Carol Skelton

[Employment Insurance, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of human resources continues to smear innocent EI complainants to hide her neglect and incompetence.

Unemployed workers across Canada were unfairly penalized by her department. Instead of smearing innocent victims, why will the minister not own up to her own incompetence and pay back these victims?

[Employment Insurance, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we received our access to information two days ago. Yesterday the minister had the gall to say that EI claimants who do not like what happened could write to her department, as if the onus for justice rests on the criminals. The responsibility of the undeclared earnings fiasco rests squarely on the minister, not on the workers she victimized.

When is she going to do the right thing and pay back these workers?

[Employment Insurance, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister threw red herrings all over the place to try to hide her own guilt about EI undeclared earnings.

She quoted the opposition out of context. She blamed the opposition. She said that EI claimants could appeal when she knows full well that numerous appeals have already been dismissed. In fact, this is what one umpire said: “If the legislation is unfair, then only Parliament can change it”.

Why did the minister support an unjust law that took millions of dollars--

[Employment Insurance, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her congratulations. We just received the information yesterday from access to information and I think that answers her question.

The principle of overpayment is a good one. If Canadians receive government benefits to which they are not entitled, they should pay them back. No one argues with that. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If the Liberals through their unjust law get more than they are entitled to get, will they do the right thing and pay back the money?

[Employment Insurance, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government ripping off workers and employers by making them overpay $43 billion in EI payments, now we have learned that this uncaring government then forced the unemployed to pay back overpayments that were calculated using assessment guidelines it knew were wrong.

Why does the minister not care that her government owes millions of dollars to those who need it most?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, March 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians waited two years for the government to bring in a budget. We all waited for some positive action to be taken to ensure the economic viability of our country. We waited, and in December of 2001 we received a budget, a budget that left us all disappointed.

The government had the opportunity to finally address issues directly affecting Canadians, namely taxation. Instead of helping to alleviate some of the burden of taxation on Canadians, the government chose to add to that burden.

The auditor general stated that priorities needed to be re-examined to ensure that money was spent in priority areas and that this examination could realistically lead to the termination of some areas and departments that were either wasteful or no longer priority areas. According to the government, there was not one area of wasteful spending in any government department. This meant that there was no money available to reallocate to more important areas such as national security.

The events of September 11 affected every one of us. The insecurity and fear of that day linger on. The safety and security of Canadians became a top priority, and rightly so. There were now national security issues that needed to be addressed immediately. We needed to have airport and airplane security in place to ensure the safety of Canadians.

We needed to have a government that would take the initiative to implement a plan that would ensure our safety. Instead, we were met with a government that floundered in the face of this challenge. The United States put together legislation dealing with air travel safety immediately. That same legislation was passed within 10 days of September 11. Its plan was swift and immediate.

Canadians waited for a plan, and we waited and we waited. When a plan was finally submitted, Canadians found that they would be taking care of the bill. One hundred per cent of the airport and airline security measures would be paid for by the travelling public.

The Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations put together recommendations outlining how these new measures should be paid for.The recommendations from that committee would be fair to all involved. That recommendation stated:

All stakeholders--including airports, air carriers, airline passengers and/or residents of Canada--contribute to the cost of improved aviation security. In particular, the amounts currently spent by airports and air carriers should be continued, with appropriate adjustments for inflation. A ticket surtax could also be implemented, and any funding shortfalls could be financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

This recommendation sounds reasonable and fair.

Instead of implementing a sound, fair and financially feasible program, the government chose to ignore the recommendations of the committee. This is a trend that seems to have developed within the Liberal government. The arrogance is astonishing. These committees are set up to deliver fair and reasonable views and solutions that would benefit Canadians. Instead, the government chooses to ignore its committees and acts on its own.

The air security tax to be paid solely by air travellers is neither just nor fair. What is needed in the bill is balance. There must be balance among the needs of Canadians, the security needs of airports and carriers, the travelling public's ability to pay and the government's obligation to Canadians.

At a time when we have seen many air carriers struggling, the government chooses to further endanger the viability of this industry. In adding extra taxes on air travel, it will effectively be reducing the amount of air travel in this country.

We have heard the following analogy before, but it is worth repeating. The high levels of taxes on a pack of cigarettes are there to help discourage people from smoking. It only stands to reason that adding more taxes to airline tickets will then discourage people from flying. This is not fearmongering, it is a logical statement. To make a product more expensive will lead to fewer people buying that product. If this theory were not true, I would be driving a convertible instead of a compact.

If it were only passengers who were to benefit from these new measures, it would make a little more sense to have them paying the bill. That is not the case. These new safety measures will be to the benefit of air carriers and their staff, employees of airports, including shops and services found in those airports, and to the general public.

