House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, we have already taken a stand. We have already said that there should be a commission for the employers and employees that looks after the surplus. This commission should dictate how that surplus is used. It should be independent of the government. We have taken that stand. We all agree on this side of the House. I am just waiting for that side of the House to agree as well.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, this is a national issue, not a provincial issue.
I say to the hon. member that everybody in this House needs to have a history lesson on the role played by Atlantic Canada, particularly my city which is Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, in building this whole country from coast to coast. Everybody, particularly our friends out west and those in Ontario, need to travel this country to find out exactly what our people are like. Two weeks ago a person from Vancouver came to me and told me that my city was the nicest city in the whole of Canada.
As far as Atlantic Canadians go, we get hurt when we hear people from Ontario and out west refer to us as Atlantica and a drag on society. All our people want is their dignity. If we had a government that was going to look at keeping those adjustments in place then we could tell Atlantic Canadians that this government also cares for them.
I am asking members to speak to the minister. I am asking members to speak out for our people. I am asking members on the government side to fight for our people to make sure they have their dignity.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for putting forth the motion before us today. Also, I want to inform you, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
When the last round of employment insurance changes was being proposed by this government, I spoke out against aspects of the legislation that would penalize people who want to work, but this government did not listen. My party pointed out then that the effect of some parts of Bill C-12, the Employment Insurance Act, would encourage some to say no to part time work because they would be worse off if they said yes.
Today there are less than 40% of the unemployed who qualify, whereas before under the other system 80% were eligible. Everyone in this House should stop and think about those men and women who have children they want to feed, educate and care for and they do not have any money for food or clothes.
I was at the finance committee meeting in Saint John, New Brunswick last Monday, a week ago today, on the prebudget debate. A gentleman had flown in from Newfoundland. I never heard such a heart-rending report in my life about what was happening in Newfoundland and how those people were suffering.
One of my colleagues from Nova Scotia started to speak about the fishermen. It is a serious matter and I get very disturbed when I hear someone from the Reform Party say that it was my party that did this to the Atlantic region.
Let me say this. My riding of Saint John, New Brunswick had one of the lowest unemployment rates that we had had in many years. Things were great. The shipyard was going full blast. Do we have a national shipbuilding policy now? No. The shipyard in Quebec is down. The shipyard in Saint John is down. Most of the shipyards in all of Atlantic Canada are down.
There has to be some compassion on the government side. The government has to start thinking about those people. It really hurts when I men come to my office. Never in the 25 years that I have been involved both locally and here in Ottawa up until this past year has a man come to my office crying “Please, I will sweep the streets. I do not care what it is. I just want to look after my children”.
The Progressive Conservative Party tried to improve the EI legislation in the Senate in the last parliament. Our amendments were rejected by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
It has been pointed out that a Progressive Conservative senator proposed in May 1996 that weeks with less than 15 hours of insurable earnings should not be counted as weeks of work when calculating an individual's EI benefit rate. The senator argued that otherwise claimants could end up with lower benefits if they worked just a few hours in one week thereby discouraging these individuals to take part time work.
A year later this disincentive to work in the EI legislation was confirmed. Pilot projects were launched to look into addressing the “small weeks issue”.
When this government engaged in its so-called social policy review in 1994, I spoke in the House about the need to reform our social safety net. Canada's income security programs had been designed at a time when unemployment was a brief condition between jobs, when the one income, two parent family was the rule and when child poverty was not measured.
I spoke back then about the need for reforms that would reorient passive income support programs to an active investment in people, reforms that would remove barriers that prevent many from becoming active members of the labour force and reforms that would replace disjointed programs with a coherent system. Instead of adhering to these principles, some of the EI reforms proposed and passed by this Liberal government actually discourage people to go to work.
I have pointed out before and I say again that there are people in parts of Atlantic Canada who are considered frequent users of EI. It is not because they are lazy or because they are abusing the system. It is because some parts of the economy are highly seasonal. I know there are people both on the opposition and government sides that do not understand about the seasonal system. That is why they need programs that will allow them to adjust and move with the changing times. These people do not need programs that cut them off at the knees. They are people who want to work.
Employment insurance as helpful as it is does not bring the same return both financially and spiritually that a job does. That is why we have proposed the motion we are debating today. That is why we are urging that this House on both sides, everyone, be allowed to consider amending the EI act, allow workers either to eliminate small weeks of work from the calculation of benefits or bundle those small weeks together.
Good public policy encourages work, self-sufficiency, fairness and dignity. The small weeks provision in the EI act does not do this.
During the 1994 social policy review, I also spoke out against raising taxes. I said then and I maintain today that the challenge is to use money already in the system to make programs as flexible as possible so recipients can receive the benefits that help them become self-reliant and meet their needs.
That is also why I have been asking the government to lower the excessive EI premiums since 1996. The government is gouging the Canadian workers who are already overtaxed and it is stifling job creation.
