Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe that his changes to UI would provide over $2 billion in savings to the government. However, during our briefings on the bill, when we asked for projections, actuarial analyses and economic effects, nothing was available. Further to that, the bureaucrats who briefed us assured us that the information did exist and that it would be forwarded to our offices.
(1505)
Here we now find ourselves debating the bill in the House and the information has never been made available. Let us hope that the economics of these changes have indeed been analysed. This scheme must rely on a sound actuarial basis and we must have concrete evidence that such is the fact.
It will not do to adopt any scheme or plan which is simply a device for transmitting money raised by taxation or borrowing. In essence, any such scheme would be a dole, pure and simple. Without any evidence to the contrary especially when the auditor general is so condemnatory of job creation schemes, the minister's transitional jobs program will simply waste $300 million.
I have expressed my concern about the actuarial soundness of these changes to UI, not only because the government refuses to provide us with its analyses but also because of a Liberal sentiment that was espoused by the Liberal government which introduced UI. Paul Martin Sr. on July 19, 1940 stated: ``While it is laudable to try to make UI actuarially sound, we must not be unmindful of the fact that it is impossible really to make it actuarially sound''. I certainly hope that no present member of the cabinet shares this scary sentiment. Let us hope that the finance minister disagrees with what his father, Paul Martin Sr. had to say in 1940.
These new employment insurance measures clearly indicate that the government evidently expects unemployment to be a permanent problem. We realize and this group has directed attention to this fact time and time again that thanks to its status quo policies, the order of low unemployment has passed away and we have reached a high state of progress where the Liberal machine is continually putting people out of work and keeping them there.
Let me finish my remarks by quoting Mackenzie King who managed to get UI passed in the House. Let me remind the Liberals what their Liberal ancestors thought about social policy and UI and just how far from that original intent we have gone.
In 1935 before he became Prime Minister, Mackenzie King said: ``Looking at the question of social legislation, it is necessary to take a bird's eye view of the whole. One must realize that what the provinces could do depended more than anything else upon the government's policies with respect to trade and those other policies which had to do with the revival of industry and business. To restore prosperity was the great objective which the Liberal government has before it''.
King did not say it then, but if he were here today and I dare say if he were sober, he would probably tell us that to revive business and to safeguard social programs we should balance the budget more quickly than we are and we should make plans to address our crushing debtload, a task this government fails to understand because it just seems to be way beyond it.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the Liberals are attempting once again to ram this bill through the House, to hide just how inept the bill really is in addressing the real issue of unemployment and job creation. More important, the changes to EI from UI really will make UI more like welfare than a true insurance plan. This is where in principle the bill goes drastically wrong and where the Liberals simply fail to comprehend what UI should do for Canadians.
Having said that, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the words ``drawing board''.(1510 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, upon reflection and consultation with our table officers, the amendment is in order.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior to question period while the member was speaking, I contemplated rising on a point of order because of a statement she had made a number of times in her speech. She said that the government deliberately misled. As we know in this place, to suggest there is
deliberate misleading or not telling the truth is contrary to parliamentary actions.
As a result, I would simply comment to the hon. member that I understand in debate it is important to make the points. Perhaps the hon. member might preface her remarks that it is in her own opinion or in her own assessment the government is misleading and not make judgments in such a stark way.
Another point I wanted to make had to do with the whole aspect of the provision of statistical data, analyses and actuarial numbers with regard to the proposals under this bill.
The member will well know that the bill had been introduced by the then Minister of Human Resources Development in a particular form and had been published and circulated for discussion purposes. It had not, at the time of prorogation of the House, moved at any particular point. As a result of the motions passed by this House, it has been reintroduced in exactly the same format.
The member will also know that the bill, now to be referred to committee, is at a very important point in the legislative process. This is particularly so considering the vast amount of changes the member well knows can be made in committee with regard to proposed legislation, whether it be with regard to items such as the gun control bill or Bill C-7 on controlled drugs and substances which was before the committee I chaired and to which 70 amendments were made.
The member will well know that the possibility of providing extensive actuarial and precise data certainly is possible. However it is certainly more relevant once the specifics and the principles of the bill have been exhaustively reviewed by the committee. Information particularly with regard to the consensus items would then be provided by the research staff and the resources available to the House.
I simply suggest to the member that maybe this request for an answer to all the questions at the beginning of the process is unreasonable and unrealistic on her behalf.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague.
On the first point his comments are well taken. However, with respect to the point he made about misleading, I do believe if someone is intentionally misleading and those comments are directed to a person in debate, that it is cause for question. I believe that misleading and using that term within debate and in reference to government is not a point of order nor should it be taken to mean anything other than exactly what I stated. It is a personal opinion of mine and it is probably carried by many others as a matter of fact.
The member's second point was a little bit rambling and I will try to extrapolate from it what exactly he was getting at. We have been dithering around for months on the whole question of unemployment insurance. I know everyone was waiting throughout last year for some substantive items to be put on the government agenda. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. member chose to cite gun control as an example of legislation. Gun control legislation took up the agenda of the House of Commons for months and months and months. We are going to go into committee and we will have only 50 hours in our committee to deal with witnesses on one of the most important pieces of social policy legislation this government has put forward. Therefore, I really have to question his comments in that regard.
The other thing is about the analyses we requested. It is our understanding when we go into a briefing by and with government officials that if the questions we ask are not answered on that day, that at least they are going to be followed up on at some future point.
(1515 )
These are questions of a fiscal nature and are very important for the analyses, especially when we are looking at such job creation programs as the $300 million one that has been put forward in this bill. I do not think those requests were out of line or out of order in any way.
