House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 51% of the vote.
Employment Insurance June 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of Human Resources Development said that there needs to be an upper limit on the funds going into employment insurance. Has the minister yet determined what that should be? Is it $5 billion?
Second, will the minister tell the House whether the fund will be made discrete and not part of general revenues so it will truly be an insurance fund?
Petitions June 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast to present two petitions today signed mainly by residents of Edmonton Southeast.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation that would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.
Employment Insurance June 10th, 1996
In that case, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister would work toward making the EI fund self-sustaining and actuarially sound. Had it been actuarially sound previously we would not have to dip in so deep this time. That is the major problem with the EI program. It should be insurance.
The minister knows that chronic high unemployment and under employment of Canada's youth is really a national disgrace. It robs youth of self-respect, hope and a stake in our common good and our common future.
If payroll taxes such as employment insurance and Canada pension fund premiums affect the lowest paid and the most
vulnerable first and most, why does the government continue to put such a high reliance on job destroying payroll taxes to generate revenue?
Employment Insurance June 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On March 27 the minister stated that employment insurance premium surpluses must have an upper limit. The surplus is now estimated to be $5 billion for this year alone. A majority of Canadian pension fund managers recently stated that the primary reason job creation in our country is stagnant is due to payroll taxes.
Will the minister tell the Canadian people when enough is enough and when the job destroying employment insurance payroll tax will be reduced?
Employment Insurance June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, persons with disabilities and groups representing persons with disabilities feel orphaned and vulnerable and have felt that way for some time. They feel that perhaps the minister's department does not have the same commitment to persons with disabilities that he obviously has.
If Canada is not to become a patchwork of standards as it relates to persons with disabilities, federal leadership is absolutely necessary. That leadership has been exemplary for the last 15 or 20 years. We have been world leaders.
As the minister stated, the Canada Health and Social Transfer Act devolves responsibility to the provinces. Will the minister assure the House that he will use his office to ensure that disability related concerns are placed on the agenda at the forthcoming first ministers' conference?
Employment Insurance June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Many Canadians with disabilities are frightened and concerned that they have fallen through the cracks of government policy. Previously programs in support of disability employment measures were primarily the responsibility of and were co-ordinated by various federal government initiatives.
Under the new employment insurance regime persons with disabilities must have a previous attachment to the labour force to be eligible for training.
What is the government's responsibility to unemployed Canadians with disabilities and what does the minister envision his personal role to be?
Employment June 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Prime Minister told Canadians to get used to unemployment because of the global economy. However, a couple of weeks later he said that more foreign trade missions were needed to spur investment and exports. First the global economy kills jobs, then it creates them.
After the election he spent billions, borrowed at the expense of future generations, on infrastructure projects such as to upgrade the Calgary Saddledome and build a road to nowhere in Nova Scotia. He said that government created jobs, but a couple of years later he now says that only business can create jobs. This uncertainty about how jobs are created is frightening millions of Canadians who cannot find work or who are afraid for their jobs.
The Prime Minister needs a copy of Reform's 5-R jobs plan. If he takes his promise of jobs, jobs, jobs seriously, he will read it and then replace his empty political rhetoric with a real plan for putting Canada back to work.
Tobacco Products Control Act June 4th, 1996
How much are cigarettes outside of here?
Tobacco Products Control Act June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to about an hour's worth of absolute balderdash, which is the nicest word I can use, coming from the opposite benches defending the indefensible. It is absolutely shameless. What can we do to shame these people? How do we go about doing it? I think it is impossible. What could be beyond it?
After this Parliament commenced in the fall of 1993 we had,as members will recall, great lawlessness in the smuggling of tobacco. What does the government do? Does it say "wait a
minute, you cannot be breaking the law here, folks, and you will obey the law from coast to coast"? Because the government could not enforce it, it gave in to it. It reduced the price 50 per cent or more for a package of cigarettes. That broke the back of smuggling but I will tell you what it also did. Does any member opposite have any idea of the notion of price elasticity? The lower the price, the higher the demand. The higher price, the lower the demand. It is a law of marketing. It is there. It is a fact. It is irrefutable.
What did the government opposite do? It lowered the price. What happened? Demand went up. Then what did it do? It said on its holiest of holy grails: "We are going to change the packaging". Did that happen? No.
Then the government said it was going to gradually increase the price over the next couple of years. Did that happen? No. Prices stayed where they were. The federal government, through the Supreme Court, not only has the right, it has the responsibility to legislate advertising standards around the tobacco issue.
Do members remember when tobacco companies, through a Supreme Court ruling, were allowed to advertise? The Supreme Court said it was up to the federal government to write legislation that would prevent it. It is not up to the Supreme Court to interpret legislation in a manner that prevents it.
Where in this legislation about preventing tobacco advertising in a manner that will affect the most vulnerable which are, of course, children? Please show me where word one is in restricting tobacco advertising that could be used to influence children.
I recognize that the member opposite, the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women) for Vancouver Centre, herself a medical doctor, understands and appreciates the necessity of reducing smoking. I am not suggesting for a moment that members opposite do not understand or appreciate it. I am saying that if they are going to be apologists for the tobacco industry, at least do it honestly and say there is nothing they can do about it.
It is the hypocrisy of this that just drives me crazy. To listen to the members opposite talking about how bad cigarette advertising and tobacco are for the health of Canadians and do absolutely nothing about it is just beyond the pale.
Tobacco Products Control Act June 4th, 1996
We will not hold it against you personally. I know there are some jobs a parliamentary secretary must do, however distasteful.