rejection. There are some good things in the bill that I want to bring to the attention of the House.

The shift from weeks to hours as the method of calculating eligibility or the value of work is an improvement, in terms of accessibility, in terms of duration, and in terms of people who have multiple jobs, for 87 per cent of the labour force in the province of New Brunswick. Eighty-seven per cent of the people work more than 35 hours a week. If they work more than 35 hours a week they benefit from the new bill.

People are entitled to employment benefits even after they have exhausted income benefits going back three years, or five years in the case of maternity or illness. That means all kinds of people who lost out on UI based programs in the past will now be eligible for up to three or five years of benefits, depending on the nature of their previous benefits.

The people whose family income is less than $26,000 saw, even before the amendments to which I am about to speak, an average increase in benefits of 7 per cent.

Finally, and this is very important, I support the clawback as it applies to people who draw on the system every year at the high income levels. Committee members from across the way were having difficulty with this, so I want to put it on the record. I do not think we can sustain the program politically if there are people making the minimum wage, working regular jobs and paying into the program when there are people making twice as much money and drawing every year, year over year. I just do not think that can be politically sustained. I am not talking about someone who lost their job; I am talking about someone who makes a large amount of money and draws every year. I do not think it is fair.

Having said that, there are three major amendments. There are many amendments and I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for recognizing the need to amend the suggestion that would allow the government to move on its incremental shifts.

There is the intensity rule. At the start we were talking about an intensity rule which would draw down the level of benefits from 55 to 45 on 10 weeks. By the time the legislation was introduced in December it was drawn down from 55 to 50, depending on 20 week blocks. The amendment of the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore will protect low income families whose family incomes are under $26,000 from the intensity rule. That means that instead of increasing their benefits by 7 per cent, their benefits will be increased by 13 per cent. That is a 13 per cent average increase in benefits for people whose family incomes are less than $26,000.

On the question of the divisor, when we originally started talking about it a year and a half ago we were talking about something in the neighbourhood of 26 weeks as a constant. By the time the legislation came forward it was 20 weeks. Then it was decided, to the credit of the former minister, that it should be done incrementally so as not to shock the system too much. It would be done over a period of time.

Finally, the fourth time the divisor was changed via an amendment presented by the member for Halifax, the divisor became two weeks more than the amount one would need to get into the system. In my part of the country it is 12, 14, 15 or 16 weeks, depending on the unemployment rate, plus 2. That is the improvement to the divisor. It is a significant improvement worth an enormous amount of money to people who cannot afford to lose in this program.

Third, there is the gap. I am inexplicably linked to the gap on this issue. I have a hat. Every time the commercials come on American television my kids say that daddy's going to be on television, they are talking about the gap.

When the shift was made from weeks to hours, the government had to come up with a mechanism to determine how much money a person would get in the new system. The original proposal was that from the time persons made their claim, they would go back the amount of weeks as defined by the divisor. Unfortunately, the language of the bill was that one would go back 14 weeks, or 15 weeks or 16 weeks. There was no reference to work.

Consequently, if claimants worked a period and were off for a period, then worked enough to get their claim, when they counted back consecutive weeks from their claim, there were many zeros. It was because people worked in industries where they might work in the spring and in the fall but might not work in the summer. It is very important to recognize that space.

The amendment that I was proud to put forward states that if one does not work for up to 26 weeks, it does not count. One can go back from the time one lays a claim, not to weeks but to weeks of work. By doing that $246 million was put into the system which will go into the hands of people who are struggling to put enough weeks together to draw employment insurance. It is very important that Canadians understand exactly what this means. There is equity in the program.

I would like to thank the two ministers, the present minister and his predecessor, for having engaged this place in a very extensive discussion. Anyone who says that this debate was closed down should have been with the committee in Whitehorse, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Victoria, Vancouver, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, all over the country. Over a couple of years it received approximately 600 briefs.

This was a very well debated issue. As a result, many changes were made. I remember the two-tier concept which we do not see anymore. There are various amendments I have talked about today. We went into this exercise with a twofold objective, to deal with

the anomalies created by unemployment insurance of which there are many. That has been done.

