Raymonde Folco

[Alcoholic Beverage Labelling, April 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, allow me to thank the hon. member for Palliser for the question he asked the Minister of Human Resources Development a few days ago.

I will answer the member by saying that the office of the commissioner of review tribunals is a quasi-judicial body that operates independently from Human Resources Development Canada. In other words, it is completely at arm's length. It oversees the work of review tribunals which hear appeals from CPP or OAS clients whose applications for benefits have been denied. These are the clients I think the hon. member has been speaking about.

The Government of Canada works within the requirements of the CPP legislation in determining who is eligible for disability benefits. This definition has not changed since 1996. It is no more and no less stringent since then. In fact, the legislation states that a person's disability must be severe and prolonged in order to prevent him or her from doing any work on a regular basis. This is what the law requires.

All applications, including any new information provided, are thoroughly reviewed by Canada pension plan medical adjudicators to ensure that applicants qualify for disability benefits.

In recent years, the Department of Human Resources Development has taken measures to improve the CPP disability benefits program.

The department more than doubled the staff responsible for medical assessments so as to be able to make decisions more quickly. It also significantly increased the number of judges appointed to the appeal board and the number of hearings to speed up the processing of appeals.

It is not necessary for CPP disability benefit claimants—

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank all the committee members who examined this important bill with such care. They did an excellent job, on which I congratulate them.

One thing is certain. Once this bill has been passed, it will make it possible for the system to be more firmly anchored in the realities of today's labour market. As well, it will offer a better response to Canadians' needs.

For some decades, the employment insurance system has been one of the cornerstones of our social security system, and thanks to it Canadian workers and their families have been able to cope with temporary job loss and get through difficult times in their working lives.

Today we in this House have the opportunity to support this bill, which will bolster the foundations of that system for the benefit of the Canadians of today and of tomorrow.

Our government has always acknowledged its duty to help people who are experiencing difficulty getting into the work force, or remaining in it.

The bill aims to ensure that the employment insurance program will be fairer to Canadians and more effective. We also want to correct and adjust certain measures which turned out to be less effective than anticipated.

First, we will eliminate the intensity rule. Introduced in 1996, the intensity rule was intended to reduce frequent users' dependence on employment insurance.

We are also changing the criteria for reimbursement of benefits. We want to be sure that it applies only to taxpayers with higher than average incomes.

Moreover, first time claimants and everyone who receives sickness, maternity or parental benefits will also be exempted from the clawback provision.

The well-being of families is a top priority for the government. We have therefore taken into consideration those parents who return to the labour force after taking time off work to look after their children. In addition, we are extending the look back period by four years for parents. Instead of being treated as new entrants into the workforce, these parents will require the same number of hours as any other claimant should they lose their jobs and need regular benefits.

As you can see, the bill makes substantial improvements to our employment insurance plan, improvements to benefit workers in seasonal jobs, families and many claimants.

When we undertook the employment insurance reform in 1996, we had promised to monitor the effects of it very closely. With the intent of honouring our commitment, we instituted an annual evaluation mechanism to allow us to identify and correct aspects not producing the desired effects. This mechanism is very useful. In 1997, it allowed us to correct certain anomalies by launching the short work weeks adjustments projects.

Today that same evaluation tool enables us to make other concrete changes to help job seeking Canadians even more. Above all, the monitoring and assessment process assures us that we are heading in the right direction.

In February, we tabled the fourth annual employment insurance monitoring and assessment report, which revealed clearly that most of the aspects of the system were achieving their intended objective. On the whole, the system is accessible to workers who have contributed to it and find themselves temporarily out of work. In addition, its first priority is those needing it most, that is, low income families.

This report tells us that 88% of paid workers should be entitled to employment insurance benefits if they have lost their job or left it for valid reasons.

It should also be pointed out that claimants do not generally exhaust their benefits. On the average, they use about two thirds of them.

In fact, data from Human Resources Development Canada studies reveal that of those persons who exhausted their benefits, about 12.4% moved on to social assistance, a number that is down from before the 1996 reform.

Turning to the EI commission, members of the opposition have suggested that this bill should have dictated the framework and the results of the review of the EI premium rate setting process. We believe the bill allows the review to take place in a stable and predictable rate setting environment. Certainly on this side of the House, we will not preclude the work of that important review.

