Wayne Easter

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Again as with so much of what the member opposite said previously, he has it wrong. He is interested in raising fears and talking about disaster. The hon. member has heard this before but I think maybe he should hear it again.

The Government of Canada under this new system, under the labour market development agreements will invest $2.7 billion over five years to enable his province to deliver active re-employment measures. Those are measures designed to get people back to work and into the labour force.

I again want to emphasize that one of the reasons why we have to make that investment is that the separatist leanings across the way are killing the economy and driving people out of the province. They are raising unemployment.

Let me say that figure one more time. The Government of Canada will invest $2.5 billion over five years to enable the province of Quebec to deliver active re-employment measures.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's motion talks about the disastrous effects of reform of the employment insurance system. What disastrous effects?

As I reviewed last week's Hansard and listened to the speakers opposite today, it is obvious the hon. members opposite have been trying to raise people's fears, trying to manufacture disaster where none exists. Instead of assisting people to use the programs available they are agitating complaints.

I will speak in a moment of a few of the programs available under the system. The first speaker opposite spoke of the EI scandal, so-called, alleging that the government is taking over funds of workers. That is not the case at all. When the government first came to power there was a major deficit in terms of the unemployment insurance fund. We have set up the system so that we are sure there is an investment there in the future, that there is a fund we can go to in the future that will protect workers in the future. That is good management to ensure there is a system available to workers in the future so that employment insurance premiums do not have to be raised should we get into a downturn in the economy.

Employment insurance reform is helping Canadians get back into the workforce. We are accomplishing this through a number of direct initiatives. This is a reasonable reform package. This is a compassionate reform package that is clearly in the best interests of all Canadian workers.

Unlike the old passive UI system, the system the Bloc would have us return to, employment insurance is a proactive approach to supporting and encouraging Canadians to stay in the labour market as long as possible. That is why employment insurance combines income support with effective active re-employment measures.

Employment insurance rewards people who work. It invests in people who are prepared to invest in themselves. Taken together, employment insurance measures are fair and balanced.

Let us consider some of those programs. Let us consider the five active re-employment measures for a moment, the first being targeted wage subsidies. The Government of Canada contributes part of a person's wage and that enables employers to hire claimants or former claimants who receive valuable on the job experience. In 1996-97 this measure helped some 9,000 individuals.

For those with an entrepreneurial spirit we provide self-employment assistance. This measure, and I believe it is one of the better programs under the system, provides claimants with financial support and planning assistance to help them get a viable business off the ground. In 1996-97 this measure assisted over 13,000 entrepreneurs in starting their own business.

The government believes in proactive collaboration so we have job creation partnerships where we work with the provinces and the territories, the private sector, labour and community groups. Together we develop projects that do two things, generate new job opportunities for unemployed Canadians and enhance the local economy. In 1996-97 job creation partnerships assisted over 18,000 workers.

We are also piloting targeted earnings supplements that top up a claimant's wages for a short time. This active re-employment measure encourages the person to take work that pays less than their previous job. It is an effective way of helping them make a transition back into the workforce and find permanent work.

The fifth active re-employment measure is called skills, loans and grants. It offers training to upgrade people skills by helping with fees for study courses and living expenses. Training is now a provincial responsibility. So this measure is delivered by the provinces through labour market development agreements with the Government of Canada. Those five programs help people get work and have active re-employment measures to help them get back into the labour force. Employment insurance reform is generating savings of $800 million that the government will reinvest annually in these measures.

I can assure the hon. member that the effects will not be disastrous. They will be highly beneficial to Canadian workers and to the Canadian economy and to Quebeckers and the Quebec economy.

For 1998-99 Quebec will receive $5.3 million for active measures that will go toward helping workers in the hon. member's province. No one can accuse this government of short changing Quebeckers. But by golly members opposite, in terms of their fearmongering and their separatist rabble-rousing with their misleading information, are killing the economy. They are causing the loss of jobs. Instead of recognizing the programs available and talking about them in Quebec and showing people how they can utilize them to get back into the force, they are out there with their separatist leanings which are killing the very economy we are trying to improve.