It is not over. It will never be over. It is an ongoing process to which improvements can always be found. I am beginning to identify some aspects of the system which need attention. On balance it is a significant improvement which constitutes very significant reform in the system.

Again I thank both ministers, I thank all colleagues involved over the past two years in committees on this issue. It has been an incredible exercise. As I said a week ago during debate on this bill, the system, the committee and the process has served the nation well.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions. The first petition is signed by 220 New Brunswickers. The second petition is signed by 455 Nova Scotians.

The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies to control and contain the incidents of chronic fatigue syndrome, known as ME, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons afflicted with these illnesses.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the employment insurance bill since it has dominated the best part of the last 18 months of my being here.

The system has worked in large measure. The social security review took place and a committee of Parliament went across Canada talking about our social programs and how they might be reorganized. I will be the first to acknowledge that not all the things that people asked were done, but as a member of the committee I can tell members that people were listened to and those interventions had an impact.

The minister put forward a bill after that exercise. While a good start on the reform, it had some flaws. Rather than stubbornly holding to the bill, significant amendments have not only been allowed or accepted but actually encouraged.

That is evidence the system can work and that these pieces of legislation can be significantly improved in the interest of Canadians, and in our case specifically seasonal workers in all parts of Canada, certainly in Atlantic Canada.

Three major amendments we have witnessed have to do with the so-called intensity rule, the gap and the divisor. I will speak specifically about the benefits of the bill so that those who are involved in debate will realize exactly what it is they would have us not do if they got their way and were able to through the bill out.

Specifically, because of the shift from weeks to hours as the measure of eligibility, essentially the government is saying that if a person works a 70 hour week, which many people in Atlantic Canada are very familiar with, with this change the employee is getting the value of two weeks under the existing law. In other words, someone who works 70 hours gets the value of one week. After this amendment, the value of 70 hours will be two weeks for all intents and purposes. That means that on average many people in my part of Canada will get into the UI system more easily than has been the case for many years. This is probably the first time in six or seven years that the system has been more accessible rather than less accessible.

Because the value is on hours rather than on weeks, at the end of the claim there is an additional period of eligibility because eligibility is based on how much one works. If the number of weeks worked is limited, regardless if it was 15 hours a week or 75 hours a week, under the present rules it is one week. With the new system every hour will be counted. On average for Atlantic Canada it will mean about two additional weeks of eligibility at the end of a claim. That is very important.

Ultimately the effect is that we are allowing more people in the current labour pool, the people who are in and out of the program regularly, more access to a nationally based income redistribution program.

There are those in the third party who are very negative, to be polite, about the social policy aspects of the unemployment insurance program. It is important to accept and understand the extent of this very real and important element of EI, that there are communities, industries and families in the country that, while they can work for a period of time each year, cannot work all year and cannot make enough money during their working period to sustain the family year round. This is a very efficient way of dealing with the problem.

I would accept that the first two budgets of the government had the effect of making unemployment insurance, soon to be employment insurance, harder to get. However, the amendment will go in the opposite direction and make the program more accessible. It is something very important to the people working in seasonal industries, particularly in Atlantic Canada but also across the country. That in itself is sufficient reason to applaud the government for the amendment.

There is also the low income supplement. Families with incomes of less than $26,000 will see their benefits increased as much as 13 per cent. That is again in keeping with the social policy objectives in the employment insurance program. That is good news particularly for those who simply cannot make enough money in part of a year to sustain a family. This should be applauded by all concerned for those families that receive less than $26,000.

All those people who were held at 14 hours per week because their employer did not want to pay benefits will now have first hour coverage. I will be the first to admit it will be more difficult for first time entrants to get into the system. However, if they worked anything up to 14 hours in the past they had absolutely no access whatsoever.

Because of the change in the way the employment benefits or non-income based aspects of the program are being reorganized many people will have access to employment benefits, the human resources investment fund benefits, who have been on unemployment insurance in the last three years, or five years if it was for maternity or sickness benefits.

That means all of those people we have heard about who were in programs because they were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits will now be entitled to benefits after their income benefits are exhausted. That is a major improvement. We all know of cases where people were in programs and as soon as their income benefits were exhausted they were out of the program.