To force only one group of people to pay for security is unfair and unreasonable.

The amount of this new tax, $24 for a round trip, is excessive. In some instances it constitutes a full 58% of the total ticket price. If the government cannot see the debilitating effect that it would have on the air industry, then it is not looking hard enough.

In the United States passengers pay $2.50. Figuring in the exchange rate this is still far below what Canadians are expected to pay. In airports such as Saskatoon, which is in my riding, the amount of tax expected to be collected from passengers would exceed that airport's annual operating budget. Amendments to the bill must be made before it is implemented. The Canadian Alliance proposes that the maximum tax collected from any given airport should not exceed 50% of that airport's annual operating budget.

Changes to the bill need to be made to adequately reflect the various airports in Canada. There are some small regional airports that cannot support the burden that this new tax would present. Revisions should be made that would see a progressive tax being applied, 50 that the amount of the tax would be a percentage of the ticket price. There is no reason that a short flight from Saskatoon to Regina should be subject to the same tax level as a flight from Vancouver to Toronto.

I received a letter from the Saskatoon Airport Authority outlining its concerns in relation to the proposed tax implementation. It states:

We are entirely self-financing and all earnings of the Authority are reinvested in airport operations and development of the infrastructure for the benefit of stakeholders including the Community of Saskatoon and the aviation industry in general.

The events of September 11, 2001 have changed the world and produced unprecedented hardship. The financial crisis facing the civil aviation industry is particularly intense with costs skyrocketing and revenues plummeting at a time when economic events before September 11 threatened the financial stability of the industry.

Saskatoon is particularly concerned about the negative effect the proposed tax will have on our operations. We are reliant on short haul flights. The additional charge levied by the Government of Canada will have a negative impact on our airport. We believe that many potential passengers may choose to utilize other modes of transportation.

This letter goes on to outline specific concerns of the Saskatoon Airport Authority in relation to this new tax. They include the accountability for the collection of the funds, the unfair application of the user pay concept, the discriminatory aspect on short haul flights and the lack of a clear link between the fee and the level of security provided.

The government must re-examine the proposed security tax on air travellers. Canadians demand and deserve a fair and equitable source of funding for the added security measures needed.

[Employment Insurance, February 28th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the human resources department service centres are receiving a failing grade from the very people they are there to serve, the unemployed Canadian workers.

I was contacted recently by an Ontario individual who found it necessary to apply for employment insurance benefits. According to HRDC personnel there was a waiting time of least six weeks. It was their busy time. This individual asked department personnel if there was any way to speed up the process. He was told to go to the local welfare office to apply for benefits.

It is a scary time for Canadians when their government's policy is to offload the unemployed onto provincial social assistance. The EI surplus is nearing $40 billion and unemployed Canadians are being forced onto welfare. Canadian workers are in need of an employment insurance system that works. How long will they have to wait?

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage of Bill C-5. Enforcement penalties of the bill are of great concern to me and my Canadian Alliance colleagues. I am speaking about government Motion No. 120, clause 97. The government seems to be continuing a trend of making criminals out of law-abiding citizens and turning its back on Canadian agriculture.

First, we have gun registration. That program has out of control costs and no realistic benefits. A farmer owning a shotgun is now a criminal.

Next, the government's cruelty to animals legislation is another example of turning farmers into criminals. Through the definitions outlined in that legislation, farmers and ranchers are at risk of prosecution over necessary and ordinary farming practices.

Now we have Bill C-5, yet again the ordinary Canadian has the opportunity to become a criminal. Due to the language of the bill, the crown does not need to prove intent or even reckless behaviour. Instead, it is up to the accused to prove that he or she has acted with due diligence.

Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill species at risk or damage their habitats. In theory this is a worthy goal. It is the practising of the theory that has me concerned. There is a definite need for protection of these animals and species.

Species at risk legislation is something with which we agree, however there needs to be a balanced approach in the conviction and sentencing of offenders.

According to the bill as it currently stands, one would be required to be an expert in recognizing all species on the list of those that are at risk. It is not the average Canadian citizen who is aware of every one of these animals, let alone who has the ability to identify them and their habitats. To not be aware of every one of these animals and their particular habitats leaves one open for prosecution. I am not saying that ignorance is a defence. What I am saying is that accidents happen.

The enforcement and penalties within the bill must be based on one's reckless behaviour. To make criminals out of innocent people is not the place to start if we truly desire species and their habitats to be saved and protected. However, we do have the government's assurance that the minister will use his own discretion in laying charges. Again, we are asked to trust the minister. To leave the laying of criminal charges to the minister's discretion is not acceptable.

