Warren Allmand

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-12.

As a member of the human resources development committee, I was able to participate in the hearings on the bill which were carried on this spring over a five week period and during which time we heard from 79 witnesses, individuals and groups. In addition, there were numerous written briefs considered by the committee.

When the bill was tabled late in 1995 my initial reaction was to oppose it because it proposed substantial cuts to the UI system which in my view were unfair and unjustified. For seven years, from 1984 to 1991, I was the employment critic for the Liberal opposition and during that time with the support of my party severely criticized the Conservative government for similar cuts.

Furthermore, during the 1993 election campaign the Liberal Party made no mention in the red book or elsewhere of proposed cuts to unemployment insurance. Quite to the contrary, we condemned the Conservatives for their attacks on this and other social programs.

Despite my initial opposition, I decided to participate objectively in the committee process, to listen to the arguments on both sides and then decide what position to take to oppose or support the bill in whole or in part.

I was encouraged by the minister, who said that within certain limits he would accept amendments to improve the bill, which he has done, and I congratulate him for it. In particular, I refer to the amendments presented by the members for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and Halifax West to change the method for calculating benefits, which amendments will substantially reduce the cuts to benefits as set out in the original bill. Also, amendments were presented by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore to exempt low income families from the intensity rule.

The original bill would have cut $2 billion from the unemployment insurance program. These amendments by my colleagues will put back approximately $400 million. All in all the committee did good work. It did the best it could within the fiscal framework, but there is the problem.

One provision of the 1995 budget was to cut the unemployment insurance program by 10 per cent. Consequently, despite the goodwill and amendments of the committee, the bill still results in serious cuts to unemployment benefits at a time when a large number of Canadians are unemployed.

I decided to participate in the committee to honestly listen to the arguments on both sides. The more I listened to the evidence in committee the more I became convinced that on the whole the bill was wrong.

It is true the bill does contain some improved measures such as the hourly base for qualifying for and calculating UI benefits. Under the present law a person must work at least 15 hours per week in order to qualify with the result that many employers hire workers part time at less than 15 hours per week simply to avoid paying their contributions. Under this bill, all hours of work will count for qualification with the result that part time workers will have a better chance to qualify. This is definitely an improvement.

There are other improvements as well. However, the net result when the improvements and the cuts are added up is that fewer people will be covered and the benefits will be lower than under the present system.

As a result of earlier cuts by the Conservatives prior to 1993 and by the Liberals since 1993, the percentage of the unemployed covered by unemployment insurance dropped from 87 per cent in 1990 to approximately 50 per cent to 52 per cent today. Unfortunately this bill will make it worse. In addition, even with my colleagues' amendments, benefits will be lower for most claimants who qualify.

My main concerns about this bill are the following. First, although the move to an hourly system is good in itself, the number of hours of work required to qualify is too high for both regular and special benefits. As a result it will be more difficult for workers to qualify under this bill than under the present law. While some part time workers will gain under these new rules, many workers will lose and will not achieve coverage.

My second concern is that benefits will be reduced for three-quarters of unemployment insurance claimants as a result of three provisions in the bill. The first is the new method of calculating insurable earnings and benefits through the divisor rule. Even with the improvements of my colleagues the benefits will still be less. The second is the intensity rule which reduces benefits for those who are obliged to make repeated claims. I say obliged to make repeated claims. I have in mind seasonal workers and workers who are hired on a temporary basis. The third is the provision in the bill to reduce the maximum insurable benefit from $448 per week to $413 per week. That is the maximum benefit.

My third concern is that the bill reduces the duration of benefits, the time for which benefits are paid, from a maximum of 50 weeks to 45 weeks. As a result there will be more unemployed persons with no benefits. They now qualify for up to 50 weeks; they will be cut off at 45 weeks.

Some supporters of the bill believe that these measures, the measures to restrict coverage, to reduce benefits and to reduce the duration of payments, will force unemployed workers back to work. This belief presumes that work is available which is certainly not the case everywhere. It also presumes that most workers prefer unemployment. Again, there is no evidence to support that. I would say that a great number of workers want to work. There are some who do not and would live off welfare or unemployment insurance but they are a very small number.

These measures might also force the unemployed to take lower paid jobs. With economic growth increasing, such as was stated in both this year's budget and last year's budget, this only continues to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Why should we force people into lower paid jobs if economic growth in the country is in fact increasing? This is not economic justice.

