Jan Brown

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-12, in Clause 169, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 21, on page 132, with the following:

"2) The Minister shall lay a copy of the report of the Auditor General of the accounts and financial transactions of the Commission relating to employment insurance and of the state of the Employment Insurance Account before each House of Parliament on the first sitting day on which that House is sitting after the day the Minister receives the report."

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 131, the following new Clause:

"Standardization during transitional period

167.1 (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Commission shall, during the period between January 5, 1997 and January 5, 2002, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations that, in its opinion, are required for the purpose of a ) gradually eliminating the concept of regional rates of unemployment during this period and dealing with any resulting legal consequences, so that, by January 5, 2002, a claimant, provided that the claimant otherwise qualifies for unemployment benefits under this Act, may qualify for unemployment benefits without regard to a regional rate of unemployment; and b ) adjusting, during this period, the number of weeks of insurable employment or the number of hours of insurable employment required for a claimant to qualify for unemployment benefits, so that, by January 5, 2002,

(i) the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for unemployment benefits will be the same throughout Canada, and

(ii) the standardized qualifying period in paragraph ( b )(i) shall apply without reference to a regional rate of unemployment;

(2) The Governor in Council shall, by order, a ) after consultation with the Commission, amend any provision in this Act that is inconsistent with the objectives and transitional duties referred to in subsection (1); and b ) no later than January 5, 2002,

(i) establish a standard qualifying period that is valid throughout Canada, based on the number of hours of insurable employment during a qualifying period and calculated without reference to a regional rate of unemployment; and

(ii) amend any provision in this Act that is inconsistent with the standard qualifying period referred to in subparagraph (i)."

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 29, on page 96, the following new Clause:

"110.1 The Commission shall, no later than thirty days before a pilot project is tested, cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette that contains the following: a ) a statement that the Commission is preparing to test a pilot project; b ) the nature and objectives of the pilot project; c ) a description of the operation of the pilot project; d ) a statement of how long the pilot project will last and when testing will commence; e ) a statement that a detailed description of the pilot project may be obtained free of charge, on request by any person, from the Commission at the address set out in the notice; and f ) an invitation to all interested persons to make representations before the Commission respecting the pilot project and the time period for doing so.''

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-12, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing lines 45 to 48, on page 81, and lines 1 and 2, on page 82 with the following:

"$2,000-(IE-P)+I

where

P is the aggregate of all deducted amounts mentioned in subsection (4);

IE is the person's insurable earnings in the year; and

I is the interest at the prescribed rate on the deducted amounts calculated from the day they were paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund."

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-12, in Clause 96, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 81, with the following:

"refund to the person, together with interest at the prescribed rate on these amounts calculated from the day they were paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the aggregate of all".

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-12, in Clause 67, be amended by replacing line 32, on page 62, with the following:

"67.(1) Subject to section 70, a person, other than a full-time student within the meaning of the Income Tax Act,".

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-12, in Clause 63, be amended by a ) replacing line 19, on page 60, with the following:

"63.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commission may, with the approv-"; and b ) adding the following after line 34 on page 60:

"(2) Where the government of a province notifies the Commission in writing that it wishes to enter into an agreement to provide for the annual payment by the Commission of contributions equivalent to all costs and expenses relating to the employment benefits and support measures that are to be made each year by the Commission in the province, the Commission shall enter into such an agreement forthwith."

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-12, in Clause 12, be amended by a ) replacing lines 10 to 18, on page 20, with the following:

"(3) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period is 15 a ) because of pregnancy; b ) because the claimant is caring for one or more new- born children of the claimant or one or more children placed with the claimant for the purpose of adoption; and''; b ) replacing lines 21 to 33 on page 20, with the following:

"(4) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid for a single pregnancy or for the care of one or more new-born or adopted children as a result of a single pregnancy or placement is 15.

(5) In a claimant's benefit period, the"; c ) replacing line 39, on page 20, with the following: a ) to more than 15 weeks of benefits, the''; d ) replacing line 5, on page 21, with the following:

"up to 15 or fewer weeks of benefits, the"; and e ) replacing lines 12 to 26, on page 21, with the following:

"ceed 30.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the".

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-12, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36, on page 59, with the following:

"(2) The Commission shall not provide any financial assistance in a province in support of employment benefits mentioned in paragraph 59( e ) or support measures under this Part without the agreement of the government of the province.''

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34, on page 125, the following new Clause:

"152.1(1) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period under subsection 12(3).

(2) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid shall be the same in the case of pregnancy as in a case where the claimant is caring for one or more new-born children of the claimant or one or more children placed with the claimant for the purpose of adoption."

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 131, the following new Clause:

"167.1 Notwithstanding any section of this Act, the Governor in Council shall, no later than January 1, 1998, amend, by order, those provisions of this Act that, in its opinion, require amendment in order to eliminate the concept of "number of hours of insurable employment" and to replace it with the concept of "number of weeks of insurable employment"."

[Merit, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion this evening. I congratulate my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin for moving the motion and for ensuring that members of the House and Canadians everywhere are aware of the Reform Party position regarding employment equity and merit based hiring.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to employment equity. The first is that legislative programs are necessary to fix the wrongs, especially past wrongs that were in the workforce. The second is that employment equity is flawed because it advocates hiring of individuals based on personal characteristics, not on merit. Obviously we have two schools of thought.

