Seven out of 52. Not even 14 per cent.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 52% of the vote.
Privilege March 14th, 1996
Seven out of 52. Not even 14 per cent.
Privilege March 14th, 1996
Surely not.
Privilege March 14th, 1996
Even though they criticized it.
Learning Disabilities March 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, March is learning disabilities month. This year is a special one, since the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada celebrates its 25th anniversary.
Today, I am wearing the commemorative pin in honour of all Canadians suffering from learning disabilities and all the individuals and organizations supporting them.
As an educator I wear this pin proudly and with honour. I believe that every individual must be given the right and have the privilege to experience the one thing that keeps our society vibrant and growing, the need to learn.
I commend this organization for its excellent work and for its dedication.
I commend them today for the commitment to education and to equal opportunities for employment and fulfilment among all Canadians.
Supply March 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to further consider that. If my colleague has clear and precise suggestions to make in this case as well as others, the government and the minister would be quite ready to consider them.
We, on this side of the House, are very open-minded and ready to remedy any inequity.
Supply March 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which I consider of prime importance. Yes indeed we must study more and discuss open-mindedly the whole concept of work, the way we work and the way we used to work. We must look at the changes that have occurred not only in Canada, including Quebec, but throughout the world.
It is true that things are done differently, dramatically so. This is no doubt the reason, and I want to share this with my colleagues, that, the government's speech from the throne promoted job creation primarily in the sense of ensuring our finances were in order. But we did the same in the budget. We want to be sure we create a better climate for creating jobs, which is what we want for all the Canadians we represent.
But I come back to the key point my colleague made. Yes, indeed, we must examine, we must look and we must consider what the future holds, because, like him, I think things will be different again. If we look at the last decade, we can see a major change. And if we look ahead into the next decade, I think there will be as many changes.
This is why I support this bill in principle. We are well aware it can stand improvement. But, we also know that it meets certain needs today. I will give you two quick examples. When we include the people working part time, we meet their needs. There are other measures, however. Some should perhaps be added; some should perhaps be improved. But as my colleague said earlier, certain adjustments will be made.
However, I entirely agree with him on the fundamental issue. We have to look at what is happening, what has happened and what will have to be done in addition to what we did to improve things for workers.
Supply March 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in 25 seconds I can reiterate that I would welcome questions from my colleagues with respect to the descriptions I have shared as well as the quotes I have put forward. These were not from members of the opposition, but from people who have looked at this with some objectivity. Perhaps they would like to share the views of their own champions on this issue.
Supply March 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to set the record straight and, second, to bring a matter up for discussion.
You are probably aware of the fact that the Employment Insurance Act provides for the modernisation of the Canadian unemployment insurance system, which is 50 years old, and for the revision of federal employment programs. In fact, the Employment Insurance Act will establish a two part re-employment assistance system.
First, the revised insurance benefits. Income support will continue to be provided on a temporary basis to recipients while they are looking for work. The benefits were revised to give more value to the work effort.
On the subject of hours, the insurance system is based, not on weeks of work but on total hours worked.
As for earnings, each dollar earned is taken into account in the benefit calculation. The higher the total earnings during a reference period of 16 to 20 weeks, the higher the benefits paid upon becoming unemployed.
Regarding the intensity rule, as you know, the benefit rate will be gradually reduced based on the number of previous weeks of benefits.
Finally, as regards the family supplement, this new supplement will raise the benefit rate of low income families with children. This means that claimants whose family income is lower than $25,921 could see their benefit rate increase by 7 per cent on average.
Second, the active employment benefits. The 39 programs which are currently centralized will be replaced with an employment benefits program focusing on set goals.
It is estimated that 400,000 individuals will receive direct assistance in their job search through the five measures put forth: wage subsidy, income supplement, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and development grants and loans.
These five measures will be tailored to individual needs and will support the jobless in their efforts to return to work. These are flexible tools, which will be tailored to meet the needs of local communities as well.
Our goal is to ensure that everyone is treated with fairness. We want the population as a whole to be treated fairly. Low income families with children will get increased protection, thanks to a family supplement. This is one example.
Here is another one: some of the new rules will be applied gradually to give individuals and communities time to adjust to the new situation.
Third, jobless people in regions with a high rate of unemployment will need fewer hours to be eligible.
