Douglas Young

[Unemployment Insurance, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question. As the hon. member said, there is a matter before the courts so I do not want to specifically address that problem.

This is a question that has to be dealt deal with in the most sensitive way possible. I have been informed of the decision to move in this direction and I have been trying to become better acquainted with the rationale behind it.

On the question of maternity benefits, as the hon. member says it has the component of taking care of the child. It also has the very obvious and significant element of taking care of the natural mother as she goes through the process of childbirth.

I understand the concerns raised by people who feel there should be as much opportunity as possible for nurturing a newborn child or a newly adopted child in those situations. However, it would seem to me, and there is no doubt of the decision of the government in terms of how to deal with this issue, that there were differences not in the needs of children to be cared for by their mothers for as long as possible, but in the difference between the situation faced by a natural mother in terms of her own physical capacity to deal with a birth as opposed to that of an adoptive mother dealing with an adopted child.

I do not think there are ever any easy solutions to these questions. I hope my hon. colleague would understand there is at least that difference between the two situations of a natural mother and an adoptive mother, and the need to look at them somewhat differently.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues are working very hard trying to create a situation. They talk about people who are going to go on social assistance. Then in the question the hon. member talks about new entrants onto the system.

If a person is already connected to the unemployment insurance system then he is not not a new entrant unless he or she has been out of the system for a number of years. Then that person becomes a re-entrant.

We are not advancing the quality of the debate or trying to deal with the problems facing real people by trying to raise all kinds of unnecessary concerns. The requirement for new entrants into the system is not based on just the 52 weeks of the calendar we have normally applied it to. They can actually bank the weeks, or hours as the case will be after January 1, 1997, from the previous year's work.

If the hon. member wants to put forward his arguments in a place where we can sit down and look specifically at what he is proposing and what concerns him and how we can respond to his questions, we will be happy to do that. However that is not the interest of the hon. member and his colleagues. They want to continue to provide ammunition to those who, for all kinds of other reasons than protecting those at the bottom end of the income scale, want to agitate and make even more anxious real families with real problems who want real solutions.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the hon. member can say that I agree with opposition members. This is not the case at all. What happens is that, with the legislation as it was proposed, the calculation is to be based on the number of accumulated hours.

However, I think that, with the amendments that will be moved during the course of the legislative process, we will end up with a system whereby many part time workers will not have to turn to social assistance and will in fact be eligible for UI benefits. Some employers, for all sorts of reasons, provide less than 15 hours of work per week to their employees. These workers are currently not eligible for the UI program, or for other support programs that are in place to help the majority of Canadian workers.

Hopefully, and contrary to what the hon. member implied, these amendments will reduce the number of people who have to turn to social assistance.

[Post-Secondary Education, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can have differences of opinion with representatives of various political parties on a number of issues. Surely one of the areas on which we will all find some common ground is that governments of all political stripes at all levels are faced with extremely difficult decisions.

That is the situation in the province of Quebec today on a whole number of fronts that are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. Although we have very serious and profound differences on a number of issues, the future of the country for example, one thing I do agree on with the premier of Quebec is the need for that government to take serious action to address its fiscal problems.

It is simply not accurate to suggest that the Government of Canada is entirely responsible for the problems that exist with financing post-secondary institutions in Quebec. On the other hand when we announced we were doubling the amount of money available in Canada for summer student employment from $60 million to $120 million and the portion going to Quebec would be $15 million, it recognized that we did understand the problem facing young people in Quebec and their need to find summer jobs.

I did not suggest that the $120 million for summer employment for students was going to be a panacea for their need to find jobs. It is just part of the solution, which will have to be met by other

provinces, municipal governments, and particularly the private sector.

[Post-Secondary Education, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week I had the opportunity to meet with young people from across the country at Forum Canada. The hon. member's claim that I was confronted by young people who had raised the issues he intimates in his question is wrong.