The hon. member's motion says that employment insurance does not have the capacity to adapt to the new realities of the labour market. With all due respect, the member is wrong again. He should try telling that to a woman in Chicoutimi or in the riding of the member for Acadie—Bathurst who works 14 hours in a department store before becoming unemployed. Under the old UI system that the member for Acadie—Bathurst supports as well she was just plain out of luck because none of her work was insurable. Under the new hours based system, after 30 weeks of work she will qualify for employment insurance benefits. What is more, under the hours based system women working part time are now eligible for maternity benefits.

They say it is not adaptable to the labour market. Try telling that to the 270,000 women now covered by employment insurance for the first time in their lives. And yes, mothers who left the workforce to stay home and raise their children and who now want to return to work are eligible for active re-employment measures. That is being adaptable and that is looking to the future.

The hon. member says employment insurance reforms are tough on youth. No, they are not. They are designed to discourage young people from throwing their lives away by leaving school before they have completed their education.

Do hon. members opposite want to encourage young Quebeckers and young New Brunswickers to throw away their lives by dropping out of school and ending up on the treadmill of short term work followed by employment insurance income? I should think not, but their speeches lead me to believe otherwise. That is certainly not what the Government of Canada wants.

That is why we have the youth employment strategy to break that cycle. That is why we brought in the Canadian opportunities strategy to further provide young men and women with the opportunity to pursue their education and thus improve their chances of finding employment.

The objective, in case the hon. members do not get it, is not to see how many young people we can put on to employment insurance but how many we can find meaningful employment and long term work for.

What about seasonal workers? Employment insurance is there for seasonal workers. Again, the basic premise of employment insurance is to encourage workers to continue to work as long as possible. We wanted to discourage people from falling into the old habit of using employment insurance as an income supplement. That is what created dependency on unemployment insurance. It is too early to get the complete picture but it appears that workers are finding extra weeks of employment needed to qualify for benefits.

When we saw there was a flaw in the system in terms of the short weeks, we on this side instead of ranting and raving about it put in place pilot projects to ensure that those short weeks would not hurt workers and that the program would be there for those in the seasonal industries.

Unlike members opposite, we on this side are moving forward to ensure that the system is in place for the workers in the future, that there is investment so that we have the kind of program and social safety net the workforce so direly believes in.

[Transitional Jobs Fund, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight on the transitional jobs fund, one of the government's many achievements.

The transitional jobs fund is a three year, $300 million initiative that works in partnership with private sector employers, communities, workers and other levels of government to create much needed long term jobs for Canadians living in high unemployment areas.

Despite the ideological ramblings of the member for Calgary West and his dogmatic opposition to government action for job creation, the fact is that the TJF is an immensely successful program.

About 700 projects have been undertaken with the private sector to create over 30,000 longstanding jobs. That is progress. The $220 million in federal funding spent to date has leveraged over $1.7 billion from our partners. That is performance. For every dollar invested by the federal government nearly $9 is invested by our partners. That is value.

Contrary to the cynical members opposite, this government believes in job creation and is taking action.

[Competition Act, May 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I recognize the hard work of the member for Huron—Bruce on both the fisheries committee and on his trying to achieve and arguing for funding for the sea lamprey program in the lakes.

For members who may not be aware of this issue, sea lampreys are parasitic eel like fish that as adults attach themselves to other fish species and feed on their prey's body fluids. This is why they can cause great harm to fisheries resources and why the Great Lakes fisheries commission has worked over the years to control them. After spending four to seven years in a larva phase a sea lamprey lives one to one and a half years as an adult. It is during the adult phase that sea lampreys cause the most harm, killing up to 40 pounds of fish before they return to the rivers to spawn and die.

The main method used by the Great Lakes fisheries commission to control this parasite is to apply a lampricide in the rivers where the adult animals spawn. Although toxic to sea lamprey, the chemicals used have minimal effects on plants and other aquatic organisms.

As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced on April 1 of this year, the federal government has renewed its support for the Great Lakes fisheries commission. The federal government will contribute $6 million in fiscal year 1998-99 to continue the sea lamprey control program, an increase of over 14% over the last year. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans commitment to sea lamprey control is also not limited to funding for the Great Lakes fisheries commission. In addition to direct support for control of the parasite, the department carries out freshwater science programs that provide indirect support to the commission.

The hon. member would like a long term commitment with respect to funding for a sea lamprey control program in the Great Lakes. I am sure he would—

[Notemakers, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, notemakers, a pilot initiative of Industry Canada's SchoolNet program, employs youth to help colleges and universities meet the challenge of the information highway. Funded by the Canada youth employment strategy, this initiative combines the Internet skills of young Canadians with the knowledge and experience of university and college educators to produce high quality post-secondary learnware.