The EI commission will continue to conduct important work with respect to the other areas of its mandate during the two year review period provided for on the bill.

The Canadian public has given us a third consecutive majority mandate, because it shares our values, balanced approach and vision of the future.

In 1996 we introduced solid reforms to the employment insurance system, one of the cornerstones of our social security system. Today I ask everyone in the House who wishes to strengthen the foundations of our employment insurance system to support the bill.

[Social Assistance, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note that there has been a significant drop in the number of welfare recipients in Quebec over the past year.

The solid growth in the economy has encouraged job creation and brought about a 7% reduction in the numbers of people on social assistance province-wide.

The measures put in place by the government to battle poverty and exclusion have resulted in close to 42,000 people being able to get off the welfare rolls. In all, there are 137,661 fewer than in 1996.

I am particularly proud to learn that Laval is one of the places where the drop has been the most significant. The number of welfare recipients in Laval has gone down 8.4%, and thus Laval continues to be the dynamic city in full economic expansion that it has always been.

[Prix Mercador, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, for the third consecutive year, the Comité Export Laval awarded the Prix MercadOr to nine Laval businesses.

This award is a recognition of the efforts made by new exporters on international markets. It is a tribute to the contribution of these Laval businesses to our region's economic development.

I join residents of Laval to highlight the exceptional involvement of these local businesses to the economic development of the community of Laval.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the comments of my colleagues. Before commenting on what my colleagues said about Bill C-2, I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As several members across the way have said, thanks to our spirit of co-operation almost all members of the committee recognized the importance of this bill. They also recognized that it was important to pass this bill as quickly as possible in this House and also in the other place.

Having acknowledged this spirit of co-operation in committee, I would also like to clarify certain comments made by my colleagues, especially regarding the motions on Bill C-2 brought forward in the House.

First, Motion No. 4, by my the Bloc Quebecois colleague, proposes to include sickness benefits in the retroactivity period for parents who are going back to work. The government designed this provision after concerns were expressed about the possibility of parents staying at home with their children and going back on the labour market later on.

At present, people are eligible for 15 weeks of sickness benefits. As far as the retroactivity period is concerned, we had promised to introduce Bill C-2 in September. Therefore, a retroactivity cheque will be sent to those eligible as soon as this bill is enacted.

The government is aware of the needs and concerns of Canadians, especially those who are too sick to work. This is why the government has improved access to sickness benefits by reducing from 700 to 600 the number of hours people have to work to be eligible.

Like any member of a government that gives thought to what it does, I, as well as the government and the minister, would like to proceed carefully and understand all aspects of the issue, which is an extremely complex one.

For instance, this system is designed to provide assistance to workers during temporary absences from the labour market. I believe that a decision about the level of support we should offer Canadians who are out of the labour market for an extended period is one which requires a much deeper and comprehensive analysis, one which will probably take in more than the EI system. For instance, assistance is available from the Canada pension plan.

Benefits from workers compensation programs, as well as the taxation system, also play a role. We should therefore approach this problem comprehensively and this is the direction in which the government is headed.

The second motion, which was deemed debatable here in the House, has to do with the clawback provision, which would not apply to fraudulent claims for benefit weeks. The member who moved this amendment in the House is suggesting that we should be more tolerant of those who defraud the EI system. His proposal would mean that Canadians who made honest claims for benefits would be required to give back a portion of their benefits, while those who made fraudulent claims would be exempt from having to do so.

In effect, the member is suggesting that we introduce an incentive for people to defraud the EI system. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the member who moved this amendment, but it is the potential impact of the amendment if ever it were passed. It is obvious that the government cannot go along with such an amendment to Bill C-2, and we therefore reject it.

Third, I would like to dwell on the famous clause 9 discussed earnestly by several members opposite. The purpose is to delete clause 9 of the bill that would change the way the premium rate is set in relation with the role of the EI commission.

Let us look at the facts. What is the bill saying? It is saying that the government wishes to suspend the commission's role in the determination of the premium rate, but contrary to what my hon. colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, it is not a suspension forever. It is a suspension for a period limited to two years in order to allow the government to review the way the rate is set.

