Not all regions of Canada.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 50% of the vote.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Not all regions of Canada.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Why is the employment rate so high?
Supply October 26th, 1998
They are not working.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the hon. member and the speaker before him spoke of job creation. I would much rather be talking about that today. The way to create jobs in Canada is to reduce taxes. Until that is done, there are regions in Canada, not only Atlantic Canada, which are affected. What do we do with these people, these regions? This pilot project helps them considerably.
The hon. member talked about fiscal measures that have been put in place. I would like the hon. member to please tell this House what measures they put in place. Was it the GST? Was it free trade? Was it the cut to transfer payments? Was it the cuts to unemployment that affected these people we are talking about today?
Does this member not think that the measures put in place after the reform to employment insurance helped these 29 regions throughout Canada? Does the member not think the government should have a measure in place today, that the study should be in place three weeks before the deadline, and that the pilot project be renewed immediately?
Supply October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as we know, this bundling project and exclusion project affects 29 regions in Canada. It is not only for the Atlantic provinces. It affects Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories and the four Atlantic provinces.
Can the minister assure the House today and all the people in those 29 regions that the EI applications will be continued to be processed after the expiration on November 15?
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Yes, there are only three weeks left before the end of this project. The government also knew, two years before, that there were problems with the employment insurance reform. At my first meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I requested a thorough study of the employment insurance reform. This reform affected a number of regions in Canada, and the poorest Canadians were affected.
Today, we have to equip our young people with the tools they need to compete on the global market. Obviously, we are referring to education. Families are not even capable of paying for their children's education, which is essential today, because of the lack of employment and the lack of income. Today we see that only three weeks are left before the end of this project. The government should perhaps have announced its intention two months ago.
The employment insurance reform was a mistake from the outset. The government made these changes only a few weeks before the election. So, if there were problems three weeks before the federal election, I am sure there are still problems today. Canadians from coast to coast are waiting to see what the Minister of Human Resources Development recommends.
The problem is found not only in the Atlantic region, but in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and western Canada, especially with the upcoming fisheries problem there. I can tell you that the workers in western Canada, especially in British Columbia, are hoping for comments and a response from the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Supply October 26th, 1998
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue with the Employment Insurance Small Weeks Adjustment Projects and amend the legislation in order to make the adjustment projects a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for letting me address the motion I am tabling today. I will share my time with the hon. member for Burin—St. George's.
The purpose of the motion before us today is to invite the government to correct in a permanent fashion the flaws in the Employment Insurance Act.
I realize that some parliamentarians know very little about the employment insurance small weeks adjustment projects. Yet, it is an initiative that applies to 29 regions of Canada where the unemployment rate exceeds 10%.
In fact, regions of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the four Atlantic provinces have participated in adjustment projects. It is an issue that affects tens of thousands of Canadians, and this is why it is important to discuss it today.
Let us take a moment to look at the context that made it necessary to resort to small weeks employment projects. In 1996, the federal government adopted Bill C-12, which included a major reform of the employment insurance program. The changes made included using eligibility criteria that were no longer based on the work week, but on the hours of work, and calculating benefits by taking into account every week of employment in the previous 26 weeks, including the weeks with few hours of work.
This last point was a problematical one, because including the income from these small weeks in the calculation can significantly lower benefits, and this discourages workers from accepting short work weeks.
Toward the end of January 1997, or a few weeks after total implementation of the new provisions in the act, three Liberal MPs were mandated to propose solutions to the short weeks problem to the Minister of Human Resources Development. Following up on their recommendations, the minister announced his small weeks adjustment projects on March 5, 1997 What is rather unfortunate about all this is that the government had been aware of this problem for close to a year already.
When Bill C-12 was being debated, in fact, Conservative Senator Orville Phillips proposed an amendment intended to remove weeks of less than 15 hours from the calculation of benefits. Otherwise, the senator felt, EI recipients were at risk of drawing reduced benefits if they had worked only a few hours in a given week. Unfortunately, that amendment was given the heave-ho by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
This same problem was also recognized and brought to the government's attention by a number of other stakeholders. For instance, Mathilda Blanchard, a well-known union figure in New Brunswick, was quoted on November 4, 1996 in L'Acadie Nouvelle as saying “I really cannot see why this matter does not seem to get picked up in this region. The 26-week factor will do a great deal of harm in a region like ours, which is characterized by seasonal work. Plenty of people will end up having to get through the winter with nothing but a cheque for $60 or so a week coming in.
As I was saying earlier, despite warnings about this weakness in the EI act, the government took almost a year to offer some form of correction to the inequity. In fact, the Liberal response seemed to anger some business representatives who feared election politics were behind the small weeks adjustment projects since the announcement was made only a few months before the federal election.
With this motion the government has the opportunity to prove that the small weeks adjustment projects were not a mere electoral ploy, but an attempt in good faith to help workers accept as many hours of work as they possibly can. In my view, and in the view of my caucus colleagues, the small weeks adjustment projects have been very useful and successful. The preliminary aim of the adjustment projects was to ensure that every hour of work counts toward eligibility for the benefits and encourages people to take all available work without fear of having their benefits reduced by working small weeks.