Just to let you know what is happening with the money made available for post-secondary institutions in this country, obviously we have jurisdiction-because the member and his party are always interested in jurisdiction. The provinces have jurisdiction.

The money transferred by the Government of Canada is being used as well to fund certain provincial expenditures for post-secondary institutions.

Tuition fees for universities, cegeps, community colleges and post-secondary institutions are set by the institution or by the government, depending on the system.

The Minister of Finance announced in his budget last week that we were going to stabilize the amounts available to the provinces under the Canada social transfer.

I hope we will all work together, as we did federally, by trying not only to provide the tools needed for young people to progress, but also the funds needed through job creation for students this summer to enable them to meet their objectives.

To suggest that the Government of Canada is totally responsible for the situation in universities or post-secondary institutions across the country does not really indicate where the responsibility lies. It lies with the provinces, which have jurisdiction.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a large number of women, students, people everywhere in Canada working a few hours weekly, a few hours yearly, are not eligible at all for unemployment insurance benefits under the system as it now stands.

There is no doubt that the matter of 15 hours needs looking at, for it is very important to understand that 15 is the total number of hours worked in a week required at the present time to be eligible for unemployment insurance.

It would be necessary to know how many people, including women, work exactly 15 hours a week-not 14, not 16, not 18, not 22-to find out exactly what the impacts will be. We are prepared to present all of the impact analyses once the committee has

finished its work, or even while they are still sitting, in order to try to assess the implications of this or that change.

I trust that my hon. colleague recognizes that, by changing the system to start counting from the first hour worked for everyone, women included, we have taken a forward step. We have succeeded in protecting many people and I am prepared, in due time, and in committee, to see that my departmental employees present all possible data to ensure that everything is clarified. We will need to look at the impact on women, on those who have been excluded from the unemployment insurance system all these years because they did not have their 15 hours a week, in order to see whether where we are headed will be fair to women and to all who need access to the employment insurance program.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be as equitable as we can in addressing all of the questions that will be brought to the attention of the committee.

In response to a comment by the House leader for the official opposition, we will look with great interest at any of the amendments brought forward by any of the political parties represented on the committee. Whether we can agree with them in totality we will have to wait and see. I am sure we will do the best we can.

With respect to the re-entry qualifications I want to make it clear that they apply across the board to all new entrants or re-entrants. We will take into account any special circumstances. Again there I understand the honourable member's comment about the need for mothers to take extended periods of time to deal with the rearing of their children. I expect the committee will be making suggestions and recommendations on this and a number of other areas.

I am very pleased to see that members of the official opposition now recognize the value of having this piece of legislation considered by the committee. I am sure as time goes on, as was the case yesterday and as will be the case next week, there will be a lot of constructive suggestions made and we will deal with them.

The one thing I would say we are totally committed to is the fiscal parameters that were set out for the overall EI reform. Within that restriction we are prepared to look at anything which will render the situation as equitable and as fair to women and everybody else who must have access to employment insurance.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this question being raised by the House leader of the official opposition is indeed a very important one. It is true that the changes proposed in Bill C-12 would impact upon women, as the hon. member says. This is one of the very good reasons why we are in the process of examining the bill in committee, and why we want to hear witnesses and to find out about problems such as this.

I am sure the committee members from all parties will address the problem identified yesterday by the Fédération des femmes du Québec. I trust that here, as in other sectors, amendments will be proposed to improve or totally eliminate the problem referred to by the hon. member.

[Point Of Order, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I agree totally with the whip of the official opposition in the House and with the Speaker of the House that the word "baveux" is unacceptable and must not be used in this House.

[Point Of Order, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is true these words were spoken in the House and I willingly admit that I used the expression. However, I would also point out that I heard others use it today, this afternoon, even. I agree entirely with the description of the situation made by the House leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to agree with you that these words are not appropriate in this House, particularly when they might be claimed to have been applied to more than one person. That would be disastrous.