Another major concern I have with the bill is that it allocates a greater percentage of the UI fund to training and employment support measures. I fully agree that these measures are absolutely essential but until recently they have been paid out of general revenue and not out of the UI fund.

What has happened is the government observed that this year the UI fund would have a surplus of approximately $5 billion so it decided to take some of that money to pay for training which had been previously paid out of general revenue. In the budget last year the government decided to cut approximately $2 billion from the unemployment insurance system, reallocate $800 million of that to training and employment and at the same time the government reduced its funds for training out of general revenue. In fact, the government is solving its general deficit problems by cutting expenditures for training which were made out of general revenue and then taking money for these same purposes from the UI fund.

I must remind the House that the UI fund is made up of payroll contributions from employers and employees. Not all Canadians contribute to this fund. The original and principal purpose of the fund was to sustain the unemployed while temporarily out of work. It was to help the unemployed to pay their bills, to pay their rent, to pay for their food and to keep their children in school. That was the principal purpose of unemployment insurance.

Training, like education, was always paid by all taxpayers because in the long run it benefits all taxpayers. The payment of primary and secondary education is not restricted to parents and students. Why should training then be paid only by workers and employers?

Furthermore, the proposed system leaves individuals who do not qualify for unemployment insurance without the same training and employment opportunities. In particular, immigrants and women who have been at home taking care of their children and go back to work would not qualify for this training and these employment benefits because they have no attachment to the unemployment insurance system.

In conclusion, I would support any measures which would correct abuse and encourage a return to work. However, in my view this bill punishes the innocent with the guilty. I will support the government's amendments to improve the bill but I will also support other amendments that will improve the bill. I must say that I will have to oppose those parts of the bill which reduce coverage and benefits.

[Employment Equity Act, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

In 1995, Parliament passed important amendments to the Employment Equity Act, but these changes will only come into effect one year after the law's proclamation.

At a committee meeting last Thursday, the human rights commissioner urged the government to proclaim this law as soon as possible. When will this employment equity law be proclaimed?

[Nuclear Liability Act, March 27th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act.

Madam Speaker, under the Nuclear Liability Act a private nuclear facility is now required to carry $75 million in insurance to cover damage from facility breakdowns and other accidents. This bill would increase that amount to $500 million and could oblige the crown to pay damages above that level.

We must remember that the damages from the Three Mile Island nuclear breakdown a few years ago amounted to $3 billion and damages from Chernobyl amounted to $14 billion.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Family Violence, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Gatineau a woman died of injuries inflicted by her attacker. Family violence is a crime just like any form of aggression against a stranger. Gone are the days when society as a whole preferred not to get involved in or pass judgment on cases of violence to women or children, under the pretext that it was none of the neighbours' business.

The major stakeholders in our judicial system are now more aware and better trained to step in in situations of family violence. When such a tragedy takes place, it is of concern to our entire society, and we cannot remain unmoved.

Henceforth, we must work on lowering our tolerance for violence and increasing our understanding and efforts to help those who are suffering and have lost hope.

[Racism, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the first day of spring. It is also the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

This year's symbol for this day is the crocus, the first flower of spring and the symbol of a fresh start. This campaign encourages Canadians to break free from the darkness of ignorance into the light of tolerance and respect.

Thirty-six years ago on this day a peaceful march against apartheid in Sharpeville, South Africa turned into a massacre. All too often since then this tragedy has been repeated in different Sharpevilles around the world. These incidents may not always kill the body but racial discrimination destroys the soul and the self-esteem of the victim.

We in Canada take for granted our peaceful lifestyle, our reputation as a kinder, gentler nation. Yet we have our own less violent Sharpevilles in many parts of Canada. Each time we deny the cultural reality of our neighbour, denigrate his language or her costume, we commit an act of discrimination.

[Cuba, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. legislation to punish Cuba and those who do business with Cuba is just another example of the inequity and inconsistency of the United States in such matters.

The U.S. continues to carry out a policy to isolate and punish Cuba despite the fact that the cold war is over, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist and Cuba is in no way a military threat to the United States.

How does the U.S. justify such a policy when at the same time it is cosying up to China and Vietnam, which are both communist countries and have much worse human rights records.

The shooting down of the two U.S. planes was indeed a deplorable incident. Both sides claim to be right. Consequently, that is a matter for the International Court and not one for unilateral reprisals.

The current U.S. legislation punishes those who do not deserve it and further exacerbates the situation.

