Judy Sgro

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am confident that members of all parties will support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Miramichi which asks that the government take immediate action to review the employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

Canada's economy is such that we have always had and always will have seasonal industries. These industries are vital to our economic well-being. However, these industries by definition employ people for only part of the year. We must always remain watchful to ensure that our economic and social programs do not exclude those workers from the rewards and benefits of living and working in Canada.

Let me remind the House that the Government of Canada introduced employment insurance after long consultation and much deliberation. Even then, we built in a monitoring and review process that would report back each year for five years.

The new employment insurance package was aimed precisely at ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all Canadian workers, whether their work was seasonal, year round, part time or full time.

Let us not forget the very good reasons why an extensive redesign of the EI program was carried out. The old unemployment insurance system was questioned for its sustainability. It was not responsive to the new labour market that prevails in Canada. It tended to discourage attachment to the labour force.

What is most pertinent to Motion No. 222 is the fact that the system was unfair in its treatment of some workers, most notably part time and seasonal workers.

The resulting employment insurance system is designed specifically to be sustainable and fair, while encouraging work and ensuring benefits are provided for those in the greatest need. Of course the ultimate goal is to help workers get back to work faster and stay employed longer.

EI also recognizes the reality of Canada's labour market where seasonal workers are prevalent in certain industries. Seasonal workers have particular needs and the program does indeed have special features built in to assist seasonal workers. Is it enough? Possibly not.

The hours based system takes into account the fact that seasonal work often involves long hours of work per week. As a result, many seasonal workers therefore find it easier to qualify and receive higher benefits for longer periods.

Another example is the introduction of small weeks pilot projects. These would allow seasonal workers to take all work that is available, even a few hours a week, without it resulting in a lower benefit rate at their next claim.

Also, the family supplement targets low income families with children by topping up their benefits each year. Those families are also exempt from the application of the intensity rule which normally reduces benefits for claimants who make repeated use of employment insurance.

Then there are the active employment measures under the EI program which are helping many seasonal workers upgrade their skills, enabling them to get back into the workforce more quickly.

The effects of the EI program are being monitored continuously. There is a requirement for monitoring and assessment reports for the five years following its introduction. Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in the House the third annual report, which showed that EI has affected frequent claimants less than claimants overall and that benefits paid to unemployed workers in most seasonal industries have increased substantially. While the entitlement of frequent and seasonal claimants declined from 33 weeks to 32 weeks, this was still three weeks more than in 1995 when the EI regime was introduced.

In short, frequent and seasonal claimants appear to benefit from the switch to an hours based eligibility system, even though frequent and seasonal claimants often have fewer insured hours during the year than other claimants.

I believe that the EI regime provides better coverage for seasonal workers compared to the system it replaced. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is there room for improvement and change? I hope so. As for providing for the well-being of all Canadians, without doubt the government can stand on its record. More than 427,000 were created last year alone and 85% of them were full time jobs.

We need to make changes in the employment program, especially for seasonal workers and those men and women in Atlantic Canada who work in the fisheries. We need to find some improvements. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that happens.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about today is the CJF and TJF funding. There are thousands of other programs that amount to millions of dollars which, from my understanding, went to all ridings throughout the country.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about accountability and transparency that is exactly what we are doing through the minister and the HRDC officials.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, in answer to those comments, I would much rather spend the millions of dollars that it would cost for an inquiry into helping Canadians.

In many cases, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and all the other provinces of Canada were partners, as this money was spent to employ and help Canadians.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to argue against this motion introduced by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I will begin with the issue of management, which is what this audit is all about. There is no money missing, as the opposition would like people to believe. It is an issue of management and administration.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has already dealt with the member's concerns about management. She has already announced her six point plan for dealing with the management issues and the administration of the grants and contributions program of her department. She has acknowledged that there are some problems that need to be fixed and they are in the process of being fixed.

Anyone who is seriously interested in improving public administration should accept that and recognize that once a problem is identified, we get on with fixing it.

The minister has shown her capacity to act decisively and those of us on this side of the House want to get on with it and to make sure that these programs are well managed and that Canadians continue to benefit from them. Because, after all, it is Canadians who benefit from these programs who we should be concerned about.

A public inquiry will not do anything to improve the lives of those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are helped by the programs delivered by HRDC. It is important to note that it is not the people who use the programs who are calling for a public inquiry, it is simply the opposition.

It is interesting to hear what some of the people who do not have a political axe to grind are saying. These are the people to whom members should really be listening because these are the people who we were elected to represent in parliament.

I will give a couple of examples. I have quote from a letter written by the executive director of the Child Care Connection of Nova Scotia. The letter refers to an HRDC program that supports child care research. It says:

—this (HRDC) research and development program is a significant means by which the federal government can provide leadership in increasing the quality of services and...support the development of an infrastructure to deliver child care services to families in Canada.

