Bob Nault

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, based on the fact the member is a sovereignist or separatist and is very much interested in seeing his province separate from the rest of Canada, I want to get some advice from him and his party's position on the employment insurance system.

The employment insurance system takes premiums from employees and employers and redistributes that money in provinces that have high unemployment. In Quebec they get more money than they put into the system.

If Quebec were to separate it would be running a deficit in that account if it had to create its own system. Would it not be to his benefit to tell us what kind of system he would put in place to deal with an issue like that or if he believes in the EI system?

The other question deals with the active measures, part two. We transfer federal dollars under the EI system to the province of Quebec to operate part two of the EI system. The understanding is this fund was a consensus in Quebec, was supported by all factions of Quebec, both the labour movement and the employers. Can the member tell me if he is in favour or opposed to part two of the EI system?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that the member would stand today after a very successful convention in London where it was decided to reform the party into change. Obviously the old Reform Party which has been around for 10 years was not working very well so now it is in the process of changing.

Based on that I want to get the new Reform Party on record on where it stands on this issue. The member wants to know whether there is such a thing as an EI account. We know there is an EI account because we know by law that this fund is set up to help unemployed workers through active measures, benefits and a combination of income support when people are laid off. There are also some active measures to help people find jobs because the economy is changing very rapidly and those changes were needed.

Most economists on Bay Street say the number one choice in making cuts to put more money in people's pockets is to cut personal income tax, not to cut EI premiums. EI premiums have a very limited effect and the majority, except for one NDP economist in the Globe and Mail , suggested that premium cuts are the way to go.

Even though the government has cut premiums substantially, they were rising to $3.30 under the Tories, they are now down to $2.70. The government is on target to reduce premiums more this year. I want the member to be aware of two things.

There is an independent commission that does review it. It has representatives of labour and employers. It makes recommendations to the minister of human resources and to the Minister of Finance. The member was incorrect in that. There is such a commission today.

Which is the new Reform Party's position on this issue?

[Division No. 178, May 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the employment insurance system is about supporting individuals who have an attachment to the labour force and who need temporary assistance before getting back into the workforce.

Despite the member's claims that he has made in the past and again tonight, the fact is that we do not want individuals moving from EI to social assistance. We want them to move from EI into the workforce.

Let us set the record straight. Since March 1997 social assistance case loads have declined in all provinces. In the member's province of Quebec the most recent figures show 436,200 households were on social assistance, the lowest number of cases since January 1993.

The fact is that a portion of social assistance recipients has always been persons who either did not qualify or who exhausted their EI benefits. Contrary to the hon. member's statement, our last EI reform was precisely about trying to help these unemployed individuals back into the workforce.

The employment insurance reform brought forth by the government included a number of bold new measures to modernize the system and to ensure it could better help Canadians face the challenges of our changing economy and help them find and keep jobs.

Rather than making Canadians dependent on passive income support for as long as possible as the member and his party would like, we choose to invest EI dollars in new measures to help Canadians return to work as quickly as possible.

What is so innovative is that we have broadened eligibility for these employment measures so that all Canadians who received EI or UI in the last three years can benefit from them as can people who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five years.

To further build on this innovation, the Government of Canada has negotiated labour market development agreements with nearly all provincial and territorial governments for the delivery of these active measures.

The Government of Quebec will receive $2.7 billion over five years—

[Division No. 178, May 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when the ministers of health made the announcement on March 27 on how the various governments of Canada would be approaching the issue of hepatitis C, they did so together sitting at the same table with one another and with people who are affected by the virus. They did so knowing that some people would not be happy. They sat across from these people, faced them and answered their questions.

The public wants governments to listen to what peoples' thoughts are on these issues and has asked that we take responsibility for the blood system problems of the past. We have done so. It wants governments to work together and we did so. The Canadian public prefers that any assistance provided by governments be distributed according to need. This is what we proposed this past March 27.

On May 14 health ministers met with representatives from the Hepatitis C Society of Canada. They met and listened to the Canadian Hemophilia Society. Health Canada officials have been speaking directly to affected members of the public who have called into Health Canada to tell us about their daily lives, the problems they face and what they want governments to do.