Why are we asking for that? It is because we too happen to follow the advice of the auditor general who, as my hon. colleague said, is well accepted and recognized in this House. We are following the advice of the auditor general who indicated that the premium rate determination process was not clear enough. The Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons has also indicated that the mechanism should be reviewed.

It is in the perspective of a review aimed at making the rates fairer that we want to suspend the role of the commission. I repeat that the suspension would be extremely limited and would not exceed a two year period.

The review will deal with rates and premium rate determination. We believe, on the government side, that it is not appropriate to have the commission keep on setting the rates under those conditions. We want to review the system.

Finally, Motion No. 10, which was proposed by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and also addresses clause 9, would fundamentally change the purpose of clause 9. I would like to remind hon. members that clause 9 relates to the role of the commission in fixing the premium rate.

In fact, as I have just said in French, we are suspending the EI commission's role in rate setting for two years to allow time for the government to review how the rate is set.

Once again I will say in answer to my colleague from the Progressive Conservative that it is the auditor general who suggested that rate setting is not clear enough and hon. members on the other side of the House have said it before. The finance committee has also said that it needs to be revised. I remind all members that the finance committee of the House of Commons is made up of all parties present in the House.

These issues need to be addressed in the review. It is not appropriate to ask the commission to continue to set rates in these circumstances. Therefore, we are suspending their rate setting role while we conduct the review.

Finally, I would like to address an extremely important point that was raised by several members of this House, particularly members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, about the fact that Bill C-2 does not respond to the needs of the people of Canada.

The government has already made the commitment at the standing committee of this House to start examining suggestions made to us by witnesses who appeared before the committee and to make some recommendations to the minister.

However, I would like to quote once again the auditor general, who said to us on February 22, while appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

—in the next two years—work will be done on how this should be done in the future. So I think the bill buys some time to come up with a better way of calculating the rates paid by the workers and their employers.

We thus have the support of the auditor general.

Before concluding, I have two other quotations. The first is from Mr. Robert Blakely, director of Canadian affairs, building and construction trades department, AFL-CIO, who said “In general, we support the reforms proposed under Bill C-2”.

Another quotation—

[Education, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

The hon. member across the way is raising real concerns relating to the recognition of new immigrants credentials and feels their mobility within the Canadian labour market needs to be enhanced.

Our government shares those concerns and I must assure the hon. member that we are taking the matter very seriously. I am pleased, therefore, to have this opportunity to bring the hon. member up to speed on what we have done so far to remedy this sort of problem.

Let me begin by saying that the government clearly accepts the importance of facilitating the labour mobility of all Canadians in general and of easing the integration of new immigrants into Canada's labour market in particular. I remind the House of the words of the throne speech:

The government—will work in co-operation with the provinces and territories to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of new Canadians and their more rapid integration into society.

I also note the words of the Prime Minister in his response to the Speech from the Throne. He urged provincial governments to work on their policies with respect to the recognition of foreign credentials of new Canadians.

I would like to add that in my home province of Quebec there is a component of the immigration department with the sole responsibility of assessing the credentials of new immigrants to Quebec and to Canada in order to determine Canadian equivalencies. This service is well known and sets an example for other similar departments across Canada.

Our government has been involved for some time in improving labour mobility in Canada. The goal of these efforts has been to ensure that any professional qualifications accepted in one province or territory will be accepted everywhere else. We want a labour market in which all Canadians, including new Canadians, can work and contribute to the development of Canadian society in the province or territory where they have chosen to live and work.

I assure the hon. member opposite that the government fully agrees that we must create new opportunities and increase the mobility of Canadians who have professional qualifications and diplomas, including credentials, so that they can travel and work freely anywhere in Canada. The fact is that we are already working hard to achieve these important objectives.

The Minister of Human Resources Development and her officials, as well as those of other relevant federal ministries, have been working for some time with their provincial and territorial counterparts and with professional regulatory bodies. Their goal is to ensure that any Canadian qualified to work in an occupation in one province or territory will have access to employment opportunities in any other Canadian province or territory.

Our goal is to allow any Canadian, including new Canadians who have skills and certification, to move and have their qualifications accepted throughout the country. I say to the House that the government has already gone beyond studying the matter as the motion proposes. We are already hard at work on moving ahead.

