John O'Reilly

[National Parole Board, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the recent appointment of Mr. Willie Gibbs to the chair of the National Parole Board.

The Auditor General points out in his 1994 report that the method of hiring used shows a need for improvement and this was followed. Mr. Gibbs, a career corrections civil servant, was hired through a two stage selection process and face to face interviews.

This is the first time this type of appointment process has been held for National Parole Board appointments and we applaud it.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a specific answer would be that all economic regions of the country are not the same. Whether one is in Gaspé, Vegreville or Haliburton, there is a difference in the areas, a difference in the needs and a difference in the qualifications required. Some have to work in seasonal jobs in a seasonal market in a certain area. I can go into Haliburton in my area and find 30 per cent unemployment in the winter because it is a seasonal, tourist oriented job market. It is improving. Winter sports are coming on. There are some good ski hills. There are cross-country trails. Things happen there in the winter that are drawing more people in.

I do not think we can compare that with the city of Toronto, Vegreville, Elk Island, or any other area. The area has to be taken into consideration on its needs. The program has to suit the area, not the area suit the program. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member. He and I share something in common. We are both concerned about the unemployment and retraining situation in Canada. That is the reason the hon. minister brought forward this paper for discussion. We welcome discussion and the exchange of ideas hopefully for the benefit of all people in Canada.

I am aware of ongoing retraining programs. I attended a retraining program in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton the other night. The Victoria County Training Council graduated 295 people and 75 per cent of 1,717 people it has retrained over the last four years are actively involved in the workplace. That is a record to be very proud of. That type of retraining program has set the example for others to follow.

The member says that maybe I do not understand unemployment insurance. My father was unemployed in the fifties so I am well aware of what it is like to have unemployment in one's family, to suffer because of it and not to have proper funding until another job is found.

Earlier today the member for Elk Island talked about some dream world wherein no one here knew about the programs. All the programs were brought in and he never had to partake of them. He had a great time getting along in some fairyland like Alice in Wonderland . I went through the fifties with an unemployed father. I know what it is like to have to go through programs when there is no work or nothing for the person who has trained all his or her life and is all of a sudden out on the street with nothing to do and a family to raise. I understand that part of being unemployed. That is why I am anxious to be involved in this program, add to the discussion and bring to the forefront the fact that people have to retrain.

I spoke to the graduates the other night and said: "You have come through a training program; don't stop training". We talked to the pages this afternoon about always spending time training and retraining. The days of walking into a place and being there until one retires with a pension are over. We must retrain. We must have a workforce that is effective in the nineties and beyond. Retraining, unemployment and financial assistance to people temporarily out of work are very important to me. I want to see the ideas of all members brought forward to make it a better program, an improved program for the people who most need it.

There are too many single parents suffering in poverty in Canada. They did not ask for that. They did not ask to be poor. They do not want to be poor. They do not want handouts. They want to be part of a productive society. That is what the government is committed to doing. It wants to make this a more productive society, a society that trains and retrains and looks after the job market that becomes available, a highly technical market in some cases.

However 2,400 jobs went out of my riding over the free trade agreement. Some of those people qualified within 15 or 20 weeks of not qualifying for certain programs of assistance. Some compassion has to be given to a person who does not qualify for POWA because there are not enough people working in the factory and people are laid off. That has to be looked at and refined so that it gives a benefit to everyone who needs it.

The member asked whether people cheated the system. I think it is a very small percentage. I know some parties work on that very small percentage for political gain, but I think most people are honest. Most people are on these programs because they need it, not because they want it. It is a program with refinements that can work to the benefit of Canadian taxpayers and retrain our workforce for the 1990s and into the year 2000.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I almost hate to break up this Bloc-Reform love-in on a government motion which puts forth provisions for a discussion paper and discussion on something that is very important to the country.

The changing nature of employment over the past several years has had considerable impact on the unemployment insurance program. Since UI is the key component in social security, it is essential that we revitalize the program to meet the needs of all Canadians in all provinces in the 1990s and beyond.

Originally UI was intended to provide temporary financial assistance for workers between jobs. Today people use UI for long term support and many use the programs repeatedly. Last year 13 per cent of unemployed Canadians had been out of work for a year or more. Compared to 1976 that is three times the level of long term unemployment.

Almost 40 per cent of UI recipients have claimed benefits at least three times during the previous five years. The number of frequent claimants has almost doubled in 13 years.

