Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Employment Insurance, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with such large surpluses in the EI fund and such a damning report on women and youth, does the Minister of Finance really believe he is managing EI wisely and not just exploiting people?

[Employment Insurance, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Minister of Finance helping himself to $5 billion from the surplus in the EI fund to pay down the deficit, but he is apparently planning an additional estimated cushion of $1 billion to $1.5 billion.

Since the Minister of Finance has let women and youth carry the load long enough, could he not make this $1 billion plus cushion available to his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, so that the system can be improved and made less discriminatory towards youth and women?

[Building Contracts, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board's Government Contracts Regulations are very clear: when a manager awards a contract without a call for tender, he must justify in writing his application of one of the four exceptions provided in the regulations.

If that was in fact done, could the Deputy Prime Minister table in this House the written justification for the fact that a public contract was awarded without call for tender by the government to the contractor who built the Prime Minister's cottage?

[Canadian Olympic Association, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian olympic association is exceeding its mandate by including in its information guide for parliamentarians a full section promoting the national identity, in which it says:

While there are linguistic differences and multiple cultures in Canada, the 300 Canadian athletes that march in the Olympic stadium form a single people.

This negation of the existence of the people of Quebec shows the true colour of Canadian federalism. How could anyone think that Quebec athletes, who are unfairly treated in terms of the national support they are getting for their training needs and whose rights are so often trampled, will believe such a statement?

Quebec athletes are perfectly capable of determining how the unitary national identity being promoted by the federal government reflects their own values.

The very predominantly anglophone Canadian olympic association should limit its activities to contributing effectively and fairly to the training of the best athletes.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, these five minutes are very important to me.

First, I want to express my gratitude that all the parties in this House considered it worthwhile to intervene on Bill C-299. The people who had the time to watch us on television saw very clearly where the heart of this House lies.

When I face you, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it lies to the right in this House.

I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill who recognized my perception. I would like to say to her, and to all the members sharing this emotion—and most of them are on this side, although I am sure there are some on the other side too—that it was not hard to be perceptive. Everyone knows that the past often foretells the future.

I heard my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia praise the absolutely extraordinary reductions in contributions. I would remind him that these reductions boasted about by the Minister of Finance and so extraordinarily praised by him, came nowhere near to satisfying employers and workers. They did not satisfy the auditor general any more. They were not enough.

That money could have been given back to workers and employers to be reinvested in businesses because, as we know, they need these funds in the context of globalization. However, that was not done.

Everyone agrees that the poor were totally ignored in the last federal budget. The government ignored the unemployed and the needy. Yesterday, I was sitting on our committee and the Minister of Human Resources Development came to testify. He had no choice but to recognize there was nothing in that budget for handicapped children. Where is the compassion? Where is the heart? I wonder.

Right now, unemployment is going down somewhat in Canada. This is great, but that trend does not at all reflect the surge in the economy. This has been the case for several years. The economy is doing well, but the unemployment rate has not come down as much as it should have.

Unemployment is on the decrease and the poor are still with us, and in some cases their poverty is the direct result of EI cuts. While 80% of unemployed workers used to qualify for benefits, now only 40% do. One might well wonder what became of the other 40%.

Were they coddled for all these years? Did they receive government handouts? I do not think so.

My riding could be described as relatively well off, but even it has its young people who have no jobs, or who manage to find only insignificant jobs that will never give them the required number of hours. It is high time this government gave a signal to the Canadian public.

I will give it an opportunity. Despite my years, I am still a bit naïve. I will give it an opportunity. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill C-299 votable. We must show compassion as well as reason.

I therefore call for unanimous consent.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 5th, 1999]

moved that Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (premiums and Employment Insurance Account) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act as regards the premium rate setting and the employment insurance account, which was tabled in this House in December 1997.

Let me first remind members of the context in which this bill was introduced, along with five other bills on employment insurance that were introduced by Bloc Quebecois members, namely the hon. members for Frontenac—Mégantic, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Québec, Repentigny, and Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Since 1990, the federal government has imposed four employment insurance reforms to fight the deficit. The federal obsession with the elimination of the deficit at any cost was prevalent under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. With each of these reforms, the government changed the rules with the obvious goals of excluding claimants, of reducing the amount of benefits, and of shortening the period during which these benefits are paid.

It can, therefore, be stated clearly and unequivocally that the deficit is being overcome at the expense of the unemployed. Even if the federal budget is balanced, moreover, the government is sticking with the same policies and showing no hesitation in o misappropriating the surplus in the fund for its own use.

Ten years ago, in 1989 before these reforms were introduced, four out of five unemployed people were entitled to benefits. A drop from 80% to 20% may well be impressive, but mostly it is disgusting, that now two out of five unemployed people draw benefits. At the same time, the government is getting its hands on the sizeable surplus in the employment insurance fund. At the moment, this surplus is estimated at close to $20 billion, and it is expected to exceed $25 billion by the end of 1999. I will come back to the matter of the surplus later on in my speech.