Those are my comments to the hon. member. Once again, let us hope we can leave off the dithering and actually get down to some very basic work in this extremely important area of social policy reform.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and proud to second the motion by our leader to have the Minister of Human Resources withdraw the bill now numbered C-12.
During Question Period, the minister informed us that, during the work to be done, in the coming months, he would call for constructive proposals but would brook no criticism. I have news for him. He will have to listen to criticism, because the only constructive proposal he could make, in committee and in the House, to help those who really need an unemployment insurance program, would be that there be no cuts.
Why did the Minister of Finance, in order to achieve his objectives, decide to cut 10 per cent more from unemployment insurance? Why in this country does it have to be those who need UI benefits between jobs who service the debt? Do they have some special responsibility for coming up not with hundreds, but thousands of dollars as a rule? Why is it that a young person, a woman re-entering the labour market, an immigrant, or someone who had to stop working because of illness and is re-entering the labour market should not be entitled to unemployment insurance under reasonable conditions?
They are required to have worked 910 hours, or 26 35-hour weeks. Anyone the slightly bit familiar with the labour market will know how difficult it is to find right from the start a job that provides 35 hours a week for 26 weeks in a row, not to mention a first job in the case of someone re-entering or entering the labour market.
This is the kind of cut provided for by the bill. The question applies to everybody targeted by this bill. And I will ask it again: Why is it that, in Canada, the additional $1.9 billion in budget cuts, or the interests on the debt, should be paid for by the unemployed? Somebody will have to pay.
(1520)
The Minister of Human Resources Development had better not say: ``Suggest an itty bitty reform. What might suit your fancy?'' We do not want to have to chose among those who are going to be deprived even more of already meagre resources.
Do you know that of all the OECD countries, Canada is one of those lagging behind with regard to social expenditures? This, according to the latest statistics I found in a 1994 OECD document using 1990 figures, that is before what I would describe as the drastic cuts made cumulatively by our conservative and liberal governments. Already, Canada was behind New Zealand, a country everybody is looking at with fear, according to their point of view, mine anyway.
Although Canada has nothing to brag about in terms of social spending, it has decided to make the unemployed pay for what it calls an additional deficit reduction effort. Millions of people are affected. Even if we fail to do our job and mobilize in sufficient numbers to prevent the minister from going a little crazy, he should at least be forced to withdraw his bill because it cannot be properly redrafted. There are just too many major changes compared to the legislation now in effect.
If we fail to mobilize, Canada will let the burden of the debt and the interest on it fall on those who are least able to afford it.
However, if the minister agreed that the system's effectiveness is just as important and that the UI plan should not be cut any further but that we should sit down with businesses and organizations in order to get the most out of the money invested, he would be taking a step in the right direction, and we would have proposals to make.
The current situation is totally unacceptable not only because of the millions of people who will be affected but also because of the social and economic impact of these cuts.
We will never say it often enough: since the Liberals, who were tearing up their shirts over the two cuts made by the Tories-which, compared to the cuts made or proposed by the Liberals, were rather minor-came to office, they have deprived the Quebec economy of $735 million a year for 1995-96, 1996-97 and every subsequent year.
(1525)
How much was cut in the Atlantic provinces? Funding has been cut by $640 million each and every year starting in 1995-96. This bill adds to these cuts, these reduced benefits, this shortfall in money required to pay rent, to buy groceries, to feed the children, to provide ordinary people with an ordinary standard of living.
This new bill adds $630 in cuts to Quebec and, according to the minister's own figures, $344 million in cuts to the Atlantic provinces, for a total-and this will be this Liberal government's legacy-of $1.375 billion per year in UI cuts by the time the program ends in the year 2000. It will be $974 million in the Atlantic provinces, whose economy is flourishing, as we all know.
Earlier, a minister asked if the opposition thought the $300 million allocated over a three-year period to assist with implementing the system is small change. My answer is: that is right. Indeed, as far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, I fail to see the connection between taking $974 million out of the local economy every year and the fact that the provinces would receive 40 per cent of $300 million over three years. It is really not the same thing.
You know, in a region, when a business that used to pay $5 million in wages closes down, one wonders how this will affect the local economy. So, when I learn that the Atlantic provinces will receive $975 million less every year, I dare say that the government did not weigh the economic impact, or the social impact, of its decision. What are those individuals who will have to do without UI benefits because they do not qualify or are being cut off supposed to do?
They will spend less, naturally. That is an economic impact in itself, a radical impact. But they will need a minimum of money. They may turn to their parents for assistance, for a while, turn to their friends, for a while, live off their savings, for a while, but eventually, they will be forced onto welfare. Someone must always pay the price; in this case, it will be the individuals and their families. And it will not be those who are the wealthiest or who are best able to pay the price, and the same is true of the provinces.
If all those who worked seriously on this bill came out and said that the government should withdraw the bill and start over, they would be right. The whole UI system, which was built over many years and, to a great extent, by the federal Liberals, in their early days-let us call this period phase one-this whole building is now being blown away.
(1530)
It was blown up, like in the movies. The building was blown up and then the government started all over again. There is still a pillar here and there. Therefore, it is difficult in these conditions to say: ``We will make an amendment here or there''. It is unfortunate that the government does not listen more.
This bill will be harmful to the country's economic and social life. It will hurt. It puts Canada into a mould which, based on what I have seen, a large number of Canadians do not want. This is a fact. So, I ask again: why set these additional $1.9 billion cuts as a deficit-related objective? Why do it on the backs of those people?
Instead, why not ask how to make the program more effective, how to help those regions where there is concern that people will end up relying on UI benefits? There is indeed a real danger, but the real issue is: how can we change current economic conditions?
