House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Employment Insurance December 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. The question is just whether or not he will respond quickly to the report.
Every time we question the minister on the need for an in-depth review of EI, he talks about jobs that have been created and the health of the economy. Does the minister not understand that the people we are talking about are are facing factory closures, have seasonal work, and need to have improvements made to EI.
Employment Insurance December 13th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the question will be coming up often because it never gets answered.
In the days following the end of this session of Parliament, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will present its report on the amendments the government should make to the employment insurance system.
Does the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development intend to analyze this report as quickly as possible in order for this House to begin work on this necessary and urgent reform as soon as we return in January? He could draw inspiration from the bills the Bloc has already proposed to make changes in the system.
Employment Insurance December 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing contributions, the minister does not look at the overall picture. Mr. Brown also stated that lowering the number of hours required to 360 would make employment insurance accessible to an additional 90,000 people, who would no longer have to live in poverty.
Is this a case of bad faith? Why does the minister stubbornly leave all these people and their families in hardship, when he has ample means to come to their aid?
Employment Insurance December 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Malcolm Brown, assistant deputy minister for the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, told the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds that lowering the qualifying threshold for the employment insurance program to 360 hours, for everyone, would only cost $390 million.
Does the minister realize that, instead of reducing the EI contribution rate by three cents, he could have allowed thousands of workers to have access to employment insurance benefits at a similar cost? Why did he deliberately make the wrong choice?
Employment Insurance December 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not respect the work of the House, since he already cut premiums. The cut in premiums represents only one dollar per month, so it is a drop in the ocean.
Instead of working to destroy EI, will the minister not finally recognize that, if the $300 million this cut is costing had instead been used to improve eligibility for benefits, it would have enabled thousands of additional families to benefit, thereby reducing the poverty in which they live?
Employment Insurance December 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, while announcing, yesterday, a slight decrease in employment insurance premiums, the government refused to make substantial improvements to EI to help people who lose their jobs.
Given the Prime Minister's repeated promises with regard to employment insurance, should the first act of this government not have been a proposal to substantially improve premiums, in order to help women, young people and seasonal workers who have been excluded from the plan by the Liberal government since 1993?
Department of Social Development Act December 6th, 2004
Madam Speaker, my answer will be brief.
For the guaranteed income supplement alone, it would have been easy for the government to react by saying that an automatic mechanism will be put in place to correct the blatant injustice done to these people. They are owed an incredible amount of money, yet are eligible to only 11 months of retroactive payment. But when it comes to tax abatements for individuals who hide, in the Canary Islands or elsewhere, money they owe the government, retroactivity applies as far back as 1995. In fact, the Prime Minister is one of them.
There is a double standard. There is an injustice, and it must be corrected.
Department of Social Development Act December 6th, 2004
Madam Speaker, the question is very pertinent. The answers we have been given regarding these two departments is that this does not increase overall spending. On the other hand, if we look more closely and analyze budget trends since 1998, we see that over the past six years, there has been encroachment to the tune of an additional $15 billion. Let us look at what appears under the heading of development for this department.
The youth employment strategy has a budget of $315 million. That is under provincial jurisdiction. They have dipped into other budgets and come sprinkling that money here. My colleague calls it sprinkling, and she is right.
The Health Transition Fund has received $150 million. But if there is one thing that is under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction, health certainly is. The community action program for children and the prenatal nutrition program have received $99 million. The Canadian Health Information System has a group of people who come and sneak around in the provinces to find incompetent people, because jurisdiction belongs to the provinces and Quebec. The provinces have the expertise and the science, because they have been working on this for many years. This system alone has received $50 million more.
The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation received $2.5 billion. Funding of $260 millionhas been allocated toconnecting Canadians to information and knowledge, even though knowledge and education belong to the provinces. The initiative to strengthen communities andthe voluntary sector, which has grown in recent years expressly to try to fill in the gaps left by the government's squeezing of the provinces, has $40 million. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, another fancy toy, has received $240 million. That is still under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction.
The Canada Foundation for Innovation has received an injection of $200 million. Knowledge dissemination, although the institutions concerned with knowledge are within provincial jurisdiction, has received $96 million. The NURSE Fund—Nurses Using Research and Evaluation, under provincial jurisdiction as well, has been given $25 million. The canada research chairs program has received $900 million. The supporting communities partnership initiative, which provides help to the homeless, has received $753 million.