A major part of that work is done under the internal trade agreement among federal, provincial and territorial governments to remove barriers to interprovincial trade and ensure the free movement of goods, services, manpower and capital in Canada.

Chapter 7 of that agreement concerns manpower mobility. It deals with the fact that the professional credentials of many Canadians, particularly those whose profession or trade is regulated, are not recognized in the other provinces or territories because professional regulations vary from one province or territory to the next, and because it is sometimes difficult for an individual to have his or her qualifications recognized and to move from one province to another.

Under chapter 7 all parties to the agreement on internal trade, that is all provincial and territorial governments along with the federal government, are committed to working with regulatory bodies to eliminate these kinds of barriers to interprovincial mobility.

Now that we have the agreement in place we are making progress in using it to eliminate jurisdictional barriers to labour mobility within Canada. In fact, Canada's social union framework agreement set a deadline of July 1, 2001, for parties to be in compliance with the labour provisions of the agreement on internal trade.

We are co-operating with the provinces and territories through the forum of labour market ministers to ensure that the provisions included in Chapter 7 are implemented quickly.

I can assure the hon. member opposite that the government understands the legitimate concerns that he has raised. In fact the government is already working hard to appease these concerns.

The motion also provides that the government should ask the Council of Ministers of Education to perform a feasibility study on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in Canada.

On this part of the motion I simply remind the House that under our constitution education is a provincial responsibility. In my opinion it is unlikely that a federally initiated study on national standards of education, as the motion proposes, would be welcomed by the provinces or territories.

Moreover, while it is true that the Council of Ministers of Education has been formed to bring a co-ordinated national perspective to educational issues, it is equally true that the federal government holds no sway over that body. The council is made up of provincial and territorial representatives and has a secretariat in Toronto.

The Government of Canada is not officially part of that organization and cannot run its activities.

In summary, the government is already doing everything it can to deal with the concerns raised by the hon. member, and since I do not see the need for such a motion I cannot support it.

[Greece, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians of Greek origin and especially for those of my constituents who are of Greek origin, Sunday, March 25 commemorates a key event in the history of Greece—the day it attained independence.

March 25, 1821, marked the end of 400 years of occupation of Greece by the Ottoman Empire and at the same time the creation of the modern Greek state.

The celebrations marking this day will culminate in a parade in Montreal on Sunday, March 25.

I urge all members of the House to take part in the commemorative events this Sunday, and I wish all Greek Canadians: Zito i Ellas . Zito o Kanadas . Long live Greece. Long live Canada.

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The day was created to raise public awareness and to overcome racism in all of its forms. It enables us to change a page of our history and move forward from the centuries of conflict and suffering caused by racism and intolerance throughout the world.

Despite the fact that countries everywhere admire Canada for the open-mindedness and respect Canadians have for each other, we still need to continue to take steps against racism.

Laws may have changed, but the battle is not yet won. One need only think of the aboriginal people and visible minorities to realize this.

I call upon members of this House to reaffirm their convictions about the equality of all human beings and their support of Canadian multiculturalism.

[Human Resources, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. In the Speech from the Throne the government recognized that building a skilled workforce required a national effort.

Today the Minister of Human Resources Development is attending the second of three national round tables on skills that bring together representatives of government, business, labour and the academic community.

The release this morning of the Statistics Canada study “Literacy and Labour Market Outcomes in Canada” reminds us of its importance to individual success in the labour market.

Therefore we will continue to work toward supporting lifelong learning through establishing registered individual learning accounts and career development loans for part time students.

[Centres Of Excellence, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members of a recent investment made by the federal government.

Indeed, the Minister of Industry announced that $73 million will be used to establish four new centres of excellence: the automobile of the 21st century, the Canadian network for research on language and literacy, the Canadian network on water and the network on the therapeutic and genetic studies of stem cells.

This initiative clearly shows the federal government's economic and social priorities: children, research and innovation, health and the development of strategic economic sectors.

Centres of excellence have already proven their effectiveness. They promote the interaction between research, the industry and funding. The measures announced show that the federal government cares about improving the quality of life of Canadians.