When I first joined the human resources development committee, some senior officials showed us the findings of their research on how the unemployment insurance program was used in the various provinces. I guess I am not allowed to show these findings here, but it would be interesting for all Canadians to see these documents, since the two successive reforms are explained through the use of graphs.
In fact, it is an open secret that the eastern provinces, starting with Quebec-but not as much nowadays-and mostly the Atlantic provinces, ``get more'' from the unemployment insurance system than they put in, especially because of seasonal work and of the ups and downs of the economy. Throughout the world, the economy seems to be shifting from east to west. This is occurring in the United States and elsewhere.
There was a sort of redistribution, which had gained some acceptance, but which some economists have vehemently decried. However, the cuts made under this accelerated decrease in the redistribution process taking place through the unemployment insurance program, without the investments needed to create more jobs-and I am talking about the situation in the Maritimes, in Montreal, in the lower St. Lawrence district and in all the areas with a high unemployment rate-will result in the weakening of our social and economic fabric.
There is no short cut. None at all. The provinces are unable to take up all the slack. Families will not invest their savings. As we know, Canada has a serious debt problem. Savings have decreased. The people who are not yet getting their pension but will soon be are increasingly worried. With the unemployment rate remaining high, everyone is feeling insecure and quite worried. These cuts will only increase our sense of insecurity and make the work of those who fight crime even more difficult.
(1535)
Canadians must face reality. This is the challenge here. The problem is not with the protesters who earn too much, or with Bob White who earns too much and organizes protests. That is not the problem.
The problem is that the minister does not seem to realize the long-term and very serious economic and social consequences the decisions he is about to make will have. So, when I see him get mad at the protesters, not to mention the prime minister who, in a very unfortunate incident, actually assaulted a man who was protesting against this so-called reform of the unemployment insurance system, I cannot help but feel sad. This is not the right way to do things.
The right way is to find out how we can, with the resources at our disposal, help to ensure the usefulness and social well-being of our fellow citizens. This is what a country should be about. This is why I want to build my own country.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph-Wellington.
I want to first thank the opposition for an opportunity to talk about something I consider a very important issue. That is, of course, the reality and honesty of making laws and going forward with decisions that affect a lot of people.
It is a pretty curious scenario we find ourselves in. The Bloc members say that they are sovereignists. They talk about how everything needs to change and how the status quo in Canada is a failure. At the same time, there is a motion before us that argues, in most cases, for the status quo. They do not have a proposal but they want the government to withdraw the bill. They do not want to put proposals on the table because they would just like us to listen to the people who will come before the committee.
As a member of the committee, we are certainly going to be listening to the witnesses. However, we are also asking the people across the way to give us some ideas and proposals of their own. The minister said that he looks forward to members of Parliament doing their jobs and putting forward proposals.
I find it quite curious that the Bloc wants to break up Canada because it does not work, but, on the other hand, does not seem to have any ideas about UI reform.
We have seen all sorts of polls and results from the department and people who have gone across the country asking Canadians about the proposals and what they reflect. The consultations, of course, do reflect a consensus in the country.
I am not a big fan of polls, as one might imagine, because they are just a snapshot of what people are thinking. However, these polls are so overwhelming that I thought I had better lay them out for the House this afternoon. For some reason, members across the way seem to suggest that 90 per cent of Canadians are opposed to UI reforms, when in fact some 77 per cent are in favour of UI reforms and in favour of major changes.
I have mentioned in the House many times that I come from rural northern Ontario where there is a very high unemployment rate. It is as high as that of some places in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. We have not had any of the demonstrations that the people across the way talk about.
I asked myself why that was. There are as many seasonal workers in Ontario as there are in Atlantic Canada. As a matter of fact, there are more. We have to ask if the people of Atlantic Canada are different from those in Ontario. Are they different in Quebec than in Ontario? Are they different in B.C.? Quite frankly the answer to that is probably, yes. We are all different because we have different needs, objectives and different economies.
(1540 )
I can understand why the minister would bring up one of my old friends, Bob White, who is a unionist. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a unionist and have been one for many years. I worked in the railway industry and I had a lot of friends in the union.
The problem with the Bob Whites of the world and one of the reasons I get very distressed about the role of labour in Canada is the fact that people like Bob White have moved the union movement into a corner from which it cannot escape.
People have stopped listening to some of the union leaders because they are now involved heavily in political parties. There are groups in Quebec which are supposed to be representing workers but are more interested in representing the separatist movement and its cause than about whether individuals have jobs.
There are unionists who spend half of their time at NDP conventions and less time negotiating with government and business in trying to help solve some of the problems.
No wonder people such as myself and the Minister of Human Resources Development become frustrated with the union movement.
Of course, now Bob White and his friends have organized a demonstration which suggests this bill is not good, that we should scrap it and start all over. That is the furthest from the truth. There are some improvements which need to be made. However, when we asked the majority of Canadians: Do you think we need to make these changes, their answer was overwhelmingly, yes.
The issue that concerns people the most is increasing the qualifying period for new entrants. Youth are a major concern. Hopefully the committee will receive proposals, not only from the folks across the way but also from government members, on how that issue might be dealt with.
Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians agree with reducing benefits for frequent users. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe it would be a good thing to move from weeks to hours. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians believe that part time workers should be allowed to qualify.
Then there is the question of implementing job transition funds. The suggestion was made this morning that it was not a big issue and that we were just trying to buy people's silence by putting forward a transition fund. Try telling that to the 80 per cent of Canadians who believe that a job transition fund is a a very good idea.
With respect to low income Canadians, 82 per cent of people say that assisting low income families should be a priority. That is reflected in the bill.
I am having a difficult time, not only with what the Bloc is suggesting, but also with the lack of ideas from the Reform Party. The only Reform suggestion so far was that it should be a true insurance program. In the survey results we have received from the majority of Canadians, that is not what they want. They want a progressive package which helps Canadians get back to work in one fashion or another.