This is a very contentious part of the bill. I would like to speak to its objective, that new entrants will have a harder time than in the past. That has often been brought to our attention. We will have to

deal with it. We will have to improve it. We will have to recognize where the weaknesses and the faults are.

Generally speaking, it is important for Canadians to talk about what it means when kids leave school to go into industries where ultimately they will be sustained only by a social program such as UI. I do not want that for my kids. I do not want to hold out for my children the possibility of going into an industry which in all likelihood will be short lived.

They will be sustained only because of the existence of the unemployment insurance program. I recognize our obligation to the people who are there now. However, it is a difficult question for me whether we want to attract more people to those programs. I acknowledge our responsibility to replace the job opportunities with other opportunities for young Canadians, but I am not sure I can abide by an objective which would see people drawn into a system which would provide unemployment insurance as a means of livelihood well into the future.

I strongly believe the system has to be improved and changed. When the bill was presented many of us were very concerned about its weaknesses. After doing our homework we were able to affect the outcome of law. I feel good about that. I thank the minister and my colleagues who joined with me in the process.

[Old Age Security, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 21 over 50 people gathered at the Wu Centre in my riding to partake in an afternoon of discussions focused on seniors issues.

The forum provided constituents with the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the old age security system. Although there was not a great deal of consensus on the issue, I believe that a lot of misunderstandings were cleared up about the new plan.

The most common concerns surrounded taxation and whether or not the new plan will be harder on middle class earners. Many felt there still needs to be a great deal of educating of the public surrounding the details of the new plan before those details are finalized.

This is an important debate over a fundamental change in the system. I encourage my colleagues to hold similar forums in their ridings.

[Public Service Of Canada, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

As the exercise of reducing the size of the public service continues, accommodating those wishing to take advantage of early retirement and those seeking alternative employment becomes more daunting.

Can the minister assure members, and more important, our dedicated public servants that the government will remain vigilant

in giving local managers the flexibility they need to manage the transition in as creative and fair a fashion as possible?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Ahuntsic for bringing this motion to the attention of the House. The issues raised are far reaching and universal.

History has not focused its brutality. Its cruelty has not been limited to one community or to one people. The tragedies of history have not discriminated on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity for they befell humanity as a whole. The deaths of innocent men, women and children, cut down by tyranny because of their ethnicity, their religion or their race is a tragedy for the entire human family.

Canadians need to be sensitive to this reality and recognize that the individual histories of many of our citizens do not begin on our shores. We must be sensitive to the experiences of our fellow Canadians who by birth or by ancestry may have been victimized by the inhumanity of wars and oppression.

By being compassionate and understanding of the deep scars that such experiences have on individuals and communities, we are contributing to the healing process. While our actions today help ease the pain, we must know that the scars will never be erased.

We are, by and large, a country of immigrants who have come to Canada from every corner of the world. As immigrants we have attachments to our respective heritages. In Canada we take pride in the fact that these diverse heritages are what makes Canada unique as a nation.

We seek to build a society that ensures fair and equitable treatment and that respects the dignity and accommodates the needs of Canadians of all ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic and racial origins. The challenge for us now is to strengthen a cohesive, respectful, inclusive and democratic society and a shared sense of identity reflective of the diversity of Canada's people.

What makes a society cohesive? Three pillars in my mind: social justice, civic participation and a sense of identity. How do we create a cohesive society that incorporates these three principles?

First, we offer to all Canadians, regardless of their ethnicity, colour or religion, the opportunity to contribute to society and enjoy the full benefits of participation.

Second, we ensure that Canadians of all backgrounds are able to participate in society. To foster this very important symbiotic relationship requires Canadians to work hard.

Our Canadian mosaic means that we must be accommodating in ways that other nations feel free to ignore. We have built a strong tradition of respecting each other's cultures, of understanding how diversity enriches us. We work with many partners across the country to accomplish this. We work with other levels of government, with major institutions, with organizations, business and labour and with individual Canadians to make sure that we all have the opportunity to participate fully in society.

