Wayne Easter

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a few points that the member for Brandon—Souris mentioned.

[Oceans, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to remind my colleagues and all Canadians that today is oceans day. Since 1992 countries from around the world have observed this date as oceans day in order to celebrate one of our world's finest resources.

This year oceans day has a special significance because the United Nations has declared 1998 the international year of the ocean. Canada is celebrating with activities to bring awareness of the importance of our oceans and the need to protect them.

To emphasize this importance the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has undertaken a number of initiatives. One, start at the Youth for the Oceans Foundation to promote youth leadership and education concerning the oceans. Two, a national public consultation process to develop a national oceans strategy for Canada. Three, a public review of draft marine protected area policy. Four, a national framework for establishing and managing these areas under the Canada Oceans Act.

[Fishers Bill Of Rights, June 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-302.

The bill that is before the House is very laudable in terms of its intentions but is seriously flawed in terms of its approach. I can even agree with the intent of the member opposite in terms of what he is trying to do through a fisheries bill of rights. I say laudable in its intention because the hon. member is as obviously motivated by a concern for Canadian fishermen and Canadian fishing communities as we are.

I am sorry to say that this afternoon when we were dealing with a very important bill, the United Nations fishery agreement, his colleagues walked out of the committee. Two very important witnesses were before us. We were trying to deal with the issue of straddling stocks and getting a United Nations fishery agreement through in legislation so that Canada can be one of the initial 30 to ratify the agreement.

I am disappointed and concerned about the opposition members walking out. They should not be playing political games with an issue that is so important to fishermen by walking out of the committee when we had two very important witnesses before us.

Let me deal with the bill. It is seriously flawed in its approach which would not help Canada's fishing communities deal with the realities they face. In all seriousness it could well undermine Canada's conservation efforts and damage the fisheries. I know that is not the member's intent. I am sure he intended otherwise, but that is the reality of what could happen with the bill.

Several issues need to be addressed, in fact too many for me to cover in 10 minutes. However, let us start with the wording of the bill which suggests that these communities would be better served or somehow protected from hardship if fishermen had certain legislated rights:

—the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other rights are abrogated unfairly.

We cannot know exactly what is in his mind but perhaps the hon. member thinks fishermen need protection from us or from supposedly arbitrary decisions by distant officials in governments that affect their lives profoundly but over which they feel they have no control.

We can all sympathize with anyone who feels this way, especially when they face hardship as a result of certain decisions being made by governments and fisheries managers.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has been holding very extensive hearings across Canada since last September. I believe in November we held hearings in Newfoundland and eastern Canada. We have held hearings on the west coast. We have held hearings in the eastern Arctic. We have held hearings in the Great Lakes region.

I believe the committee will be coming down with very strong recommendations related to all those points that the member is talking about which concern the rights of fishermen. I think we will find when the committee reports that there will be sound recommendations with respect to finding ways to ensure that fishermen are consulted, that their rights are protected, that fisheries conservation remains a priority, that fishermen are involved in the discussions and consultations on fishing quotas and so on.

What fishermen need and want is the chance to make a good living on the sea, not just for today and tomorrow but for the next decade and the one after that. That is what this government is trying to do with its various efforts.

Fishermen not only want that for themselves, they want it for their children and their grandchildren. That is what they need.

Depending at the moment on where they live and what they fish, they may face reduced quotas and closed seasons. We recognize that. Or they may, on the other hand, depending on where they live and what they fish, already be seeing the benefits of the government's efforts over the last few years to restructure the fishery.

The last member who spoke mentioned the lobster fishery. Although we had to take some strong measures this year to ensure that lobsters are there for the future, the lobster fishery is indeed quite healthy. We have to ensure that the egg production is there for the future, but it has been the mainstay in terms of the fishery in Atlantic Canada.