I can understand why the Reform Party is so low in the polls. It is far away from the reality of what people really want. Every time the Reform Party brings a suggestion to the House it is basically refuted by Canadians who argue that it does not make any sense.
For the first time 500,000 part time workers will be insured. Is that a bad thing?
The Bloc leader suggested today that first hour coverage, which would be for part time workers, is a bad thing. I am quite surprised. The unionists are trying to protect part time workers. Society is revolving around part time workers more and more every year. I am surprised that they would be opposed to that. I wonder who they are representing: their union bosses or the people who are going to be stuck in the situation of working part time.
Two hundred and seventy thousand workers will receive, on average, three extra weeks of benefits. The Bloc does not care about that. Bill C-12 will create up to 150,000 new jobs because of behavioural changes within the bill. Again the Bloc does not seem to be concerned about the unemployed whether they are in St. John's, Vancouver or Rimouski.
(1545)
Bill C-12 reduces premiums by $1.3 billion this year alone, money that can be used to create jobs. The Bloc does not seem to care about that either. Bill C-12 allows women who have left the workforce to raise families to access employment benefits for the first time. The Bloc does not seem to care about these women either.
Quite frankly, I am amazed at how little Bloc members seem to care about the important aspects of this bill. Bill C-12 will refund premiums for $1.3 million low income workers, including 920,000 who pay premiums today. The Bloc does not care about increasing their take home pay either.
In the few minutes I had, I wanted to mention these issues. The minister has said publicly to all members of the House that there are areas of concern with the intensity rule, with the gap, with low income Canadians, with the divisor rule. All those issues have been targeted as something to which the government is prepared to find better solutions or answers if people can come up with some proposals.
I ask the members opposite this. Instead of playing political games for the sake of trying to break up Canada for their own political gain they should come up with some proposals that can be looked at in committee and will hopefully improve the bill even further than it goes already.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are five minutes for questions and comments. I would like to get both members on the record so-
[Translation]
Therefore, I would like the questions to be as precise as possible in order to give every member an opportunity to ask a question or to make a comment.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the speech just made by my colleague from the government, I will say that, in the riding of Charlevoix as in the rest of Quebec, people do want a reform of the unemployment insurance program, but not at the expense of the most disadvantaged. The minister is confirming what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying, namely that the government intends to reduce its deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged.
Members will recall that, last year, the unemployment insurance fund had a $5.5 billion surplus and that, this year, the government anticipates a surplus in the order of $5.3 billion. It is not true that there is less unemployment; in fact, there is more. The problem, and the reason why there is more and more money in the unemployment insurance fund, is the increasingly difficult access to the program. With the new reform, seasonal workers who work, for example, 15 hours a week will have to work 45 to 50 weeks in order to be eligible for UI benefits. In other words, these workers will no longer have access to the program.
People find it increasingly difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance and are forced to go on welfare.
Also, with this unemployment insurance reform, the benefit period for people who are eligible is reduced. Therefore, over a 52-week period, with a qualifying period, a person often has to rely on welfare before he or she goes back to work. And not everybody is eligible for welfare. Often times, people have to sell assets that they have accumulated over many years.
Does my colleague recognize the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is entirely paid by workers and employers and that the government cannot appropriate that money since it is there to help people in case they lose their jobs? Does the member recognize that the UI fund is an insurance for workers and that, if the government uses it to reduce its deficit, it is taking something that does not belong to it?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly so my friend from the Reform can ask his question.
The Bloc continues to perpetuate a myth. First, we all know that the UI fund is not general revenue. It does not go into the general revenues of the government. In fact last year it was in a deficit. When the Tories were defeated, the fund was in pretty rough shape and was in deficit by some $3 billion or more. This year finally that deficit has been turned into a surplus. It is projected there will be a fairly large surplus this year.
(1550)
Mr. Speaker, you will recall because you were here-I am sure some of these members that were not here would not have read the Hansard as closely as they should have-that premiums had to be increased significantly during the last recession because there was no surplus in the EI account. It is our intention not to let that happen this time.
There is no interest or legal capability of the government to take that money and pay off its deficit. It is used as a benchmark for how the EI account is doing, whether it is in a deficit or a surplus position.
For the Bloc to continue to say that the government is paying off the deficit on the backs of the poor is completely false and erroneous.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this member has made some statements that are totally false.
For two years I was the critic and dealt a lot with the unemployment insurance fund. When he says that we do not make sugges-
tions I would like to refer him to Hansard and have him read Hansard. He says that the Bloc is not reading it; neither has he read Hansard.
If he would go back to 1994 and 1995 he would see the speeches I delivered in the House. There were 14 to 17 points in some of those speeches that provided the government with suggestions of what it could do to reform the unemployment insurance fund. To my knowledge very little of that advice was ever taken. If it had been taken the unemployment rate would be 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent lower that it is today. Those were excellent suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears. The government should take heed.
Has the unemployment fund not become a slush fund for some other government projects that have very little to do with insurance? We Reformers have a problem with this. The government was taking funds from EI and using them for things other than insurance. I do not think it can be denied that is the case.
Mr. Nault: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny it. Quite frankly I welcome it. Any worker who understands a global economy, any worker or any parliamentarian who has spent time looking at our major competition in the world, will know that every labour adjustment program in the world is funded by its workers and its employers; every major labour adjustment program in the world is very progressive, not passive, not a straight insurance program where somebody is just given a cheque to stay home.
They are given a helping hand to try to retrain, to prove themselves and get back into the workforce. If the member calls that some kind of slush fund for friends of the Liberals, he should talk to the people about how they feel about that part of it.