The problem with UI is not the claimants. The problem is the program. It works well for people who require short term help while looking for a job, but it does help workers who need to adjust to the changing economic structure.

Many individuals alternate short periods of work with periods of receiving UI benefits. It becomes a way of life. These UI recipients need more than basic support. Their problem is more complex. They may need skills training, even basic academic upgrading or some counselling to get started in a new, more stable occupation.

A recent study by StatsCanada suggests that some employers take unfair advantage of the program. They do so by organizing schedules around the required number of weeks people need to qualify for UI benefits. Employers plan layoffs to coincide with UI qualification periods and plan recalls when worker benefits come to an end.

The business community complains that increases in UI premiums discourage job creation. Since premiums often increase during the latter part of a recession, we are taxing jobs at the worst possible time. Also, due to the changes in the labour market many more workers are not covered by UI. This is especially true for women and young Canadians.

What we need is an effective, sustainable insurance program that recognizes an individual's responsibility to become self-reliant. At the same time the program must ensure an income support system for those who truly need it.

To that end, we are recommending for discussion two possibilities for revitalizing UI. One approach calls for a new employment insurance program that closely integrates assistance with employment development services, or we could adjust the existing UI program to discourage abuse and better serve those who genuinely need it. Some elements overlap in both approaches. A new employment insurance program could divide benefits into two kinds: basic insurance and adjustment insurance.

Under basic insurance occasional users of UI could receive help returning to work much as they do now. These claimants could receive UI benefits and training employment programs more or less as they do now. Basic insurance would include the special benefits available in the current system. This insurance

would be for those who are caught between two jobs or who may need some assistance on a temporary basis.

Adjustment insurance could be available to frequent claimants. Who is a frequent claimant would have to be determined. For discussion we are using the example of a person who files three or more claims in five years. As well, adjustment insurance would consider regional differences in the workforce.

Other questions under adjustment insurance include: How long should a claimant draw these benefits? Should adjustment benefits be income tested? Should adjustment benefits depend upon a claimant's willingness to participate in adjustment programs? In considering the answers to these questions it will be important to recognize the significance of the UI system to many parts of the economy and in many parts of the country.

A fair approach which allows people to respond and adjust will be important. That is one approach, a new employment insurance program. A second approach, adjusting the current UI program, would not distinguish between occasional and frequent claimants.

We can increase the time a person had to work to qualify for UI, or we could reduce benefits by shortening duration and/or lowering the level of benefits. This approach would free up significant resources for reinvestment in employment programs, but it would not identify claimants who require the most help in staying employed. Those most in need of income support will not receive adequate assistance. Nonetheless this approach might be taken in conjunction with the first to create an equitable and balanced reform strategy.

As well, UI reform must address the needs of the workers in non-standard employment: part timers, self-employed, temporary workers, and people with multiple jobs. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part time. Many of these workers are not fully covered or not covered at all.

We also have to determine the best way to fund the renewed insurance program. Employers and workers are concerned about how UI premium rates are set. Higher premiums are killing jobs. We need to think about how the burden of premiums is shared.

Options for improving funding include: building a surplus in the insurance account during strong economic growth; requiring employers to pay premiums on their total payroll; expanding earnings subject to premiums; increasing premium rates for those who use the program the most; and reducing premiums for employers who support training.

Funds saved from a revitalized UI program could be used to reduce premiums or to make employment development services more effective. The two must work hand in hand.

Employment development services help the chronically unemployed by offering them job counselling, training, labour market information and work experience. When people move from welfare to work, employment development services are a good investment. Unfortunately they do not do that often enough.

Employment development services need to be flexible, to be tailored to individual needs and community opportunities. We must give more UI claimants personalized job counselling that directs them toward the specific help they require. Up to date relevant information about job opportunities would help people make better informed decisions about jobs, training and education.

Millions of adults require additional training in reading, writing and arithmetic, the basic skills essential for almost all employment. The federal government sends UI recipients to classroom courses but again training must fit individual needs. Workplace training provided by employers is often the most effective approach. To encourage this we could offer employers tax credits, levies for training and paid educational leave.

Another consideration is to supplement wages for unemployed workers facing specific barriers to employment such as persons with disabilities or long term unemployed workers who may need an extra bit of support to break into the labour market.

Much of the success of employment development services depends upon good management. Success should be measured by results, not by bureaucratic enforcement of the program's rules. We should consider setting broad goals and then inviting local communities to decide which programs will best achieve those goals.

