Jane Stewart

[Human Resources Development, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to tell the Canadian people that we are looking after public money.

If the hon. member were serious about the issues that she has been raising she would have taken the time to read our second progress report which shows that my department is a very different place now than it was a year ago. We have implemented organizational changes to improve accountability. We have new systems in place that improve our monitoring and assessment of programs. We have hired new staff to help us with project management. And our performance tracking directorate is telling us that we are on track to do what we told the Canadians public we would do.

[Human Resources Development, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me again say to the hon. member that my department makes every effort to collect on outstanding debts and money owed to the government.

I can tell the hon. member that in this year's public accounts $547,000 of unrecovered money in grants and contributions are being written off. I note that these files are at least two to five years old.

With regard to the Canada student loans program, we are talking about $294 million. In fact, I need to correct the first number. It is $500,000, but when we are talking about Canada students loans it is $294 million and again—

[Human Resources Development, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should get her facts straight. Without question, my department always tries to collect outstanding debt.

This year's public accounts clearly show that only a very small portion of the written off debts involves grants and contributions. Rather, the vast majority of debts written off relate to the Canada student loans program. They refer to old debts deemed uncollectible because they have reached the statute of limitations or because the borrower has declared bankruptcy or has died.

[Privilege, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the Hansard for the member for Acadie—Bathurst's point of privilege yesterday. Let me first say that I take strong exception to his accusation that I have shown contempt for the House and its rules. I respect the House and its practices immensely.

Let me be very clear that I never authorized or instructed anyone to provide a copy of the bill to the media or to any other individual.

After making inquiries with my department, I have confirmed that no copies were distributed to journalists or to anyone else. I can only conclude that no copies of the bill have been leaked and, therefore, any reporting in the media would be speculative.

I know that the member has been working very hard on this issue of employment insurance on behalf of many of his constituents and I know how seriously he takes this issue. He is aware of the adjustments we introduced today and that they have been a topic of varied speculation and wide discussion in recent months, both in the media and elsewhere.

I regret that he has drawn the conclusions that he has over media reports on this issue, but I can reassure him and this House that I would never condone any practice of leaking copies of bills prior to their introduction in this place.

[Child Poverty, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not aware of it, but I would encourage her to read the Employment Insurance Act wherein, as a result of the 1996 amendments, we made very effective and targeted changes. The family supplement is there for low income families earning less than $26,000. They do not receive the regular benefit of 55%. As of this year, it is 80%.

The recommendations from that party would be to raise the percentages not even close to that 80%. What would that do to poor families?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on December 15, 1999, the hon. member said:

I am prepared to give credit to the Liberals. They understood the situation before taking office in 1993. They knew that employment insurance was an important program that was part and parcel of the social fabric of our country.

I thank him for that support. Again on December 15 the hon. member said:

We have to get rid of the intensity rule.

Today we have proposed to do just that, so I assume we still have the support of the hon. member.

[Human Resources Development, September 28th, 2000]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member missed it, the proposals before the House speak directly to the issues facing seasonal workers and women. I am confused as to what more he is asking.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, those organizations recognize that the government is prepared to and will, by the end of this year, have a plan in place that will double parental benefits for all Canadian women, including those living in Quebec. If I am not mistaken, what was said was that the Government of Quebec could nicely complement the undertakings of the Government of Canada.

I remind the hon. member that our undertakings will be done in the context of the employment insurance program. They will be done without raising premiums but, as we proposed today, by continuing to lower employment insurance premiums.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the government has shown its understanding of the workplace family dynamics facing Canadian women.

I point to the doubling of parental benefits that will be in place by the end of this year. I point to the reduction in hours required to collect special benefits. I point to the proposals that are before the House today that will ensure that women are not part of the clawback if they are home caring for their children and out of the workforce.

I point to the other proposal that says we recognize that women may leave the workforce for a longer period of time. These proposals will make it easier for them, should they need to collect regular benefits on their return to the workforce. Canadian women are at the heart of these proposals.