I know Reform members have made a couple of suggestions. I heard them today: straight insurance program, nothing else to it; take it out of the hands of the government, give it back to the employers and the employees; government should have nothing to do with it. As a unionist I can say that I would be scared to death if it was taken out of the hands of the government and given to the private sector because there would be no insurance program if that was ever done.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Roberval. While I am pleased to have this opportunity to share with the member and the House the accomplishments of the Liberal government, I am disappointed that once again the opposition's only effort is to ignore the positive and focus on the negative.
I would hope that prior to introducing this motion for debate the hon. member and his colleagues had discussed the proposed changes to unemployment insurance with their constituents. I have worked closely with the people of Guelph-Wellington in offering constructive proposals for genuine change in unemployment insurance.
I am particularly grateful to Jerry Wilson of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Joseph Maloney of the Building and Construction Trade Department who have worked with me in this regard. Their suggestions, proposals and guidance have been of great assistance to me and I thank them for their work on behalf of workers across Guelph-Wellington and all of Canada.
(1555)
I would suggest that any member in the House take the time to meet with some of these people. They have lot that they can help and share with each of us.
Let me remind the hon. member that it was a Liberal government that first introduced unemployment insurance in Canada. In July 1940 the Minister of Labour, the Hon. N. A. McLarty, guided the bill through Parliament. It was established to provide insurance against unemployment and to form an employment service.
The bill was introduced during a time of war following the great depression. It responded to the changing times of the 1940s and it gave protection to workers and their families that never existed before.
It is this Liberal government, with the work of Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Human Resources Development that wishes to afford better protection and we have offered concrete proposals which respond to the same difficult and changing times which faced the government of Mackenzie King.
I find it ironic, however, that the opposition parties criticize the government for its work on behalf of young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants. Let us examine their record on behalf of these Canadians they seek to protect in this motion. Let us look closely.
We know that introducing employment insurance eligibility based on hours worked will help Canadians working in the building and trades industry, students and young people who rely on part time work for their employment.
Most important, we have made concrete proposals to assist young people in all of Canada, every province. Guelph-Wellington is the home of the University of Guelph. Many of our young people stay in our community to study and we attract hundreds of students from across Canada. This government is offering them more flexibility in repayment to make post-secondary education more accessible. We have introduced job focused internship programs and Youth Service Canada in co-operation with the private sector which has provided much needed assistance in the transition from the school to work.
What have the opposition parties offered? The Bloc tells young people that their future lies in the uncertainty created by a divided country. The Reform tells young people that their future will be
better by destroying the social programs that make Canada great and some day our future will be brighter.
Young people in Guelph-Wellington realize and they tell me that they have hope in a united Canada and in bettering social programs, not destroying them.
What have the Liberals done for women? Our proposals will provide greater assistance to low income families. Two-thirds of the claimants who will receive the family income support are women. Our record includes a new pension system that will mean that nine out of ten low income senior women will be better protected. Changes to student loans will allow expanded relief for women in doctoral studies.
What do the opposition parties have to offer for women? The Bloc offers uncertainty and discourages investment which can help women find employment and the Reform's discussion on women's issues in 1990 concluded that there are no women's issues. That is what the Reform's report found. The women in Guelph-Wellington will disagree.
In my work with representatives of the building and trades unions I brought forward their support for an employment insurance program based on hours worked. They wanted this proposal and the Liberals have responded. This is a positive step forward for workers who generally did not benefit from the previous UI system. With the changes announced by the government 45,000 more seasonal workers will be eligible for assistance.
The minister listened to the building trades. They have concerns which need to be addressed further and I acknowledge that. We will continue to work positively with them. This is a positive first step and it is concrete. You can see it and you know what is being proposed.
(1600 )
What do the opposition parties have to offer seasonal workers? Is the Bloc offering a first step, or a step into the uncertainty created by the breakup of Canada? Reform offers $15 billion of further cuts to social services, services which would benefit seasonal workers and their families.
Finally, the Bloc has expressed concern regarding the results of our proposals on immigrants. I welcome its concern for new Canadians and those who come to Canada to seek a better life.
Our proposals, along with the measures announced in the budget, and the emphasis on jobs and growth will give Canadians, whether they have been here for hours or generations, hope for their future.
The Bloc tells new immigrants that it wants to break up the country. Reformers believe that immigration should be based on economics alone. Reformers do not like policies based on compassion or need.
I recognize that our efforts to improve the unemployment insurance system will not eliminate unemployment in Canada. I recognize that but it is a good first step.
Guelph-Wellington, as part of the country's technology triangle, offers the best workforce in this country. We are known for quality, dedication and hard work. A national unemployment rate of 9 per cent is unacceptable to Liberals. While we have created over 600,000 jobs, we recognize that there is more that can be done and more that needs to be done.
The employment insurance reforms are made in the interest of protecting the very groups that this motion claims we are hurting. The simple fact is that young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants, for that matter all Canadians, are better protected by the Liberal Party.
The Bloc offers only uncertainty and discourages investment that is needed to keep Canada strong. It discourages foreign markets. It makes everybody uncertain. It somehow believes that economies are built on policies that destroy rather than on commitments which build.
Reformers believe that if social programs are cut now in order to reduce the deficit, more could be spent on social programs in the future. That is like suggesting we burn down the house in order to make room for the furniture. If Reformers get their way there will be no social programs and no medicare.
This motion deserves to be defeated. It shall be defeated by the encouragement of the people of Guelph-Wellington who support our efforts to build programs that offer hope, protection and opportunity.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all the interest shown in the speech by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, I will recognize one Bloc member, the hon. member for Longueuil, and one member of the Reform Party.