Letters like this one illustrate the kind of support we have for these HRDC programs across Canada.

Here is another example of what Canadians think. This letter is from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The Association has written a letter to the Hon. Jane Stewart to acknowledge the support that HRDC provides to help persons with disabilities. The writers urge the minister to remain steadfast in the pursuit of her mandate.

These are not government MPs that I am quoting. These are caring Canadians who work with individuals who need our help. These people look to us for help and recognize the value and importance of our providing the grants and contributions.

A motion like this one before us will not help these people. In fact it will work against them. These people do not care about the kinds of issues raised in this opposition motion. It will simply delay any help that those families are waiting for. They are concerned with real answers and answers to real problems. How would a public inquiry help them?

I am tempted to say shame of those who want to make a political issue out of this. However, I assume that those who propose motions like this do not understand the importance of the Government of Canada's grants and contributions to those who receive them.

It is too bad that the opposition does not recognize that all across Canada, including Quebec, HRDC grants and contribution programs are working in partnership with municipalities and their governments, with concerned Canadians who help those who depend on the Government of Canada for support.

From every part of the country we hear from people who know how important HRDC grants and contributions are to their well-being.

In Edmonton, Alberta we have heard from the Chrysalis Society about the value of HRDC's help to persons with disabilities who are trying to find work. We have heard from the Junction Day Care Centre in the west end of Toronto about how HRDC funding is improving the quality of child care there and for thousands of children. An organization called the Literacy Partners of Manitoba based in Winnipeg has also told us that improving literacy skills, awareness and resources for adults in Canada is vital work for all of us.

There are cases like this all across the country. They are not asking for public inquiries and neither are we. Instead, we want to continue to help literacy skills so that Canadians can feel comfortable in today's information society. We want to make it easier for a person with a disability to find work and participate fully in Canadian society. We want to keep funding the work to improve the capacity of our child care facilities to provide quality care for our children. We want to help people find jobs and meet the other needs that these programs are aimed at.

A public inquiry would not help any of the HRDC clients become more literate. It would not help a person with a disability to find a job either. It would not produce any jobs for people who really need them in high areas of unemployment. In fact, it would interfere with our ability to do these things.

Investing in the development of our human resources is one of the most importance things that governments can do. It is the responsibility of the federal government to do this. I doubt if the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose lives have improved because of direct support from our grants and contributions when needed would vote for this motion either.

Our government has a responsibility to help those who are unemployed, to help those disabled and their families to find employment and to find usefulness in their lives. I applaud our government. We recognize that, yes, there are issues and, yes there are problems but the minister is fixing those problems. Let us continue on with helping people in Canada.

[Research And Development, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

In October the Prime Minister shared his vision for the new millennium: a nation built on learning, innovation and excellence. Can the parliamentary secretary outline the Government of Canada's commitment to creating a positive research environment where Canadian researchers can achieve world class potential here at home?

[Emery Collegiate Institute, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the tragic shooting last Thursday, February 10 at Emery Collegiate Institute not only because the school is in my riding but also because there are lessons to be learned that might be ignored as everyone rushes about looking for easy answers and where to lay the blame.

Emery Collegiate is a wonderful school. It is a mini United Nations that is a model for other schools, one that not only teaches racial harmony, tolerance and respect but lives it throughout the school. It is a dynamic progressive school that is offering unique challenges to thousands of young adults while participating with major companies like Apotex Pharmaceuticals in a new program called Cyberspace.

This unfortunate incident could have happened anywhere in the city of Toronto or elsewhere in our country. Incidents involving violence, our young people and our communities continue to increase and they demand a multifaceted approach to looking for solutions. There are many questions we need to be asking. One of them is the ongoing lack—

[Charmaine Crooks, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me much pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute to Charmaine Crooks, holder of 11 Canadian track records and medalist in the Commonwealth and Pan Am Games. She was a silver medal winner in the 4x400 relay at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics and the Canadian Olympic team flag bearer at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta.

This past week Ms. Crooks joins nine other IOC athlete commission members to be elected voting members of the International Olympic Committee. She was a member of the committee that spawned the World Anti-Doping Agency and the reform commission that has pushed for transparency and accountability in the international Olympic movement.

At 37 Ms. Crooks has become a professional singer and television host since ending her long and outstanding competitive running career. She is respected throughout Canada and the world for her dedicated efforts, speaking on behalf of all athletes.

I know that all hon. members will join me in congratulating Charmaine Crooks and wishing her all the best in her continuing quest to make sure that athletes' interests remain front and centre.