Bill C-299 was therefore introduced in December of 1997, in order to improve two aspects of employment insurance, the setting of contribution rates and the employment insurance account. The first clause therefore addresses the way decisions are made on premium levels. At present, it is the governor in council who does so, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development. Judging from past experience, hon. members will agree with me that this is not very reassuring.

Going back over the events of last fall, we had to keep on asking questions of the two ministers until December, before finding out what would be happening to the contribution rate in the coming year.

How is it the government has so much power to determine contribution levels, when, since 1990, it has not contributed a cent to the employment insurance fund?

The money in this fund comes entirely from workers and employers. It is absurd that they have no say in contribution levels and have no choice but to pay, without a word, but smiling all the while.

Therefore the amendment we propose to clause 1 of our bill is intended to give full powers to the Employment Insurance Commission to establish contributions. It must be said that this commission is tripartite and comprises representatives of employers, workers and the government. Initially, the commission would have the power to establish levels of contributions.

To make the process more transparent, since at the moment it is particularly obscure, Bill C-299 provides that every two years the Commission will hold at least one session to hear the observations of parties interested in making their opinions on the establishment of contribution levels known.

Within 60 days of the session, the commission must publish an opinion in at least five major francophone papers and five major anglophone papers.

This bill therefore makes the process much more transparent and much more democratic, because it will enable interested members of the public and organizations to have their observations on contribution rates heard.

This provision gives power back to those who should have it: the contributors, employees and employers. This is all the more important because the government is using the premiums as it pleases.

The premiums paid by workers are currently set at $2.55 per $100, while those paid by the employers are at $3.57. Of that $6.12, the government is spending $1.28 for purposes not related to employment insurance.

This looks a lot more like a tax on employment than an insurance in case of a loss of employment. The government is deliberately altering the basic purpose of the employment insurance fund. This type of behaviour is not acceptable in a country that prides itself on being the best in the world.

The second part of the bill seeks to separate the employment insurance account from the government operations account.

This is why clause 2 of Bill C-299 provides that:

—on September 1, in each and every, there shall be credited to the employment insurance account and charged to the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal to the amount calculated in accordance with the following formula:

A - B

Members will no doubt want to know what A and B stand for.

—where A represents all amounts paid into the consolidated revenue fund or obtained by it pursuant to this act in the preceding financial year; and

B represents the total amounts used by the consolidated revenue fund to meet its obligations under this act that have been credited to the employment insurance account in the preceding financial year.

The result of this amendment would be that, on September 1 of each year, we would know exactly where we stood with the EI fund.

Right now, even though these surpluses are close to $20 billion for 1998, they could be said to be virtual, because they are part of the consolidated revenue fund.

Amending the legislation in this manner would create a separate account for the EI fund. This surplus should obviously be used exclusively for the purpose of administering the EI regime.

What is so shocking right now is that the EI surplus is melting away like snow on a warm day, particularly when we recall the repeated assurances of the Minister of Finance that the EI surpluses were a good thing because they represented a hedge against periods of lower employment.

The discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance says and what he does is very troubling. In 1997, 64% of premiums paid into the EI fund went towards paying benefits to unemployed workers. The remaining 36%, approximately $7 billion, was used by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt and finance the federal government's forays onto provincial turf. According to the 1999 budget, the Minister of Finance will be helping himself to $5 billion from the fund.

Since 1993, employers and employees, the only contributors to this fund, have paid the government's share, have wiped out the $6 billion deficit in the fund, and have built up the surplus of $20 billion. It is clear that the government does not want to change the rules of the game one iota, because the employment insurance fund is a real milk cow for the Minister of Finance.

He has done away with the deficit with the money of the workers and employers, and has started to pay down the debt. He is also using these funds to interfere in education via the millennium scholarships, which have been criticized by Quebec, and is using it as well to interfere in the health system of Quebec and the other provinces. These costly duplications have been funded with this money.

This, then, is the context that justifies Bill C-299. The employment insurance program is based on a consensus among the population that everyone needs to be assured of a decent income when temporarily out of work. This is the very purpose of having such a program.

As we have seen, however, the Liberal government has completely altered the nature of this plan by tightening up the rules for eligibility so that a large number of people are excluded, particularly women, youth and seasonal workers.

The present government is using the fund as if it were an employment tax, as if it were deficit insurance. The employment insurance fund no longer serves workers; it is there to serve the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular.

The purpose of Bill C-299 is, therefore, to give more power to contributors as far as setting premium levels is concerned, and to differentiate between the employment insurance fund and the Treasury. These amendments would add transparency to the program.

I hope, therefore, that all parties in this House will support the bill.

[Illegal Immigrants, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little worried.

Since 1989 all the Quebec ministers of Immigration have asked for an in-depth review of the process concerning political asylum claims. Will the government pledge today to introduce a bill to that effect by the end of the current session?

[Illegal Immigrants, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the illegal immigrant network was clearly shown in the television report prepared by Normand Lester.