I will ask you to take two minutes each, and then the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington will be asked to respond.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the hon. member that a consensus was reached some years ago now in Quebec. The unions and the bosses, the Liberals and the present Parti Quebecois government, all have reached the consensus that manpower training is primarily a provincial matter and one that ought to be handled by Quebec, by the Quebec Department of Education.
What is being noticed now about the unemployment insurance program is that several billion dollars are being taken from unemployment insurance contributions, and no one yet knows where that money is going to end up. We see this as a new method of taxation, a tax in disguise. Employees are taxed, employers are
taxed, for unemployment insurance, but we are not yet clear what you are planning to do with that surplus money.
(1605)
What we in Quebec are hoping-and Quebecers are unanimous in this, whether unionists, employers, the previous Liberal government or the present government-what we have been demanding for years is that this surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, made up of employee and employer contributions, be ploughed back into manpower training, and that such training be delivered and administered by the Quebec Department of Education, which is best placed to provide training tailored to the needs of our businesses and our unemployed workers.
Now, one more question. How can it be that both employers and employees are asking, since they are the contributors, why they are not the ones to administer unemployment insurance and manpower training funds? I would like to know what the minister's thoughts are on this.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to several labour union people and government people in Quebec and I would not concur at all that everyone agrees that Quebec should have exclusive jurisdiction over these surpluses.
I would also like to point out to the hon. member that many provinces across Canada are being governed by many different people. I find more and more people across Canada, and especially in Quebec, who are saying: ``We need the federal government. We are worried by some of our current leaders today in all provinces. We know that each time a government changes there are different philosophies, there are tides and waves to the right and left''. However, there are many people in the trenches who are really anxious for the federal government to have a very strong presence in Canada and which will assure Canadians that certain programs and safeguards such as medicare will stay in place.
That is why the Liberals and the federal government pledge to do their very best for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington contend that the Liberal Party is the only defender of social programs in Canada. I suppose it is not too surprising that I disagree.
I find it most amusing, contradictory in fact that the member would hold Reform Party members up as those who would not defend social programs.
I would like to take the member back to 1993. In our literature, we suggested that with regard to old age security, family income should be taken into consideration. At that time we used the figure of $54,000 for a household income.
How would the hon. member explain how the Liberals can possibly be the great defenders of social programs for the elderly and those who have trouble fending for themselves when they criticized our policies at that time. Now they have reduced social programs on a household basis down to a ceiling of $45,000, some $9,000 less than the Reform Party advocated in 1993.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to explain a lot of these things. We have seen right wing governments and their legacies in several provinces in Canada. The Reform Party wishes to use a figure of $54,000, but it does not talk about the fact that it would look at user fees for everything. It does not talk about the fact that it would use a two-tiered health care system. That $9,000 would soon be eaten up and there would be nothing left for those people
In the last budget we protected seniors. We promised new programs so that social services will be available.
With due respect to the hon. member, I have to tell him that right wing governments will absolutely choke Canadians if we allow them to progress.
(1610)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the debate on Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance, which the government is trying to rename employment insurance. I think, if the name is going to be changed, it should be ``deficit insurance'' in order to reflect the real change.
Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary admit, in response to a question by a Reform member, that indeed it could eventually be used for the deficit. I think some information has to be provided on this point. Up to now, there has been an accumulated deficit. The unemployment insurance fund had an accumulated deficit of $11 billion.
Perhaps we need to understand the background of this accumulated deficit of $11 billion. Where did it come from? It dates from the time of the Conservatives. We cannot attribute it to the Liberals opposite, because it predates 1993. It dates from fiscal 1991-92. That is the very year that followed the government's withdrawal, when Mr. Valcourt was Minister of Employment. It withdrew and decided not to put a penny more into the UI fund.
Subsequently, surprise, surprise, there was a deficit in the fund, which grew to $11 billion. The Conservatives proposed a bill in the House, a reform, an initial reduction. I do not have enough time this afternoon to go back over all the speeches of the former members of the opposition, who are now across from me in the House.
The present Minister of Human Resources Development called it a scandal when Mr. Valcourt announced the cuts. However, what did this government do when it came to power? It passed Bill C-17, which led to a cut in eligibility. We must remember that it reduced unemployment insurance from 60 per cent to 55 per cent of insurable salary. It shortened the periods. This made it possible, in two and a half years, to recover the $11 billion deficit in the fund. In December, a few months ago, officials of the Department of Human Resources Development confirmed there was no longer a deficit in the fund.
It would have been possible to go on with Bill C-17, and it was to be expected that we would have a surplus similar to what the Minister of Finance had estimated last year, some $4 billion. The following year, the surplus would have been more than enough. But what is the Liberal government doing instead?
It is proposing a new reform, further cuts to UI benefits, limited eligibility, reduced benefits for a lot of groups-and I will show that it is so. But the government is going a step further.
Once the deficit has been made up, why does the government keep on cutting? It wants to pay down the country's deficit, the federal government's deficit. That is unacceptable, because the unemployed are not the ones who caused the federal government's deficit. There are various other factors. The unemployed should not be the only ones to pay.
We, in the opposition, are often accused of manipulating the figures. All these figures are in the last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, who announced a surplus of at least $4.3 billion for 1995-96. In 1996-97, the surplus will be over $5 billion. Adding that amount to the $4.3 billion, we get $9.3 billion in two years.
(1615)
The following year, he deposits only the contributions, not the surplus. Since more people contribute to the fund, the contributions are going to generate record revenues of $19.5 billion. And if the trend continues, you are going to have in 1997-98, a surplus of about $6.3 billion. This is quite a lot of money.