The Minister of Finance has been overtaxing Canadian workers and employers through excessive employment insurance premiums to pad his deficit numbers. He has said as much. I hope all of my colleagues on the government side remember when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance stated that these high taxes make us lose jobs, that jobs cannot be created, that people in the business community will not expand when they have high taxes.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and their colleagues want to use the surplus in the fund to pay for programs that the fund is not meant to finance. The money in the EI fund is designed to provide temporary income support to unemployed Canadians. That money belongs to Canadian workers and their employers. It does not belong to the finance minister or any other minister of this government.
In February 1994 the finance minister told Canadians in his first budget that, as I have stated, payroll taxes are a barrier to jobs. They truly are. All Canadians know that there have been about 40 tax hikes since this government came to power.
My little daughter-in-law said to me the other day “Mother, I do not know what has happened. I always put money away at the end of the month for Lindsay's and Matthew's education but we do not have any money any more”. I said “Dear, it is because of the taxes you have to pay. It is because of what they have done to you”.
It is difficult. Back when the finance minister talked about the barrier to jobs that payroll taxes were, his context was a set of employment insurance benefit cuts proposed by the Liberals that were supposed to allow for lower EI premiums, not a cash grab at the expense of Canadians to fund projects unrelated to the objectives of the EI legislation, for short term political gain.
We are really concerned. We are concerned about what is happening with the EI fund. The auditor general has stated himself that he has concerns about what is happening with this government. I hope the government does not fire him. Every time someone speaks out, they are gone the next week.
Responsible governments recognize when bad public policy decisions hurt Canadians and they take action to correct their mistakes. I urge this government to recognize the mistakes that are there. I urge this government and all members of the Liberal government to do the right thing for those people out there. Have the needed compassion. Reach out to those people who need help. Do not hurt them any more. The government is taking away their dignity. We want to give them their dignity back. Do not make them plead.
Apec Inquiry October 23rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we all know in this House things must not only be right, they must appear to be right.
Today in the Vancouver Sun there are allegations that Gerald Morin, the chair of the public complaints commission, a Liberal government appointee, prejudged the outcome of the APEC inquiry. This comes after similar allegations of the solicitor general and we all know that is true.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister will the government remove this truth seeking exercise from the hands of the Liberal appointees and put it in the hands of an impartial, apolitical—
Apec Inquiry October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission needs access to all audio tapes of RCMP officers and Jean Carle's discussions regarding security during the APEC summit. This would be irrefutable evidence of PMO interference in the RCMP.
Did the Prime Minister ask Jean Carle to direct security arrangements so that peaceful Canadian protesters would not upset brutal Asian dictators?
Brian Mulroney October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, he has been called a pioneer on a global scale. Free trade, NAFTA, tax reform and privatization, the creation of the Nunavut Territory, commitment to human rights, the UN World Summit for Children, accountability in government, redress for Japanese Canadians, the Canadian Space Agency, an acid rain agreement with the U.S. and the green plan were all examples of his remarkable legacy.
Under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney the deficit was cut in half as a percentage of GDP. Government operational spending was cut by 70%. Inflation reached a 30 year low and the bank rate stood at its lowest level in two decades. It was under Brian Mulroney that Canada first achieved its status as the best country in which to live.
As Brian Mulroney is made a Companion of the Order of Canada we salute his courage in pursuing a renewed Canada, his commitment to preparing our nation for the millennium, his sense of duty and love for his country. To Brian, Mila and the family we say thanks for their profound contribution—
Immigration And Refugee Board October 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the apology but that is not enough. The Immigration Act allows for a public judicial inquiry to investigate the need for disciplinary action against members of the refugee board. Instead of a public inquiry the same lawyer who is representing the government on APEC affairs was hired to do a report on the Frecker case. The refugee board hears the cases of people fleeing genocide, murder and torture and so on.
Why was there no public inquiry into Frecker's actions. Is this another cover-up like APEC?
Immigration And Refugee Board October 21st, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must be aware that one of his patronage appointments committed a most repugnant act.
John Frecker, deputy chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, has admitted to giving a nazi salute and a sieg heil comment to another board member who is a Holocaust survivor. Such behaviour is disgraceful and should not be tolerated.
The Prime Minister appointed Mr. Frecker. We know the Prime Minister likes shaking hands with dictators who abuse human rights, but will he do the right thing here and will he replace John Frecker immediately?
Apec Summit October 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, only the solicitor general and the Prime Minister believe the solicitor general's changing versions of his APEC chat in the air. They use the statements made by the member for Palliser to defend the solicitor general when it suits them and deny or refuse to confirm other statements when it does not.
Why will the Prime Minister not stop letting the solicitor general undermine that office and the smidgen of integrity that is left in this government and ask the solicitor general to resign?
Apec Summit October 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw and I will go directly to the question.
Why has the solicitor general not taken the very action the Prime Minister has threatened to take in the past if the statements made by the member for Palliser are not true? Is it because the solicitor general's friend, Fred Toole, would not be able to corroborate the solicitor general's version of the remarks he made about APEC under oath?