Why do we go to this trouble? What is our incentive? We do it because when Canadians are treated equally and fairly, when they feel they belong and when they have the opportunity to contribute, we are ensuring our future growth and prosperity. We do it because Canada in its diversity is a mirror for the rest of the world. We dare hope that other nations who see themselves reflected in our diversity will be persuaded to follow us toward peace, understanding and justice for all.

From our beginnings as a country, diversity has been a fact of the every day lives of Canadians. The issue is not whether we are culturally diverse-there is no question about that-but rather how we intend to make sure that our diversity continues to strengthen us as a nation.

Even today as religious and ethnic conflicts take their toll around the globe, Canada has been a light of democratic resolution of profound political difference. We have been a beacon to displaced people from around the world who recognize what racism, prejudice and ignorance can lead to. We are an example of respect and accommodation that has been far too lacking in other parts of the world.

Our efforts in this regard have been recognized by Nelson Mandela, president of the Republic of South Africa. In his message to Canadians, President Mandela referred to Canada's lasting tradition of dedication to human rights and hoped that our efforts would continue to "enrich humanity".

With this very desire in mind, the government remains committed to the multiculturalism policy built on the pillars of identity, civic participation and social justice. These are the cherished principles of democracy that are the best deterrents to tyranny and oppression. These are the values that bind all Canadians as a nation.

While the pace of change may be challenging or even frightening, we want to ensure that all who call Canada home are able to take full and active part in the affairs of their community and country, that Canadians are valued for their individual contributions, for their value as human beings and not judged by their membership in any number of identifiable communities.

So by all means, Canadians, remember who you are and where you came from, but do not forget that Canada's future lies ahead of us and that its creation depends on how well we work together.

We are a diverse society. We will remain a diverse society. Our job is to make that diversity work for all of us. It is this compassionate vision of our community that has and will continue to make Canada a beacon to victims of violence and oppression from around the world.

April 24 is an emotional day for Canadians of Armenian ancestry as they recall the very painful and tragic events of the past. The Canadian government has consistently extended its heartfelt sense of sorrow on this difficult occasion.

However, the motion as presented does not reflect accurately Canada's position. The Government of Canada does not deny the tragic events that befell the Armenian community. Indeed, it sympathizes with the victims of the tragic events of 1915 and with their descendants, particularly those who have come to Canada to make a new life.

In memory of the victims of inhumanity: Armenians, Jews, Bosnians, Cambodians, aboriginal peoples, gay men and lesbians and people of colour, I urge the House to support the amendment proposed earlier by the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.

In the government's recognition that we must be ever vigilant in our defence of the values we share as Canadians, it is this government's commitment to never forget and to work toward reconciliation and understanding.

[Portage Program, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the Portage program currently operating in Lac Echo just north of Montreal. This program is a therapeutic community based treatment program for young people between the ages of 14 and 19 experiencing substance abuse problems along with significant difficulties in their personal growth.

The community supports the individual's efforts in living up to personal obligations and encourages progress. This is done in the context of a series of groups where achievements are reviewed and new challenges set.

Portage is widely recognized as one of the most successful and cost effective programs in existence for rehabilitating substance abusers. Globally the program boasts that 85 per cent of graduates remain drug free.

Atlantic Canada is in need of this kind of therapy program as many of those in need of treatment have been travelling to the U.S. for rehab.

I am encouraged that Portage will soon be bringing its expertise to Fredericton. I urge the Government of Canada to support it in that effort.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to lay upon the table of the House a petition signed by approximately 200 constituents of Fredericton-York-Sunbury and neighbouring ridings.

Basically the petition calls on the House to amend the current legislation to exclude convention refugees from having to pay the right of landing fee.

[Jewish-Christian Relations, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday I attended a lecture which was part of a discussion series marking the history of Jewish-Christian relations. Last Sunday's lecture was called "Childhood Survivors' Memoirs of the Holocaust".

I thank Dr. Israel Unger for sharing his story with us. It is difficult to listen to the horrors of what happened during the second world war and I cannot imagine what it must have been like to live through it.