My hon. colleague's answer is that, in principle, there has been no increase. But when we look at it more closely the money being moved around is being used once again to impose additional constraints on provincial governments and Quebec. It is unacceptable. That is why we will vote against this bill.
Department of Social Development Act December 6th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his extremely pertinent and very instructive question, coming as it does from a member of the party in power.
The hon. member knows what this new department is for. His question as to whether it would not be better to have two departments is a good one. In principle, the answer is yes. This is the problem. The Liberals never look past the initial stage, and make decisions accordingly.
But there is another stage, what they actually do. They invade provincial jurisdiction. The issue is not just about pride, about defending one's area of jurisdiction, but about unnecessary spending and interference in the jurisdiction of others. When a province or Quebec has jurisdiction or full autonomy, then there is no need to tell us what to do. That is one thing.
Then there is another point. The hon. member ought to know, had he looked properly at the bill itself, that it does not mean any additional funds or services for the people who will be at the receiving end, particularly since, as I said, there is a single entry point.
For example, as far as answers to seniors concerning their pension income or the guaranteed income supplement are concerned, we are told it will be the same entry point as before, that is one connected to Human Resources. I think the hon. member ought to take that into consideration. This is where our authority as parliamentarians lies to take firm action to put an end to this needless expense.
We know about the hidden programs of the past. Take the Canadian unity fund, and its waste of $750 million. That was a program that was on the side, not under MPs' surveillance. There were plenty of things being done under the table, and we know what that led to.
This is something we ought to have our say about—and we will—because the taxpayers' dollars are involved. Now we feel they will end up paying twice, which will solve nothing and simply add to the administrative burden.
Department of Social Development Act December 6th, 2004
My hon. colleague here may be saying, “bravo”, but the purpose is not first and foremost to contribute to Canada's success; it is to ensure that there are programs in place so that the people for whom they were designed can benefit from them.
The chair of the Subcommitteeon Children and Youth at Risk in Canada, the hon. member for Don Valley West, said:
The objective of the Department of Social Development now is to have the public and history remember the Liberal government.
I do not hear my colleague shouting bravo this time. He is a little embarrassed. It is embarrassing too. I can understand him. I too would be embarrassed in his place.
These programs are created to try to relieve hardship. That is why we call it social development. In the provinces, it is the department of social affairs or health and social services to cover all this. It is clear from the name what is involved.
The stated purposes of these two departments are worrying. One purpose is to consolidate the public's vision of Canada and the other is to ensure that the Liberal government is remembered in a positive light. How nice.
I will now move on to the agreement on early childhood development. The government has announced a program that will be similar to and even modelled after the program in Quebec. In setting up a structure that will duplicate and complicate access to these services, the money the government is announcing for the child care program it plans to set up is clearly inadequate for meeting the needs of all the provinces. It is talking about $1.3 billion, but in our experience in Quebec it costs much more than that.
The government is announcing that it will set up child care in the other provinces—something we agree with—and although we are happy for them, it must also announce how it plans to right the wrong that stems from the fact that Quebec already has a $5 or $7 a day child care system in place. In fact, parents who were entitled to receive a tax credit did not receive it.
While they say that is a separate issue, it does have an impact on people's incomes. They have paid taxes and if we had an equitable system with the other provinces these parents would receive a tax credit. At least the $230 million the federal government saves every year should be returned to Quebec. In turn, Quebec could reinject the money into measures to help parents, such as parental programs.
Over the past few years, the government has saved several billion dollars because the provinces have managed to develop their own social programs despite the tight budgets imposed on them by the federal government . The hon. member would not be heckling like that unless he had forgotten that his own party, along with all the parliamentarians here, had to acknowledge the fiscal imbalance—which they have another name for—as a fact. A fact is a fact.
One of the facts that will not go away is the fact that the government deprived the provinces of money to which they were entitled. This means that the provinces, including Quebec, have had to make considerable efforts to be able to provide adequate social programs.
Incidentally, from 1998 to this day, the federal government has recovered $1 billion, thanks to Quebec's child care system. This is a significant amount.
I will conclude very quickly by saying that the money invested by the federal government in provincial jurisdictions has increased more rapidly than the money invested in the programs that come under its own jurisdiction. Based on the growth rate that we have observed, since 1997-98, non intrusive spending has increased by 1.9%, while intrusive spending has increased by 5.2%.
I will stop here, but I hope to have the opportunity to complete my presentation during questions and comments.