The federal government has consistently shown that it wants to work with all involved but that not everybody involved wants to work toward a real solution. We continue to do so.

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon. colleagues that obviously the BU ratio is bothering the government, bothering people of all persuasions, this side and that side.

When we implemented the EI act, that is the reason we brought in a process of monitoring reports every year to look at the changes under the new EI system.

There has been one monitoring report so far. There are another five to go. When those monitoring reports come forward we will be able to tell the government and the people of Canada just why it is that certain changes are working or not working.

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the member that the benefit to the unemployed ratio has gone up in this last month. The reason why it is going up is that more people are qualifying for benefits. Yes, there are fewer people on benefits for a number of reasons.

As the Minister of Finance has said, we have created over a million new jobs since the government came into office. Unemployment is going down substantially since we came into power in 1993. As sure as I stand here, the unemployment will continue to go down with the kind of policies we are implementing.

[Standing Orders And Procedure, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to talk about the standing orders and procedures of the House and its committees.

I have been a member of parliament now for 10 years coming up in November. Having come here in 1988 as a member of the opposition and now a member of the government, that should give me some insight at this point from an individual's perspective as to whether the House of Commons as I know it does work.

There are a couple of concerns that I have as an individual member I want to bring forward this afternoon. Before I do I want to talk about the obvious function of parliament itself. Parliament has two major functions. One is legislative and the other is accountability.

We should always keep in mind when we are having discussions in this place whether those two functions are being adhered to closely so that no matter what the government decides to do, the legislative agenda of the party in power is brought forward. That is obviously the wish of the people, having voted for that party to be their government for a period of time. I think it is also very important that there is an accountability process built into that program.

In the last 10 years one of the things that has interested me most about parliament is the issue of accountability. If there is anything that irks the people back home in Kenora—Rainy River, it is the fact that they always want to feel that members of parliament are being accountable to them the taxpayers. This brings me to the first issue which is very obvious to all of us in this place.

The standing rules and procedures of this House in the last number of years have changed dramatically. When I first came to this place a member could speak for 20 minutes as a backbencher. We could speak freely for 20 minutes on any particular topic. The lead speaker could speak for a very long time if he or she wished. Now under the procedures they have made it 10 minutes.

I bring to the attention of the House the unfortunate belief that we are going backward by restricting the freedom of speech in the House of Commons. We should be allowed to speak, within reason obviously, for as long as we would like to speak, as long as the government's agenda, the government's program is allowed to go forward by all parties in the House.

We seem to place restrictions on ourselves. The thrust of what we believe and what we hear from our constituents in the ridings is not brought forward in debate in the House of Commons because of the restrictions of time limitations which are put on us. For example, in the short time that I have, 10 minutes, it is very difficult to put a comprehensive argument together about what the House of Commons should and should not be doing. I will leave that for a moment.

The other issue is the one of accountability. I wanted to speak very strongly about accountability because it has two facets. Accountability to my constituents means the ability for me to stand up in the House of Commons as often as I possibly can to defend in this case the program of the government, the party I represent. I explain why we have chosen a particular program, a particular initiative for the good of the people as we see it. If I cannot do that because there are restrictions, because there are agreements between House leaders and between parties which restrict the amount of time we can have on a particular bill, I do not think it does anyone any good. It is one of the problems we need to look at very seriously.

The other is the issue of accountability in the committees. I want to speak specifically about committees. As a member of parliament for the last 10 years I have noticed that in committee even though the opposition likes to promote, as I did in opposition between 1988 and 1993, the importance of committees as it relates to accountability, whenever we decide we want to look at the estimates it is the least important thing to the opposition members. They will not say that publicly but in fact it is true.

It is not something which generates a lot of excitement by members of parliament in committee. They continue, as the opposition is now doing, to say we should look at the whole issue of the estimates for the human resources development department, which is the department I am presently on the committee with. There are huge amounts of dollars involved in human resources development, close to $60 billion. How often do we look at the estimates of human resources development in committee? So far this year, not at all.

There is now a filibuster in the human resources development committee on a piece of labour legislation because members of the opposition would like to delay the bill. They have been sitting on the same clause all morning. That will delay the ability of the committee to look at the estimates.