I hope that Dr. Unger and others like him will continue to recount their experiences so that we can learn from our mistakes. Ignoring these kinds of atrocities will only lead us to forgetting and possibly repeating them.

I thank the organizers of this discussion series and encourage others to promote similar events in their areas across Canada.

[Department Of Health Act, March 28th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-18, in Clause 4, be amended by striking out line 7, on page 2, and substituting the following: a ) the administration of such Acts of Parliament and of orders or regulations of the Government of Canada as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any minister of that Government relating in any way to the health of the people of Canada; a .1) the promotion and the preservation of the''.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose an amendment to clause 4 of Bill C-18, formerly Bill C-95. The amendment basically reincorporates a clause from the current Department of National Health and Welfare Act, an act that dates back to 1944 and has served Canadians well for half a century.

As the House knows, over time drafting styles of legislation change. That is why Bill C-95, as it was originally tabled, adopted a more contemporary way of describing the Minister of Health's responsibilities.

The drafters of the legislation on many occasions have argued to me and others that basically Bill C-95 as it was tabled at second reading would not have changed the responsibilities of the Minister of Health for the administration of acts of Parliament. However, others are less convinced.

First, I will establish exactly what it is that this amendment proposes to do. It would insert in subclause 4(2) after "without restricting the generality of subsection (1) the minister's powers, duties and functions relating to health include the following matters", I would be inserting "the administration of such acts of Parliament and of orders or regulations of the Government of Canada as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any minister of that Government relating in any way to the health of the people of Canada".

The amendment is proposed in order to eliminate any apprehension that the government is trying to avoid being held accountable for its actions in administering legislation. A similar provision already exists in the current department of National Health and Welfare Act.

The reference to social security and the welfare of the people of Canada has been eliminated in view of the creation of the Department of Human Resources Development. This provision had been eliminated to improve the drafting of the bill. It was considered redundant because subclause 4(1) already had established the general mandate of the minister with regard to health and moreover specific legislation such as the Food and Drugs Act states that the minister is also responsible for its application.

However, many Canadians who have contacted HIV through blood transfusions have indicated that they fear that the effect of this omission will be to reduce the accountability of the minister with regard to the legislation it administers and in particular with regard to the Food and Drugs Act.

In fact, Ms. Lori Stoltz, a lawyer who represented HIV blood transfused patients at the Krever inquiry has pointed out to me that in her opinion the bill would remove responsibility from the Minister of Health.

We must be very sensitive to the concerns of people who have become ill after using a product that they had all reason to believe was absolutely safe. Rather than entering into a legal debate of whether the elimination of the previous clause would have in fact reduced the accountability of the minister, it is much more constructive, in my opinion, to take the action to alleviate their concerns.

The purpose of Bill C-18 is to confirm the creation of the Department of Health and define the mandate of the minister responsible for the department, not to limit the risk of liability of the government.

The pith and substance of the bill is contained in subclause 4(1). It provides that the Minister of Health is responsible for all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the promotion and preservation of the health of Canadians.

The bill recognizes the crucial role played by the Department of Health in protecting the public against risks to health. This includes the evaluation of drugs and medical devices, ensuring these therapeutic products are safe for public consumption and that they do what the manufacturers claim they will do.

The disastrous situation which resulted from the transmission of HIV through the blood system must not be allowed to occur again. Our efforts to maintain a high quality, responsive and affordable health system is being strengthened by the creation of the new Department of Health and the implementing legislation for Health Canada ensures that the department's resources and activities are devoted to the policy and funding challenges facing our national health protection system.

The bill ensures that the department will continue to work closely with all health stakeholders and the people of Canada. Health Canada will provide national leadership and remain a full and active partner in all matters concerning the health of Canadians. For these reasons it is proposed to make it clear that the responsibilities of the Minister of Health include the administration of legislation that is related to health.

The amendment is put forward to reassure Canadians that where a debate existed whether the removal of certain provisions in the old act would have the effect of removing responsibility from the

minister. Rather than debate which opinion is right, the government has decided appropriately to defer to the safer position and reinsert the original wording from the National Health and Welfare Act. I am pleased to make this amendment.