Being charged with a criminal offence is not something that any one of us would take lightly. The bill must contain reasonable guidelines, enforcement and penalties. It is not reasonable to pass a bill like C-5 that has holes and gaps in it. The government would have Canadians be content with the trust me attitude, that the gaps will be filled in by the minister at some later date. This is not acceptable.

If charges are to be laid fairly, the very least that should be provided is basic education and training for property owners and users. They should be entitled to know what their responsibilities are. A basic education plan for property owners would provide them with additional tools in the protection of species and habitats. This would be a benefit to all involved. To leave them in the dark and then charge them later with a crime they do not know they committed is horrific.

The penalties outlined in the bill are severe. There is a fine of up to $250,000 or up to five years in jail for an individual. These are very harsh punishments. Let us say, for example, that a farmer is out in the field and in the course of working the land ploughs under nests belonging to birds listed under the legislation. Is this an indictable offence? Is the farmer truly guilty? What were his or her intentions? Were his or her actions reckless? I do not think this farmer intended to destroy this animal's habitat. Is it worthy of criminal charges? I hardly think so. The farmers and ranchers I know are not about to plough up a bird's nest without thinking.

The legislation must be examined with some common sense. Making criminals out of innocent citizens is not the way to enact this legislation. If the government desires the willing participation of property owners in Canada, the threat of hefty fines and jail time is not the way to involve them. Co-operation is the key to this legislation being effective. Co-operation is possible when all parties involved are viewed as equal. Taking a heavy-handed approach will not work, like this bill.

Farmers and ranchers are among some of this country's finest conservationists. Most of these people understand the necessity of saving endangered species. They understand how fragile our ecosystems are. It would be to the benefit of species at risk to keep farmers, ranchers and landowners as partners in the plan for species protection. Enforcement and penalties need to be included in this legislation, but they need to be applied to those whose behaviour is reckless, whose actions are negligent and whose destruction of species and habitat is intentional.

For example, an individual is driving his or her car through a school zone. The driver is obeying the speed limit and is aware and alert, but suddenly a child darts into the street to retrieve a soccer ball. The driver slams on the brakes but is unable to avoid hitting that child. Is that person viewed as being as guilty as the individual who is driving drunk and at a speed well over the posted limit in that same school zone? Should the punishment for the alert, sober driver be the same as that for the intoxicated speeding driver? A civilized society would say no, that the second driver's behaviour was reckless and showed no concern for the welfare of others.

The bill rejects the thinking of a civilized society. The penalties in the bill must be applied with reason. Assurances of the minister's discretion are not good enough. Penalties must be adequately addressed in Bill C-5 before it is passed.

To have the responsibility of proving one's innocence, and in this case due diligence, flies in the face of western law practices. The onus of proving guilt has always been on the crown. We expect to enter into legal confrontations being innocent until proven guilty. The federal government is now changing those basic practices. A Canadian citizen must now prove due diligence in the face of allegations. This is an awkward approach. The mentality behind it will alienate the participation of the very people needed to help implement this legislation: the property owners.

The enforcement of the bill is also in question. A document released by Environment Canada suggests a need for additional personnel and resources. This request is being made without the bill having been implemented. What will the requests be once it is? As enforcement capabilities by Environment Canada are limited already, what actions will be taken once the bill is passed? This government is notorious for not being able to estimate the costs of its own programs.

The federal gun registry was to have a minimal start-up cost and be self-sustaining afterward. It has now cost the Canadian taxpayers over $700 million. Will RCMP officers now be committed to enforcing environment legislation? The government has cut resources to the RCMP drastically. How can it be expected to enforce this bill?

The majority of property owners in my riding are also farmers. They are good, law-abiding citizens. To think that any one of them could be thrown in jail for inadvertently killing an endangered animal or damaging their habitat frightens me. Farmers and ranchers in the country continue to face hardships. We have seen their determination in the face of challenges such as drought conditions and low commodity prices in recent years. These individuals do not have the financial resources to fight changes that could occur through this present legislation.

The rights of property owners cannot be ignored or overshadowed by the legislation. We must make sure that penalties and fines are applied where necessary. I maintain that there must be the element of reckless behaviour or intent present. Accidents happen and mistakes can be made.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's stated goal is to increase the performance of federal departments by 10% by 2005. That means that a mere 60% of Canadians would be satisfied with the performance of Canada employment centres, a D-minus instead of an F.

Why is the government content with low targets and bottom rung service for unemployed Canadians?

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's citizens first initiative rates the performance of federal departments from the perspective of people who use the system.

In the year 2000, unemployed Canadians gave Canada employment centres a failing grade. Forty-six out of 100 said they were very unhappy with the service.

Why is the government content with a failing grade in delivering services to the unemployed?