We need to seriously look at the importance of accountability in committees and give members of parliament the opportunity to reflect on those estimates. As boring as they may seem to people on this side or that side, it is one of the major functions of a member of parliament.

If we can get agreement by members of all parties on all sides of the House that they will allow the program of the government to go forward, we could then open the rules of this place. We could on the one hand speak on behalf of our constituents as a member of parliament and on the other hand make sure that the program we ran on as a party and as a politician is moved forward in the weeks and months we sit in this place.

That brings me to the third and I think the most disturbing issue of this parliament and other parliaments as I have seen it. It is the issue of private members' bills. For the sake of argument there is very little attention or care taken on private members' bills and private members' business. In fact it is non-existent if people in this place wanted to be very blunt and frank about it.

We will never get a good system for private members' business and for the bills that come to this place until there is an acceptance by the Canadian people first and by the members of parliament that private members' business is very separate from the government's business from the parties they work for and the business they believe in.

Even though we continue to stand up row by row, individual by individual, the fact remains that private members' bills are not looked at by the government or by the opposition as private and on which they can vote whichever way they choose. I have seen on numerous occasions in this place since 1988 not only the government but the opposition using private members' bills as an opportunity to send a signal to the Canadian people. Let me give one example.

It is well known to all of us that if we voted for a Reform private members' bill as a private member on the government side, they would take the opportunity to use that private members' bill and the fact that we supported it to try to embarrass the government and the member in the member's constituency. Because of this, there is no ability for members of parliament to feel free to support individual private members' bills.

If in fact we were to open up the process and if the Reform Party were to stop pretending that they do believe in private members' business and that they vote independently, then we could get on with the very important work of putting together a private members' process, one which would allow us to put forward our constituents' points of view. In rural ridings such as mine we do not have the opportunity to debate rural issues as often as we would like to do so.

As I mentioned earlier, the 10 minutes, the short time I had is finished, which does not allow me to elaborate on a number of other points.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the Harrigan report in this House on a number of occasions. As the member mentioned, those factors were discussed in the Harrigan report.

We are looking at all aspects in order to help people who are being moved out of an industry that is in grave danger and in distress. When we are ready to announce the details of it we will do so. It will certainly not be today by the parliamentary secretary.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

One of the issues which the member asks for is when there will be an announcement on the form of post-TAGS. As the member knows the Harrigan report has been submitted to the government. We have had negotiations and discussions with the provinces and the interested parties. When the time is right we will be making an announcement that the member would be glad to wait for.

[Judges Act, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated on many occasions that his department is conducting a review into why the percentage of unemployed Canadians receiving benefits is declining. We do not believe it is simply due to changes in the EI system. We believe the problem is far more complex than the hon. member is suggesting.

It may be that changes in the economy and labour market are resulting in more self-employed workers who are not eligible for EI. It could also be discouraged workers returning to the labour market as the economy improves. They have no recent work experience and therefore are not eligible for EI. That is why we are focusing on re-employment measures.

In terms of making changes to the employment insurance system, as the member knows, the former unemployment insurance program was 25 years old and in need of a massive overhaul to meet today's new demands. Canadians would not be satisfied with a step backward to an obsolete system as recommended by the opposition. Instead the federal government is working with the provinces to provide real solutions for unemployed Canadians.

We will spend an additional $800 million per year on active employment benefits under EI bringing federal funding to more than $2.7 billion annually by the year 2000-01. These benefits are about helping Canadians with the assistance they need to get back into the workforce.

We are also creating more new durable jobs by using the three year, $300 million transitional jobs fund that is now in place to help high unemployment regions.

We are also co-operating with provincial and territorial governments to deliver these benefits in the best possible way. Labour market development agreements are now in place or under discussion in all provinces and territories. Decisions on the best way to help the unemployed get back to work must benefit from the knowledge and insight of those most closely in touch with local markets.

We have confidence that these measures will be successful in helping the unemployed return to productive employment. As employment growth continues and the number of unemployed falls, the ratio of benefits to unemployed should also rise again.