These three amounts added together make an enormous surplus. We know this is correct: $4.3 billion plus $5 billion plus $6 billion come to a total of $15 billion. Is the government going to keep that surplus in the fund somewhere? No. It is going to use it, and it is clear that it intends to use it to repay Canada's debt.
People may sometimes feel unemployment insurance is for others. Some say: ``The unemployment rate is about 10 or 12 per cent in Quebec''. A lot of people are not affected. At present, the unemployment rate may be 10 per cent but last year, 14 per cent of workers in Canada received unemployment insurance benefits-14 per cent. That is 2,124,000 individuals.
We are not talking of some small isolated village in Charlevoix. We are not talking about a village in the minister's riding. Two million recipients is the equivalent of the whole population of Montreal. Efforts are being made to minimize the figure, but the number of unemployed individuals will be 2,124,000.
On average, this represents $540 per capita, even if we count those who were not able to collect benefits. But more important, 3.2 per cent of the total income of all Canadians comes from unemployment insurance. The government wants to cut benefits for families, claiming that it will stimulate the economy; and yet we know, for instance, that, according to my calculation, at the end of the day this would represent for MIL Davie workers, in my area, $1.4 million a year over 5 years for 435 claimants on average. This is money they will not have for groceries and the rent, and money that will not be available to those who want to do business in this area.
Sometimes, people who talk about unemployment insurance are called socialists. The money I am talking about is money business people in a given area will not have access to. People do not see that, but afterwards, they realize that it makes sense.
This is a problem created by cuts, because what we have here are cuts. The unemployment insurance fund surplus is the result of cuts. If 30 per cent of the cuts are going to affect Quebec we, in the Bloc Quebecois, find this outrageous. Thirty per cent. We only represent 24 and some per cent of the total population. And yet, 30 per cent of the cuts will affect Quebec. As early as this year, 1996-1997, Quebec will lose $400 million. This is an 8 per cent drop since last year.
We are told this is insignificant. These are not cuts. But an 8 per cent drop is a cut. I will give you some figures for last year; in Quebec, some 754,000 individuals-right now there are 435,000 claimants-but last year they were 754,000 who, at one time or another, were on UI. This is a lot of people.
I am only talking about Bill C-17, I said nothing of the impact of the next reform. Within two years, Bill C-17 has resulted in a 25,749 increase of the welfare roll in Quebec. This means shovelling the deficit into the province's backyard at a time when Quebec is already in a predicament because of previous cuts. It should be pointed out that exactly 25,749 individuals are on welfare in Quebec.
(1620)
Mr. Nault: This is due to the referendum.
Mr. Dubé: The parliamentary secretary claims that the referendum had an impact on the unemployment rate in Quebec. So let us
see what happened in the other provinces. Did the referendum adversely affect Ontario also? Ontario will lose $400 million next year. This means 6 per cent less for Ontario.
Was British Columbia, which is far from Quebec, also affected by the referendum? There was no referendum in that province, but it will still lose $165 million next year, a decrease of 9 per cent.
The four maritime provinces together will lose $220 million. Newfoundland will lose $85 million. Was there a referendum in Newfoundland? Oh yes, there was one on the question of catholic or secular schools. Could that be the cause of unemployment in Newfoundland? There was a referendum so maybe the parliamentary secretary will want to repeat that the situation is due to the referendum. However, Quebec sovereignists have nothing to do with the Newfoundland referendum.
New Brunswick will receive $65 million less, an 11 per cent decrease. For Nova Scotia, it will be $55 million, 8 per cent less. Prince Edward Island, which is sparsely populated, will still lose $15 million because of the reform proposed by this liberal government.
I can hear the member saying: ``The opposition members is using figures that he manipulates''. These figures come directly from the deputy minister. He presented some impact studies to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, but only because we had requested them. So I am quoting figures from that document. I am not inventing these data. I do not even read figures in the newspaper. These figures come directly from the Department of Human Resources Development. These must be good figures. I hope so, otherwise we are wasting our time.
I just reviewed the figures from a geographic point of view. However, I also searched these same papers by sectors. Let us start with the projections in the forestry sector, which is of particular interest to my colleague for Charlevoix and other areas. This sector will receive 21 per cent less, not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, 21 per cent less. The mining sector will get 17 per cent less.
In the construction sector-there is actually a strike in Quebec-cuts in unemployment benefits for construction workers will amount to 16 per cent. In agriculture, 15 per cent less, and in transportation, 12 per cent less.
Because there are cuts almost everywhere, government services will not be exempt. In Ontario alone-and the figures I have predate the announcements of the Harris government, which means that it will be much worse-at the present time it is already 11 per cent less. For hotel workers, 9 per cent less. In finance, 8 per cent less. In commerce, 8 per cent less and in all the other sectors, that I regrouped, also 8 per cent less.
I looked for one sector which would benefit from the changes. I took the document and I studied all the sectors, one by one, and I did not find a single one which would benefit from the changes. Everybody loses. All sectors of economic activity are losers, whichever they are. And the government would like us to believe that it is a good reform, when everybody is losing. If one group was a loser and another one the winner, while others would remain unchanged it would be fine. But no, all the sectors, according to the government's own figures, are losing.
Mr. Landry: This is unacceptable.
Mr. Dubé: As my colleague for Lotbinière just said, this is unacceptable.
That is why our leader this morning brought forward a motion asking that the Liberal government withdraw this bill. I could go on; I could go into this more thoroughly. As the official opposition critic for youth, my special concern is the fate of our young people.
Since the Liberal government took office, it launced a youth employment sttrategy. The speech from the throne waxed eloquent on youth employment. I notice that when the Liberal Party came to power, the unemployment rate for young people under 24 years of age was 17.5 per cent. What it the present rate? It is 17.2 per cent. There has been a 0.3 per cent improvement, and the government wants us to find that acceptable. The government tells us it will double the number of federal summer jobs.