Notemakers helps our youth gain marketable work experience that they can transfer to jobs in Canada's emerging knowledge economy. I saw this firsthand when the University of Prince Edward Island participated in the last competition. Three full time positions were created as a result of the notemakers program. Universities and colleges benefit and Canada benefits as a whole.

Success from the first competition has led this government to open a second competition. Interested universities and colleges have until June 2, 1998 to submit their proposals. I encourage them to take advantage of notemakers and build for tomorrow.

[Hire A Student, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the hire a student program offered through Human Resources Development Canada. The human resources centre for students on Prince Edward Island is working diligently to make this anniversary year the most successful hire a student campaign to date.

This year the centre is also offering services to the farming community. Farming operations that require student workers will have their listings posted for interested and qualified candidates to speak directly with them.

To all island businesses that have supported hire a student in the past, a very hearty thank you. And to those employers who have not experienced the positive impact a student can make to their business, I urge them to become part of this year's 30th anniversary of the hire a student program.

Congratulations to all involved in this program under the youth employment strategy.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Try P.E.I.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first I compliment the member for Durham on his continuing work and interest in this area.

Let me take the opportunity to express the minister's gratitude to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce for their work and the report they produced on the Canada pension plan investment board and its draft regulations.

The new investment board is a key part of the fundamental reform of the CPP approved by the House last year. By investing new CPP funds prudently in a diversified portfolio of investments to earn higher returns, the board will help ensure that the CPP will be there for Canadians in the future.

We are pleased to see that the committee's report is generally supportive of the investment provisions and the governance structure of the CPP investment board that were developed jointly with the provinces. There are a number of ideas in the report, however, that federal and provincial governments will want to consider carefully.

The minister has therefore forwarded the committee's report to provincial colleagues as joint stewards of the Canada pension plan. It is our firm intention to provide the committee with a full response as soon as possible after provincial colleagues have had the opportunity to review the committee's recommendations.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would hope to place a few facts on the table to put the fears of the honourable member to rest.

The approved dredging project is to permit the port of Montreal to further deepen the waterway from 11 metres to 11.3 metres below chart datum.

The depth of 11.3 metres is already available in most of the waterway portion aimed at by the project. The dredging project represents 2% of the navigation channel and less than .07% of the whole St. Lawrence surface between Montreal and Cap à la Roche which is a distance of 150 metres.

The port of Montreal carried out a number of technical feasibility studies which were completed in May 1996. The project was subsequently submitted to DFO for review under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Both the NWPA and the Fisheries Act triggered the requirement for an environmental assessment under the CEAA.

The port of Montreal conducted a thorough review of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. As required under the CEAA, the DFO subsequently reviewed the findings for the port of Montreal and requested advice from other agencies including Environment Canada and the Quebec department of environment and wildlife. As well, two rounds of public consultations were held.

After carefully considering input from federal and provincial departments and agencies as well as the public, the department concluded that the project was not likely to have adverse environmental effects given the mitigation and compensation measures that were being imposed, as well as the monitoring program which will be implemented.

[Criminal Code, April 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member alleges that the minister is defying the courts and that the policy of pilot sales should be dropped.

DFO is not defying the court. The judge offered opinions, only opinions, on the validity of the aboriginal communal fishing licensing regulations. Those comments were made in obiter, in passing so to speak, and had nothing to do with the case before him, which was the hon. member's prosecution for illegal fishing.

This decision does not cancel the aboriginal fisheries strategy. It does not nullify the aboriginal communal fishing licensing regulations. It does not preclude DFO from authorizing aboriginal commercial fishing, including pilot sales arrangements under the existing regulatory regime.

In short, there is nothing in Judge Thomas' decision that alters the minister's authority to allocate and manage fisheries resources in the interests of all Canadians.

The judge's comments were taken seriously by the minister. He asked for a review of the regulations and the legal basis for pilot sales.

During the week of February 2, 1998, based on expert advice, he concluded that the current regulations provide a sound legal basis for the pilot sales fisheries.

The minister intends to continue with the pilot sales program in 1998. Pursuant to this decision, DFO officials are currently discussing with all affected parties how to refine and make improvements to the fisheries that will be acceptable to all parties in the fishing community.