Douglas Young

[Employment, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just think about what he said, the Prime Minister everyone should listen to is the Prime Minister who ran for that office in 1993 and the Prime Minister who is in office now. If the hon. member would check he would know that when those statements were made the unemployment rate was in double digits. In fact, since we came to office in October 1993 there has been a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate.

No one anywhere in the world is not going to have to face the global challenges. The difficulty with facing those challenges is that choices have to be made. We as a government have made those choices. I am afraid the hon. member and his party do not even recognize the challenges yet.

[Employment, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I welcome him into his new role. I want to say with all humility that if I were able to answer that question I probably would be in a place other than this and it would be a lot higher up than this altitude.

I have just come back from the OECD where countries like the United Kingdom, France and Italy wondered about the very same question. We in Canada are faced with a rate of unemployment of 9.6 per cent. It is far too high. We all agree on that. Other countries in the G-7 for example suffer from higher rates of unemployment and are faced with even greater challenges as they try to respond to the global environment we all have to operate in.

We must all work together. I want to give credit to the provinces as well as the Minister of Finance. The direction we are going in Canada has certainly taken us to a point where we can now say that we have reduced the unemployment rate by some 2 per cent or more in the last couple of years. We still have a long way to go but unlike a lot of other countries, we are going in the right direction.

[Experience Canada, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in asking a question about Experience Canada, the hon. member is demonstrating his commitment and the government's commitment to supporting youth in the country by providing them with opportunities.

This is a unique experience which has been put together by the private sector. There will be $21 million going into the program, more than half of it from the private sector. Young Canadians from all provinces and the territories will be able to become involved in an exchange of visits.

In addition to learning about the country, they will be getting job experience which will look very good on their CVs as they seek employment in the years to come.

The only sad note in all of this is that we will be handling about 1,500 young people in this program and we could certainly use many more millions of dollars because the take-up of the program has been absolutely fantastic. A lot of young Canadians are wishing to experience Canada.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, most of the services available to people with problems of one kind or another are provided by the provinces.

Day in day out in this House members urge us to respect jurisdictions. When we do so and make sure that we do not interfere in areas such as health and so on, we are told that we should continue to fund organizations.

For example, we provide funding for Experience Canada and we are told we should not do so. Should we get involved or not? Make up your mind.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, several organizations are in a position to continue operating, because funds are still available to them. As we said on many occasions, we made a commitment. We informed the organizations concerned that the government intends to withdraw its financial support to several of them.

Originally, several agreements provided for funding over periods of one, two or three years. We will, as usual, continue to consult all our partners and discuss the issue with them.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued when members of the official opposition speak about jurisdiction. I often wonder whether their motivation is based on concerns for the people who are affected and who have legitimate anxieties about changes in the way government delivers service or are they just interested in compensation.

I was trying to indicate to the hon. member that if he is interested in taking care of associations and organizations, it is our objective to try to take care of the people who are affected by problems over which they have little or no control.

I believe that handicapped Canadians in every part of the country, regardless of the nature of the handicap, are concerned about how governments will come to their assistance, not necessarily the organizations that purport to represent them. Some of these organizations do very good work. Other organizations are, to say the very least, in a situation where I think we have to look closely at the level of funding we provide for them.

Our commitment is to take care of the people who need help. We will continue to discuss with those organizations that want to assist us in doing that their future and how they will be funded.

[Persons With Disabilities, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we often have the opportunity in this House to talk about jurisdiction, duplication, overlapping, responsibilities, and various levels of government with regard to individuals or activities.

In the throne speech, we clearly indicated, as a government, that in all areas of shared jurisdiction, we were going to take every possible step to ensure a sound and hopefully fruitful dialogue.

In this particular area, of course, the concerns of people affected by changes, due to either the federal or the provincial governments, are important. We are committed to keeping on talking with the provinces to make sure that people with special needs due to a handicap are well taken care of by the government responsible for their well being.

[Employment Insurance, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what is important to recognize in all of this, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of it, is that we have gone through two years of discussions and consultations across the country on the reforms to the employment insurance program. I do not think very many pieces of legislation in the history of this place have been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.

I do want to say to my hon. colleague that one thing which has been very positive from the exercise has been the tremendous contribution made by members of Parliament who sit on committees and who attend the meetings of those committees.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 13th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-12 be amended in clause 10 of Schedule II a ) by replacing lines 29 to 39 on page 150 with the following:

"10. (1) The following applies in place of paragraph 30(1)( a ): a ) the claimant has, since losing or leaving the employment, been employed in insurable employment for the number of weeks required by section 7 to qualify for benefits; or

(2) The following applies in place of subsections 30(6) and (7):

(6) Where a claimant who has lost or left an employment as described in subsection (1) makes an initial claim for benefits, the following weeks of insurable employment may not be used for the purposes of subsection 7(2) or (3): a ) weeks of insurable employment from that or any other employment before the day on which that employment was lost or left; and b ) weeks of insurable employment in any employment that the claimant subsequently loses or leaves, as described in subsection (1).'' b ) by striking out lines 2 to 5 on page 151 and substituting the following:

"any employment that a claimant loses or leaves as described in subsection (1) may be used for the purposes".