In Atlantic Canada, even with the groundfish turndown, which we have learned some lessons from, the economic returns as a result of the expanding shell fishery and lobster fishery have been increasing dramatically and providing good incomes for those fishermen and those communities. We are already seeing some benefits from some of the actions the government has taken.

Whether we like it or not, no legislation is really going to change the reality. The reality is that we cannot exploit the sea and its resources as generations before us have done. It is a very complex industry which today's government has to manage very carefully, with the best scientific evidence available, for the benefit of everyone: for the fishermen, for the communities, for the industries that utilize those fish stocks which are caught, and for the industries that provide the equipment and the technology to the fishing industry. These industries are not only on the three coasts, they are in central Canada as well, in terms of the economic spinoffs from the fishing industry.

In this day and age, with the kind of technology and equipment that is available, in many cases decisions must be made quickly. This bill, although I know it is not its intent, would in fact institute a review process that would be extremely cumbersome and time consuming. The implementation of necessary and quick decisions could be delayed until all appeals had been exhausted. The most important element concerning fisheries management in the future, although it is not the intent of the bill, is that it could be brought to a complete standstill.

I know that is not the desire of the member opposite, nor is it his intent, but that is the reality of where Bill C-302 could lead us. It could drive fisheries management to a standstill.

I will tell the House of the five principles that guide the government. First, the fishery must be environmentally sustainable. Second, it must be economically viable. Third, it must balance harvest capacity with the available resource. Fourth, participants must have a greater role in the making of decisions, and we are really working on that. Fifth, our fishing industry must be internationally competitive.

This government is moving forward on those principles. Conservation is a key priority. I am sure that in its hearings process the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will continue to push us on those principles and foster us with even greater ideas down the road.

However, I am sorry to say this bill will not help us in achieving the principles this government wants to move forward on.

[Fisheries, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no such decision made on the basis of being discriminatory. In fact the 1995 sharing arrangement was a temporary arrangement.

Despite efforts by the department to work with both sides and facilitate a long term agreement, the minister had to make a decision because the parties were unable to agree. That decision has been made.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the last speaker certainly strayed some distance in terms of describing the attitude of a couple of members on this side of the House, myself included. I hope Canadians listen to what we are saying and not the descriptions used by the member opposite.

We on this side of the House take very seriously the situation of the unemployed. That is why we have tried to make improvements to the system. The reality is that the system had to be changed to ensure it will be there in the future for the unemployed and the workers who need it.

Is the member opposite suggesting that we take out the provision in the Employment Insurance Act that allows low income families with dependants to receive a higher benefit level than they did under the old legislation? Is he suggesting that we should do away with the hours based system? This has brought 500,000 people into the system who otherwise would not be entitled to benefits. Is he suggesting that we deny part time workers who work less than 15 hours a week? Is he suggesting that we take them out of the system? Two hundred and seventy thousand women benefit by that section of the legislation. Is that what he is suggesting? Is he going to bury his head in the sand and go back to the old unemployment insurance system? That system is an end run where people never try to maintain long term jobs.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the EI fund being a myth. He cannot have it both ways. On one hand the member says the fund does not exist and on the other he says the government will defend it.

In terms of government spending on this EI fund for the benefit of future employment, what is the member's view on the re-employment measures and the active measures and the millions of dollars we are spending to get people back to work?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member's figure of 40% is slightly off base. In terms of his province, New Brunswick, the figure is actually 75%. It shows that the system is working for him. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, we have tried to put a system in place that gives people the skills and the opportunity to get back into the workforce rather than to the continue the cycle of being on EI and using it as an income supplement.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this government has shown how credible it is in dealing with the finances of the nation.

Members can be assured that with this government and our Minister of Finance in control the money is going to be there in the future for those workers who need it. We see it as an investment. When we came to power there was something like a $6 billion deficit in terms of the unemployment insurance fund at that time. As a result, premiums were going up under the former Tory administration. We were able to bring them down and still have surplus funds in the EI fund to be there to protect workers' interests in the future. That is good management by this government.

[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.