[Terrorism, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I was pleased to learn that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will participate in the anti-terrorism summit in Egypt. Not only is the Middle East peace process under attack but there is a continual threat of terrorism throughout the world.

What concrete measures will Canada propose at the summit and what is Canada prepared to do to co-operate in a worldwide anti-terrorist program?

[Citizenship Act, March 6th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Madam Speaker, I wish to move this bill to amend the Citizenship Act with respect to the oath of allegiance.

At present, those persons who present themselves to become new citizens of Canada must pledge alliance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. This is confusing to some and objectionable to others. Many individuals are ready and willing to pledge their allegiance to Canada and to the Canadian Constitution, but not to Queen Elizabeth whom they associate with the United Kingdom, another independent country.

This bill would replace the present citizenship oath with a new oath which would read:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's questions.

To begin with, I did not suggest we needed long consultations. I agree with him that the discussions have gone on for a long while and they need not go on for another long period of time.

What I was suggesting, which would be my plan B, and what I thought the government had in the speech from the throne, is that there must be some understanding with respect to the clarity of the question. What I was saying is that one should not be able to break up a country that has existed for 129 years on a vague and ambiguous question with a marginal vote.

If the question was absolutely clear and direct, that would be fine. For example, in the last referendum the question referred to an accord. I met many people as I campaigned who thought the reference to an accord was to an accord between the federal government and the provincial governments. Whereas it really referred to an agreement between the three parties that supported the yes position. There was reference to a very complicated bill. I read it but most people who voted in the referendum did not.

What we need are not long consultations, but to respect democracy and the rule of law there should be a clear, direct, unambiguous question.

I suggested that the majority should be more than a simple majority for legislation. There were never any rules with respect to majority. It is not that we are changing the rules now. The federal government never laid down any rules. As a matter of fact, we simply sought to win the referendum campaigns that were put to us by the provincial government. However, we did not say these should be the rules. I believe we should now say there are rules but we are not changing existing rules.

With respect to what the majority should be, I do not know. I have no suggestion to make now but I think that could be worked out. Certainly even to amend a club Constitution, even to amend the charter of a corporation one does not follow the simple procedures one does to pass simple bylaws or simple legislation. To amend the Constitution of this country we require two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

I do not speak only of referendums coming from Quebec because we recently had another one in Newfoundland with respect to removing the rights of religious minorities in schools. On Referendums on constitutional issues anywhere in the country that would have the effect of changing some very basic provisions, we should have an understanding as to what the rules of the game should be.

The results of these referendums affect the whole country. I cannot accept when some of my colleagues in the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois say this affects only Quebec. It does not affect only Quebec. It will affect the whole country. As a matter of fact, it could affect North America to a certain extent.

The rules of the game have to be clear. I believe in democracy if, to a clear question, there is a substantial majority, although I cannot say what that substantial majority should be, and it is clear that the people of Quebec want to say yes to a clear question on this issue. It is then clear that we have to negotiate. We have to also make clear that the results of the referendum alone have no legal or constitutional consequences but are simply a basis for negotiation, much different than many people thought when they voted the last time.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to support the speech from the throne which is the government's formal statement with respect to its plans for the new session of Parliament which started on February 27.

In this speech from the throne the government is setting out its directions, its policies, its skeleton legislation for the second session of the 35th Parliament.

While the speech from the throne is set out in general terms, as is the case with most speeches from the throne, in my view the general directions are good. There seems to be a return to what I would describe as traditional Liberal positions.

There are three main themes in the speech from the throne. The first is economic growth and jobs. The expressions of intent by the government are first class and praiseworthy especially with respect to young Canadians.

The second theme is security, security for those who will retire through their pensions, security for those who are sick through our national health care system, and security for the unemployed through an unemployment insurance system. There are also proposals with respect to security for our environment, security against crime and security in the international arena where we have had so much conflict in recent years.

The third theme in the speech from the throne is with respect to national unity. I will say more about this in a few minutes.

The details from the speech from the throne are fleshed out in due course following the speech. They are fleshed out in the government's actual legislation and in statements by ministers of the government. We will all be looking very closely at the government's legislative bills to ensure these bills remain true to the statements in the speech from the throne and also remain true to our election promises in the Liberal red book.

I still remain concerned with the high level of unemployment in the country. I remain concerned with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I remain concerned with the development of the Canada health and social transfer and with respect to the proposals for pension reform which we expect to receive very soon.