People earning $2,000 or less per year will get a refund of their premiums through the income tax system. Small businesses will be eligible for a temporary refund if the amount of the contributions that they pay over the next two years increases significantly.
All claimants will be allowed to work on a temporary basis and to earn at least $50 per week without their benefits being affected. The program will take into account all the hours spent working. Regions where unemployment is high will get proportionally greater support.
These measures are designed to facilitate the program's implementation, to be fair to all Canadians, and to be receptive to the needs of regions and communities.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to share, with you and with members of this House, some comments made regarding this bill. I am not referring to comments made by members of the opposition parties, but by people who look at this legislation with an independent mind, if you will.
Raynald Langlois, president of Quebec's chamber of commerce, said: "As regards vocational training, the proposed legislation provides an interesting approach to reduce, if not eliminate, useless and costly overlap".
Yvon Charbonneau, a member of Quebec's national assembly and a former union leader, said: "At this point, the Quebec government's responsibility is to go to Ottawa and start negotiating directly and immediately".
Here is another quote: "The Conseil du patronat du Québec feels this is the first true federal overture in the manpower training sector. Consequently, the CPQ hopes that Quebec will agree to hold real discussions on this proposal with Ottawa". This from Ghislain Dufour, chairman of the Conseil du patronat du Québec.
There are other headlines and comments. Le Soleil stated: A good test for the good faith of the Government in Quebec''. And Jean-Jacques Samson, in <em>Le Soleil</em> , stated:The minister's plan is an invitation for provincial governments to negotiate an agreement on labour which will be a good test of the good faith of the Government of Quebec''.
Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, in Le Devoir , said: Under the new plan, claimants with children whose family income is under $26,000 will become eligible for benefits of up to 80 per cent of their salary. This is an excellent measure''. Alain Dubuc, in <em>La Presse</em> , commented:The minister has broken the wall of inertia and has launched the process of change''.
Jean Jacques Samson, in Le Soleil , stated: ``The new employment insurance proposed by the minister was designed to reduce costs, indeed, but it has many other merits, the main one being that 500,000 part time workers will become eligible. This measure is well adapted to one on the new realities of the labour market''.
There is more. The Ottawa Citizen stated that the plan is reasonable, practical and urgently important''. The <em>Financial Post</em> stated:The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''. The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``Responsible and fair''.
The Halifax Chronicle Herald stated: The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''. Sharon Clover, vice-chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work''.
What about other regions of Canada? It was stated in the Ottawa Citizen that the minister's plan is ``reasonable, practical and urgently important''.
The Financial Post stated: ``The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''.
The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``responsible and fair''.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald stated: ``The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''.
The vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, Sharon Glover, stated: "These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work".
I have indicated clearly what this particular piece of legislation is all about. I have quoted people who are not members of the opposition, who were there in part to embarrass the government, to try to destabilize whatever project it brought forward. I have quoted neutral third parties who have looked at it with a detached eye. These are the kinds of comments they have made.
If I have more time, I have much more to say about this. May I have an indication?
Canada Labour Code March 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. I appreciate my colleague's points. I wonder whether at the same time he might give me an indication of what his party's position is with respect to the nuclear industry itself. I would be interested in that.
The Budget March 7th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his question. I would have thought that the first thing he would have done was to explain why the leader of his party quoted only half a paragraph.
It troubled me. If the whole paragraph had been quoted, it would have been obvious that that section deals with trying to meet the needs of all provinces, including Quebec. This worries me a little.
He chose to remain silent, so bet it. But I was also surprised to realize that the hon. member is incredibly pessimistic. Since the budget speech yesterday, we hear all sorts of comments everywhere. The only people opposed are members of the opposition parties. I thought such pessimism was exclusive to Reform members, but I see that it is contagious and that Bloc members have caught it. How unfortunate.
How can the hon. member say that the $700 million to which nearly $500 million has been added, totalling $1,2 billion, does not provide significant help for students? This is really sad.
Moreover, as far as cash transfers are concerned, there is a figure of $25 billion, that will be increased to more than $27 billion. That is a lot of money.
Really, the hon. member looked at only a line or two on one page, and he is using that as the whole basis for his argument. One must look at the whole picture. Optimism and understanding are in order.