Worse still, in that same report, Immigration Canada admitted that it does not know the actual number of illegal immigrants.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the government admit that the current mess regarding illegal immigrants in Canada is the direct result of the ineffectiveness of the immigration and refugee board which, on average, takes three years to issue its rulings?

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion M-508 moved by my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

First, the debate on this motion is rather timely because it gives us an opportunity to refer to a item in the budget brought down with such fanfare by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.

In fact, this budget, which has already distinguished itself with its many new examples of federal interference in provincial health jurisdiction, earmarks $343 million over three years for crime prevention, as part of the reform the Minister of Justice is preparing to introduce, a reform which serves no purpose, in the opinion of justice stakeholders in Quebec.

Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal Minister of Justice regarding the use of these funds.

The planned reform is repressive in nature and smacks of something the Reform Party would dream up. It will cost the provinces more, with the bill for Quebec alone forecast at $23 million.

It is important to note that, since 1984, the federal government has owed Quebec in the neighbourhood of $77 million for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. I will come back to these points a bit later.

As regards the Young Offenders Act, I must first point out, as our friends opposite acknowledged, that Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada. The present legislation effectively meets its objectives in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of juvenile crime in Canada.

I am pleased to report here the remarks made in 1995 by the Minister of Justice in the previous parliament. In his opinion, Quebec is an exception to the terms of application of the Young Offenders Act in that it focuses on the rehabilitation of young people outside the judicial system, an example the rest of Canada might follow.

At the time, the federal minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in this regard. Despite this recognition, legislative amendments aimed at increasing judicial interventions with young people are, unfortunately, still in fashion.

While youth crime is decreasing more sharply in Quebec, I must also add that, although it continues to be a source of considerable concern, crime among young people is also on the decrease in the rest of Canada. In 1997, the rate of youth crime decreased by 7%, confirming the trend we have seen since 1991.

So, rather than rush into a reform that will mean a more repressive approach to crime among the youth, the minister should review the entire question of financial compensation to the provinces for the application of the existing law.

When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, 15 years ago already, the federal government was assuming 50% of the costs associated with implementing judicial and alternative measures. The federal government gradually withdrew, something which is becoming a habit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding was down to 36%.

In addition to the federal government's withdrawal, its funding formula does not take into account the proportion of young Canadians who live in Quebec. While nearly 25% of Canada's young people between the ages of 12 and 17 live in Quebec, only 18.28% of the federal contribution in this respect goes to Quebec.

This has resulted in a $77.4 million shortfall for Quebec since 1989. The former justice minister and current health minister had promised to restore the balance.

Neither the former minister nor the current one ever delivered on this promise. The last federal budget can certainly raise doubts about this government's commitment to paying off its debts.

Quebec is still waiting for a concrete proposal from the minister for making up this shortfall, and chances are that we are going to wait a very long time.

As we know, Quebec is the province where the rehabilitation of young offenders is the most successful by far, and I might remind you that this success is achieved through less expensive and less cumbersome measures. What works in Quebec should work elsewhere.

Today's Motion M-508 provides us with an opportunity to criticize the new approach of the federal government, which clearly seems to have forgotten that the youth justice system must reflect the fact that youth are still in the process of developing and maturing.

Efforts must focus on what led up to the offence. The federal government's approach emphasizes the offence per se when, in our opinion, account must be taken of the youth's overall situation in terms of family, school and peers. In my opinion, Quebec's approach will pay off.

Not surprisingly, Quebec is unable to support the federal government's present approach. First of all, it does not put youth crime and adjustment problems in proper perspective. Another reason we are unable to support it is because it writes off the worst troublemakers, instead of trying to reintegrate them into society. We also reject it because it says that young people 14 and older—I heard my colleague mentioning her 13-year old son, who is only one year away from being 14—should receive adult sentences when they are involved in offences that, while they may be very serious, are not necessarily indicative of a high level of criminalization.

Another point is the unnecessary complexity of the legal procedure, which leaves the door wide open to preliminary sentencing by trial and jury. For all these reasons, it is an approach unlikely to help our youth prepare for a productive life that will benefit our society, and Quebec is unable to support it.

In closing, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for having moved this motion.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recently the government was faced with a serious problem: how could it get Alberta and Ontario to sign the social union agreement, an agreement which was not in their best interest?

After looking at the problem from every angle, a solution soon emerged. Premiers Harris and Klein should be offered something in exchange. Why not take a few billion dollars from Quebec and give it to them for health care?

There was one rub: Would the Liberal members from Quebec go for it? It was extremely painful to see the Quebec caucus of the Liberal Party turn into a red carpet to be merrily trod on by the rest of the federal Liberal caucus.

The carpet has been rolled out, but it is soiled. Does this deserve respect? Mercy, perhaps? No. After all, mindlessness deserves nothing besides indifference.

But when an entire population is cheated without hesitation by Liberal members, elected in Quebec, only outrage can express people's reaction to such an irresponsible behaviour.

I cannot wait for Quebec to get its loot back.