The federal government adopted two approaches to the adjustment projects to evaluate and compare results. As I said earlier, 29 economic regions across Canada where the unemployment rate is consistently above 10% are participating in the program. Eighteen regions in Quebec and the eastern provinces are part of the bundling project. Bundling small weeks means to bundle the earnings in small weeks to meet the average earnings of the big weeks plus any small week needed to meet the minimum divisor.
Eleven regions in Ontario and the western provinces are participating in the excluding project. Excluding small weeks means that all small weeks not required to meet the minimum divisor will be ignored for the purpose of calculating benefit levels. They still count toward eligibility and duration.
These adjustment projects are slated to end on November 15, 1998, a mere three weeks away. We do not know the fate of this valuable program.
Most importantly, Canadian workers in the toughest employment areas of the country are still kept guessing.
This program has cost the government roughly $130 million a year, a mere drop in the bucket when we consider the $7 billion yearly surplus in the EI fund.
My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party have constantly argued since 1996 that the EI surplus belongs to Canadian workers and employers. It does not belong to the Liberal cabinet.
We have argued for cuts in EI premiums. In fact the chief actuary has concluded that the EI program could be sustained at a premium of $1.90. Therefore, continuing the small weeks adjustment projects would in no way preclude a substantial decrease in EI premiums as well. All in all, continuing the small weeks adjustment projects would be a positive step toward eliminating disincentives to work.
Back when the projects were announced in 1997, many Liberal members stood in this House to praise the value of these projects. The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges had this to say: “The adjustments announced yesterday to the Employment Insurance Act confirm that our primary concern is to encourage people who are out of work to return to the workforce”.
Diane Brushett, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester, said the following: “This will ensure that workers in every region of the country are able to take full advantage of all available work without having their benefits lowered”.
The solicitor general issued this warning: “In recent days we have heard a great deal about the small weeks anomaly in the employment insurance program. Make no mistake, it is a serious problem that must be fixed”.
The member for Hillsborough was of this opinion: “The solution will work. Small weeks are counted for eligibility but are bundled for calculating benefits. This change gives claimants the best of both worlds. I doubt there are many who would argue that reforms were not needed”.
Canadians already have enough difficulty finding permanent or full time work. The last thing they need is an insurance system that penalizes them for working short weeks. It tells them that the federal government wants them back at work and that all work, whether it is five hours a week or forty hours a week, should be equally considered.
I invite all members of the House to join our caucus in supporting Canadian workers by voting in favour of the motion.
Poverty October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A report has been released that says Canadian families are poorer today than when the Liberals formed the government in 1993. Children are poorer and the gap between the rich and poor is growing wider yearly.
This government has refused to lift the burden of the tax system from two million low income Canadians by increasing the personal exemption to $10,000. When will the government stop penalizing low income Canadians? When can we expect to see a long term plan for this very serious problem?
Employment Insurance October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's provincial counterparts are demanding that he explain why his government is breaking the Employment Insurance Act by imposing excessive insurance contributions on Canadians. The government seems to be circumventing the law in order to keep employment insurance contributions at a needlessly high level.
The Employment Insurance Act stipulates that premiums must be reduced. Does the government intend to pass legislation in order to prevent the premium reduction that is called for in the legislation?
Criminal Code October 20th, 1998
Madam Speaker, on October 8, I announced in this House that the New Brunswick premier, Camille Thériault, was aware of the plan to build a correctional college in my province, the very college the member for Palliser heard the Solicitor General talking about on his famous flight to Fredericton.
In my opinion, this is irrefutable evidence that the member for Palliser heard the Solicitor General discussing confidential matters in public. This is why I asked the Solicitor General to admit that he had committed a grave error and invited him to resign.
What was his response? He said the member for Palliser had misunderstood him. Knowing that the member for Palliser could not have known of the correctional college unless he had heard about it on the plane, the Solicitor General nevertheless decided to deny the remarks by the member for Palliser.
Needless to say, the Solicitor General's response left a lot to be desired.
On the other hand, I have to say that his response surprised no one. For three weeks now, the Solicitor General has refused to acknowledge that he made a grave mistake. He has refused to admit that he discussed confidential matters in public. He is incapable of recognizing that his behaviour was completely inappropriate for a minister.
In fact, the behaviour of the Solicitor General is totally in keeping with that of his government, which has attained a point of such arrogance that it deems itself above all criticism. The debate in the House today shows that very clearly.
The RCMP public complaints commission asked him to provide adequate funding to allow UBC students to hire lawyers to represent them before the commission, but the solicitor general denied its request, arguing that the students did not need lawyers to represent them.
The government however is sending a full team of well-paid lawyers to Vancouver to represent and defend the interests of the solicitor general, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government before the commission.
Since the beginning of October, the solicitor general has been contending that the public complaints commission is a fair, equitable and independent institution and that parliament should let it do its job.
But when the commission asks him for the resources it needs to do its job, the solicitor general refuses to provide them. How can the solicitor general claim that the commission's proceedings will be fair and equitable when, by his own actions, he is making sure they cannot be.
This brings me back to my original question. On October 8, I asked the solicitor general to resign. He refused. Since then, almost every editorial writer in the country, including those of the Globe and Mail , the Halifax Herald , La Presse and the Edmonton Journal , have called for his resignation. Yet he will not resign.
The solicitor general keeps on making blunders, but the people of Canada and all my colleagues in the opposition keep on wondering when he will tender his resignation.