Relative to these opposing views is the assumption of the need for some type of affirmative action or employment equity legislation. It was thought to be an appropriate method of addressing inequities in the workplace. Much has been written about the culture of work in this regard, yet I believe that inequities that are socially engineered do not explain the vastly dissimilar outcomes different groups experience in the course of their lives.

The government attempts to dismiss the more complex elements, the nature of which is evident in Bill C-64. Conditions today are not what they were 10 or even 15 years ago. Empirical evidence and supporting information have shown that culture and education have more to do with gaps in the workplace than we may assume.

I will now highlight five points which express the Reform position as I believe it to be. First, all Canadians are equal before and under the law, and all workers have the right to be free of discrimination in the workplace. I believe that sincerely.

Second, the marketplace will provide solutions to a representative workplace in the private sector. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has spoken before in the House to this issue, and eloquently so. Businesses exercising appropriate management and personnel practices will hire people who relate well to and serve their customers well. That in itself should mean there will be openness within management to ensure employees have full access to all of the opportunities the workplace offers.

Third, the role of government is to ensure equality of opportunity rather than to determine equality of employment outcome in the public sector or beyond the public sector. Equality of opportunity, that is the role of government, but government cannot ensure equality of outcome, and nor should it try.

For example, when the NDP was in power in Ontario it made itself vastly unpopular by launching an expensive social reform, almost a revolution, in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s. Businesses found many ways to circumvent the new law guaranteeing equal pay to women. They placed employees on contract, forced unpaid overtime and shorter work weeks and hired part time workers. The government's employment equity campaign aimed at hiring more women, often by posting advertisements that bar men from applying, made men very angry and resentful.

Even Thomas Walkom, the Toronto Star fair minded Queen's Park columnist, called the decision to hire on the basis of race and sex wrong, unwise and unfortunate. Women should be given the nod when applicants are of equal merit, he argued, but excluding any group from applying is dangerous: ``The government has merely succeeded in creating a new victim, the able bodied white male''.

The fourth point Reform puts forth with regard to employment equity is that the workplace should be free from arbitrary obstructions to hiring and promotion. Merit must be the sole hiring criterion. I believe this and evidence has shown that a majority of Canadians believe this also. That would mean Canadians generally do not support Bill C-64, the employment equity bill. Perhaps this is why the government has chosen not to proclaim the legislation. It is a question which remains and does linger.

The fifth point is that employment equity legislation and measures which take away from merit based hiring are coercive, unfair, unnecessary and costly, and should be discontinued. To this end the

government could go one step down the road to properly addressing the issues of merit based hiring by repealing Bill C-64.

One cannot address today's motion or Bill C-64 without addressing the issue of quotas. When is a quota not a quota? It would seem that a quota is not a quota when the former Minister of Human Resources Development calls it a numerical goal. Remember that minister was the chief architect for the government's social engineering plans for employment equity. He insisted numerical goals were aimed at getting a specified number of women, aboriginal, minorities or disabled, into certain industries and that these are not quotas even though the dictionary defines a quota as a proportional part or share required from each person or group for making up a certain number or quantity.

Why does the former minister of HRD not speak clearly and call a quota a quota? Perhaps he does not like the word because the imposition of hiring quotas for disadvantaged groups in the U.S. has created an undesirable backlash among those excluded.

I raise an interesting example from the United States. The American case study is curiously illogical and I believe raises questions about current hiring practices which do hint of those numerical targets.

I use an example from a small California college. At this college a form was circulated to companies wanting to do business. The letters that accompanied the forms urged that they be filled out as quickly as possible: "To allow us to continue to do business with you, equity information is being requested of all colleges". Such colleges receive government assistance in the U.S.

The supplier is required to list the percentage ownership of his business involving native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans and Asian Indians. To get first in line to do business with the college, any supplier must be 51 per cent owned by one of these minorities or have a business with management and daily operations controlled by one or more of the minorities. The same priority goes to businesses owned 51 per cent by women or whose management and daily operations are controlled by one or more women who own the business.

A separate bureaucracy was created to monitor this. The penalties imposed are real as well. The form states: "Any material misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract which may be awarded and for initiating action under federal and/or state law concerning these false statements".

Should we not be more interested in ridding the workplace of such repugnant misrepresentation and unfairness? When looking to hire, should we not be more concerned with what the applicant knows or what he or she may perform or what are the merits of hiring her or him instead of using and applying filters which unnaturally dictate the outcomes of hiring practices?

Simply put, the Reform Party wants everyone to be treated equally and fairly. We want everyone to have the same access to opportunities as the next person. What we do not want to see, however, is a situation in which we are dictating what those outcomes should be. Let us rather foster equitable hiring practices.

[Canada Pension Plan, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, despite the hon. member's remarks to me, I would like to read into the record a statement made on April 14 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said: "My own view is if we reorganize the program and stabilize the contributions at somewhere in the range of 10 per cent, it would be a more adequate solution".

This amounts to an additional 5 per cent payroll tax taken from the pay cheque of every Canadian from coast to coast. Will the minister state for the record that he will not implement this, the worst of all possible scenarios?