Once again effective EDS will require effective partnerships. We have invited the provinces and territories to plan many employment development services and to manage the purchase of institutional training. The province could manage single window offices to bring federal-provincial programs under one roof. This would make access easier for both UI recipients and those on social assistance who should also have access to EDS.

We must do more to help people with disabilities overcome barriers and become fully integrated into Canadian society. Constructive partnerships could lead to more accessible workplaces, flexible working conditions, appropriate training and better management practices for persons with disabilities.

I know hon. members appreciate the complexity and magnitude of reforming UI and adjusting employment development

services. I trust the ideas I have presented will help them prepare input for the government's discussion paper. I look forward to hearing the responses of my hon. colleagues.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to join the debate and once again speak in support of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Bill C-53 must be recognized as part of a greater reorganization of government. This reorganization will allow for a more efficient organizational structure in the department which in the long run will prove of greater benefit to the Canadian taxpayer, something all of us should be in favour of.

Although this department had its beginning under the previous government in June 1993, the current government of which I am a member has improved the department markedly. I am pleased to say these improvements are reflected in many accomplishments of the department in the past year in the area of heritage conservation, official languages, national parks and amateur sports to name a few.

With this in mind, the government is now proceeding with the task of confirming the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage to better serve all Canadians. I believe it is important to remember that this department serves a large group of Canadians, not special interest groups as some members across the floor have criticized. The department serves national parks across the country, amateur sports across the country, heritage sites across the country and numerous cultural exhibits across the country. It is truly a national department dealing with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

In my riding of Victoria-Haliburton in Ontario I think of the Trent-Severn waterway system which has transported millions of people in the last 100 years. It allows users to travel from Trenton to Georgian Bay on a heritage waterway system. In particular, each summer as a direct result of the commitment to heritage by this department, I see the operation of a blacksmith shop along the Rideau Canal system which stretches from Kingston to Ottawa and contains numerous heritage locks. This operation shows the importance of heritage and history in Canada. Add to that the diligent work and commitment of the department in the Trent-Severn and Rideau Canal systems and its important heritage will be preserved for future generations.

Culturally, certain members opposite argue that if the free market does not support certain types of art then they should not be produced. There are many examples of experimental or cutting edge art which appear on display in our National Gallery here in Ottawa. Once again some members opposite see no bottom line need for these pieces of art when in fact some of the

art is worth considerably more now than the original purchase price. Art cannot be judged quickly or haphazardly.

Upon close examination and as a direct result of the department Canadian cultural industries have grown over 40 per cent from 1988 to 1992 when other industries saw their revenue and sales drop. In large part this is due to the benefits of programs like those for sound recordings, postal subsidies for book publishers, as well as film and video departments. As a matter of fact from 1987 to 1992 in Ontario alone the export of critically acclaimed books by Canadian writers increased about 70 per cent.

In addition, because the cultural industries rely so much on innovation and technology the jobs they create are of high skill, long duration and high value. Award winning books and movies, commercially successful theatre productions, million copy selling records and production facilities that attract international film producers are some of the areas in which Canada has become highly successful. All of these successes are signs of creative cultural industries that are increasing and growing each year. With those increases have come successful jobs and businesses for Canadians.

Canada's multiculturalism policy has the noble aim of promoting equal opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the social, cultural, economic and political life of our great nation. I would also like to encourage some members opposite to become aware and consult with those Canadians who are grateful for the multiculturalism policy and its benefits.

Our multiculturalism policy is an effort by responsible government to help Canadians understand one another and develop tolerance. Diversity does not divide us; it can only enrich our society. It is important to remember that if Canada wants to remain competitive in an ever shrinking world, we must pool our resources of diverse cultures and people.

I must commend the members opposite for their continued efforts to find something wrong with the department of heritage. It is apparent they cannot find anything. They cannot find anything new to say about the department until they read it in some newspaper. Perhaps they should concentrate on the fine effort put forth by the minister and his department as well as the policies and issues they manage. I believe if the members opposite focused on this instead of their theatrics, they would agree with me when I urge the passage of Bill C-53.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

The fifth petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

The fourth petition asks that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

The third petition asks that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

The second petition asks that Parliament amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of

killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product if destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present five petitions I have recently received from my constituents in the Ontario riding of Victoria-Haliburton.

The first petition was sent to me by Dr. Jules Sobrien. It calls upon Parliament among other things to refrain from any further gun control legislation in the name of controlling crime which would be of no value and would constitute unjust harassment of lawful gun owners.