With respect to the unemployment insurance amendments which were tabled near the end of the last session, there were some good provisions in Bill C-111 but others in my view were unfair and draconian. It is unacceptable that we should consider cutting the benefits of those at the low end of the benefit scale.

At the low end of the scale one receives approximately $500 a month. This is hardly enough to live on, hardly enough to pay one's rent, to buy one's food and the other basic needs of life. Consequently I cannot accept that we should lower these low end benefits. By doing so all we really do is shift those individuals on to the welfare rolls of the province and they end up being paid for by the very same taxpayers but in a more demeaning and difficult way.

I am anxiously awaiting the changes to the UI bill which will be introduced by the new minister. He said when he was sworn in that he had in mind making certain changes. We also expect that some changes will be made to the bill following the public hearings in a parliamentary committee.

I have only 10 minutes and cannot deal with all the subjects I would like to discuss in that time. As a Montrealer I want to spend some time on the national unity issue. The federalists, the no side, won the referendum in October. However, the margin was so thin that we have been left with a serious state of uncertainty which has

caused extreme harm to the national economy, especially in Montreal, but also to the whole province of Quebec.

I am pleased with the initiatives the government is taking to promote national unity and to deter another divisive and harmful referendum. First, I give my full support to the so-called plan A. It involves programs to inform Canadians about the benefits of Confederation, to promote Canadian achievements, to improve the operation of Confederation and to make it more effective for ordinary Canadians in all parts of the country.

We must demonstrate to Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere in this country that our two official languages, French and English, are a great asset and not a burden. Unlike many other countries Canada can do business in English and French: diplomacy, research, literature, theatre, films, television, music in English and French. These are outstanding assets which we should promote and use to our benefit. In no way should the asset of our bilingual policy be attacked and diminished. We have to convince Canadians of that.

I was also pleased with the statement in the speech from the throne that the government will promote exchanges in Canada so that Canadians, especially young Canadians, can get to know their country better and get to know other Canadians better. Prejudice builds and is fostered in a situation where we do not really know each other, do not talk to each other and do not really know each other's homes. I would fully support those initiatives referred to in the speech from the throne.

The government's emphasis and my emphasis is on this plan A approach. Our priority and preference is to make Confederation work better, to sell the benefits of Confederation and to see that Canadians know what is involved in the Confederation agreement.

The government has also mentioned what might be called plan B. I refer to a few lines in the speech from the throne:

But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear.

Such an approach is necessary because until now the agenda on these matters has been principally controlled by the PQ Government of Quebec. That government decided when it would have referendums. It decided how often it would have referendums, what the question would be and what the process would be. These decisions affect not only the province of Quebec but the unity and the continued existence of one of the greatest and longest lasting democracies in the world. This is unacceptable.

It is essential that some reality be injected into this discussion. It is appropriate that this be done by the federal government, which must ensure that whatever is done is done in accordance with well established principles of democracy and law. The rule of law must prevail. In this respect the federal government must make absolutely clear that constitutional referendums, such as we have had recently in Quebec and in Newfoundland, have no binding consequences either legally or constitutionally. At the very best such referendums are only advisory and a possible basis for negotiation.

Referendums give no right to unilateral declarations for any kind of constitutional change, let alone to a unilateral declaration of independence. Of course a strong yes vote in a referendum would have political consequences, not legal consequences. It would provide a certain impetus for negotiation, but that is all.

Furthermore, the federal government should make clear that referendum results will not even be the basis for negotiation unless certain conditions are fulfilled. I suggest the following: first, the question must be clear, direct and unambiguous; second, the referendum and voting process must be fair and equitable; third, the majority required to proceed to negotiation, the next step, must be substantial, not marginal.

In other words, we should have a majority that is at least equivalent to the majority required for constitutional amendment. No country in the world allows constitutional amendments by the simple legislative process.

We must affirm in our policy that Canada is a federal state which has been internationally recognized and has successfully functioned for over 129 years, and that federal jurisdiction and sovereignty exist in all provinces.

The continued existence of such a state cannot be threatened by marginal decisions on ambiguous referendum questions. Steps to divide or separate such a state can be taken only after considerable deliberation of all relevant factors, unequivocal and conclusive agreement by all parties and in accordance with the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. I believe this is essential as we continue with this discussion in this country. It is important that the realities of the situation be made known to everyone.