House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 43% of the vote.
Persons With Disabilities May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to business taxes, the minister is quick to announce the establishment of a committee where he carefully invites those he considers primarily interested. Why does he not accord the same treatment to people with disabilities?
Persons With Disabilities May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two months ago the minister agreed to re-examine taxation provisions covering people with disabilities. Nothing has yet been announced. However, according to eligibility criteria for the tax credit, persons who are unable to cook, but able to feed themselves with difficulty are not entitled to a tax credit.
When does the Minister of Finance intend reviewing these criteria and all tax matters applying to people with a handicap?
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yes.
Federal Public Service May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general underlined the excessive administrative costs associated with the standard's implementation.
How can the government allow such a loss of control over spending in a period of major budget cuts?
Federal Public Service May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
For six years now, Treasury Board has been developing a general classification standard for federal public servants, which was supposed to be universal and non sexist. However, according to the auditor general, the standard is sexist and would not pass the test of the human rights act.
How can the Acting Prime Minister explain that, after six years, public service officials have not been able to come up with a non sexist general classification standard?
Mother's Day May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, for nearly 75 years, the second Sunday in May has been a very special day. On that day, whether we are young or old, male or female, rich or poor, we experience special feelings for this unique woman who, day after day, rocked our cradle, wiped our tears, encouraged our efforts.
Because it is through their eyes that we learned to believe in life, we rise today to wish a happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there.
Our wishes are directed especially to those mothers and grandmothers who have been forgotten. Although they may be alone, we want to remind them that the love one lavishes on others is not lost, because it leaves a never-ending legacy of courage, generosity and kindness. For their gift of life and love, we thank them from the bottom of our hearts.
Point Of Order May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order regarding the use of services provided to help members fulfil their parliamentary duties.
The facts are as follows: yesterday, a House of Commons envelope bearing the mention "for the member's eyes only" was put in my postal box. It contained the position of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme on Bill C-33.
There was no mention of the source of the documents and no covering letter. In other words, the documents were sent anonymously.
It seems to me that such use of the House's postal services is not compatible with the rules.
Members certainly have the right to send mail to their peers, so as to make their ideas known regarding the issues reviewed by the House. However, they should use their post-free privilege or, at least, identify themselves when they send documents.
But to send mail anonymously, through the House's postal services, for the benefit of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme is to lobby for this organization. This clearly violates the rules governing the House's postal services, since these services are being used for purposes other than those for which they are intended.
How do we explain the fact that the House staff deemed appropriate to put an anonymous envelope in a postal box?
I ask the Chair to refer the issue to the Board of internal economy, so that it can investigate the matter and shed light on this rather serious incident.
Goods And Services Tax May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the President of the Treasury Board.
When the Prime Minister refused to recognize he made a mistake regarding the GST, he spoke on behalf of his government. When the Minister of Finance openly said it was a mistake, he claimed to be also speaking on behalf of the government. Who are we to believe: the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister?
Goods And Services Tax May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Finance stood by his statement to the effect that his government had made an honest mistake in promising to abolish the GST. He even said that he was speaking on behalf of the government when he made that comment.
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Finance do reflect his government's thinking?
Unemployment Insurance Act May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there is unanimnous agreement on Bill C-12 dealing with employment insurance. For two years now, in Canada and in Quebec, we have seen Canadians and numerous groups representing them oppose this unfair bill which will only make workers poorer, especially young workers and women who already have a most difficult time on the labour market.
If government had not gagged the human resources committee, these groups could have explained once more how the bill will not help the jobless because the reform it proposes will create even more poverty and, by modifying eligibility criteria, will send more people onto welfare.
During the last election campaign, the Liberals, besides promising to scrap the GST, also used another very important slogan: jobs, jobs, jobs. Now, Quebecers and Canadians know quite well the value of promises made by members of this government. What has the government accomplished since October 25, 1993? The answer is simple: it has just carried on with the previous government's program, the Mulroney agenda. Cut after cut, social programs, and therefore the have-nots, are the main targets.
Our harsh judgment is not based on an erratic bias against an intelligent reform of social programs or a logical reform of our unemployment insurance program. The proposed reform makes no sense. These programs must be reviewed so that they will equitably meet the real needs of people who are having a hard time finding and keeping jobs. But there is only one objective to the current reform: to make blind cuts that will hit hard the poorest and workers. The government is artificially reducing the deficit at the expense of employers and workers who contribute to the unemployment insurance fund.
Indeed, since 1990, that is for the last six years, the government has been pulling out of financing the fund, while continuing to manage it. The very substantial surpluses realized by the funds these last few years have been used to reduce the deficit. Premiums have been slyly disguised as a tax to reduce the deficit. Those who are lucky enough to work have the exceptional privilege of paying this new tax called unemployment insurance contribution, even though it is not being used exclusively to meet the needs of those who are not as privileged.
The Bloc Quebecois, in its minority report on social program reform, proposed "that the unemployment insurance fund be treated as a non-budget entity managed by an independent organization. The way the program is controlled and contributions used must be changed". Therefore, the preferred route chosen by the Bloc Quebecois would be to give management of the program to the provinces. We could also set up a new organization which would exercize a better control over unemployment insurance and would not come under the control of the Department of Human Resources Development.
Major labour confederations in Quebec and Canada, as well as organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Conseil du patronat du Québec were highly critical of the the government's accumulation of surpluses in the unemployment insurance fund. Such surpluses, combined with the fact that the government continues to cut into the program, do not contribute in any way to job creation. On the contrary, they are a major obstacle.
As for unemployment insurance eligibility, Bill C-12, if passed, will have a devastating effect on the possibility of benefiting from unemployment insurance in case of job loss. In 1990, 87 per cent of unemployed people were receiving benefits, while only 46 per cent do today. It does not make sense to think that this percentage could decrease even further.
Yet, what the minister is proposing to us in his bill will not increase this percentage, quite the opposite. In fact, the number of hours required to qualify for benefits is more than doubled, going from 420 to 700 hours, instead of the 180 to 300 hours required at this time. For new workers, it will be even more dramatic, because they will have to work for 910 hours before qualifying.
Furthermore, the maximum benefit will decrease from $448 to $413 per week. This $35 cut thus reduces by more than 7 per cent the maximum a person losing his job will be entitled to, provided, of course, he meets the eligibility criteria. So, their reduced buying power will force the unemployed to curtail their lifestyle and cut into some of their most basic needs. It is a bread and butter matter. Everyone understands that, except the government, of course.
So, people will have to work longer to receive fewer benefits and for a shorter period. That is how the Liberal government sees the improvement of the system. These new eligibility criteria will particularly affect young people and women. Since these groups represent the majority of part time workers, they will need a very high number of hours to qualify for benefits.
The Minister of Human Resources Development should take example on his colleague from the finance department who, as recently as yesterday, in the House, during question period, reiterated his statement that the promise to abolish the GST had been a mistake. He even said he was making this statement on behalf of the government of the Liberal Party. It is high time the minister admitted that his bill is a gross error and that it must be withdrawn without delay.
In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a statement in the May 1, 1989 issue of Hansard : ``The point I am trying to make, which many of us will have to look at seriously, is the whole notion of trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden, if they think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance, family allowance, and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must not allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and about other countries and how they do it. This country is very special in how it deals across the board with men and women in every part of the country. There are basic standards, basic programs, universal programs, and programs that allow people to deal with their future with some degree of security''.
What stands out from these remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in opposition is that, with Bill C-12, the degree of security the minister is referring to
will certainly turn into income insecurity for those who will lose their jobs under the Employment Insurance Act. It is unfortunate that logic is dependent on which side of the House one sits on.