(1625)
I looked at the statistics; $60 million were spent and the government raised it to $120 million. It is doubling it. The Conservatives had provided about the same amount, that is $104 million the first year. But when the Liberals came to power, they cut it in half. So, they are raising it a little higher than the level it was at two years ago. I do not call that a visionary strategy, but something that goes up and down. The only expression I can think of is a yo-yo strategy. The government is reinstating things it had abandoned last year and is coming back to the same point. But to whom is it offering that money? To students. Students are not unemployed people, they go to school and find summer jobs. That is quite all right. I have nothing against that. But does the government think this will change the unemployment situation for our young people? No, Mr. Speaker.
What does the government do for young people? It says to them: for new unemployed people, the reform has now done this. In some areas, the qualifying period for UI benefits was 300 hours, that is 15 weeks at 20 hours per week. What is the situation now, or rather, what will it be after the UI reform is passed? It will be 910 hours. And that will be not only for young people, but also for women, immigrants, all newcomers on the labour market. They will need 52 weeks of work at 15 hours per week to qualify for unemployment insurance.
Yet, a change was brought in by the Reform Party. Before, those who worked less than 15 hours per week did not contribute to the
UI system. Now, they will contribute as of their first hour of work, but it is not sure that they will qualify.
There is another shameful measure that the government has introduced. It has reduced the benefit ceiling, that is the insurable income, from $42,000 to $39,000. By doing this, the Liberals will save $900 million as soon as the measure is implemented. Now, as I just mentioned, the fact that people who work 15 hours per week or less must contribute to UI also allows the government to save $900 million. So, the government saves in one area in order not to reduce contributions to UI for those who made $39,000 and more, but at the same time, it makes people who work 15 hours per week and less pay more. There is a social choice here.
When I was listening to the throne speech, I heard: ``We will give more help to those who are in need''. What is the first bill that is being introduced in this session? We are doing just the opposite. We reduce the contribution of those who earn more than $39,000 and make those who work less than 15 hours a week contribute just as much. This is unacceptable. It is another reason why we, as the official opposition, want the government to withdraw this type of reform.
The parliamentary secretary said a little bit earlier today that the opposition was not suggesting anything. I am saying this: Why change things and make low income earners, women working part time, young Canadians who are hard hit by the unemployment, contribute? The government recognized that in the speech from the throne, but at the first opportunity, in its first initiative, it does exactly the opposite. The government members say one thing and do the opposite. Members will recall that when the Liberals were in the opposition, they condemned Mr. Valcourt, the previous Minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act and now that they form the government, they do the opposite, they continue on the same path.
It is sometimes difficult to ask people to stop and explain to us their frustrations in terms of what is happening. This government is a master of contradiction. It announces the opposite of what it intends to do. Other examples were given during the last few weeks, the GST, for instance. But as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, the present government condemned Mr. Valcourt' cuts, then continued on the same path. Even after succeeding in eliminating the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund, it still continues on the same path.
(1630)
Meanwhile, employer contributions are being reduced. I would have supported this. We did not object to a cut in employer contributions. But why reduce employee premiums from $42,000 to $39,000? To sweeten the pill, because the benefit ceiling is also falling. That is why I see this as a lose-lose situation.
People previously entitled to the $448 maximum benefit will now receive only $413 a week. For someone with a family to support, this is not much. Workers at MIL Davie and those working in construction, industry and big business are all affected by this. They will all be affected by the new minimum.
If they are unfortunate enough to be working for a seasonal or cyclical business like construction, they will also be affected by the so-called repeat claimant rule, that is to say, instead of receiving 55 per cent, their benefits will be reduced by 1 per cent for every claim. For example, someone collecting $448 will see his benefits go down, first, to $413 a week and, after the fifth claim he has to file because he works for a cyclical business and must go back on unemployment, to $375 a week. They are trying to sweeten the pill by telling us that this is a good reform.
At a time when people earning $100,000 stop contributing and banks, with record profits of nearly $5 billion per year, cut back their staff and make massive layoffs while at the same time making record profits, we are expected to grant the government its wish to have job creation now rest with large business, is that it? That is outrageous.
We in the opposition will not stand for it and we will do all that we possibly can to have the government withdraw its bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and the parliamentary secretary can rest assured that I will spare no pains to propose corrections and amendments to make sure that the people of Quebec and Canada, the unemployed, the young, women, immigrants and everyone involved are not penalized. The 2.2 million people who received UI benefits last year can count on the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, to make sure it does not happen.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the speech made by the hon. member's leader, the comment he made was that the Bloc is opposed to the new system of every hour counting, what we call the hours based system.
The present system is based on weeks where one has to work so many weeks in order to qualify. With a system in which every hour that one works counts, some 270,000 workers will now qualify for an additional three weeks of benefits because they will now be given full credit for all the hours they work. About 45,000 workers in seasonal industries not eligible for UI will now qualify for EI. I would like the member to explain to the House why the Bloc is opposed to moving to an hourly system where every single hour counts.
In a region like mine and a region like yours, Mr. Speaker, this affects every single member. Members are trying to suggest that seasonal workers are fishermen and foresters. This country's biggest seasonal industry is construction and construction workers work long hours when they can. It is just the way it is in the construction industry. They work 16 to 18 hours a day when it is nice out, when the sun is shining and it is not raining. Every single hour an individual works will qualify. He may only work eight
weeks but is working 60 hours a week during those eight weeks. He will qualify under the new system but will not qualify if we stay with the old system.
(1635 )
I would like an explanation as to why the Bloc is opposed to the hourly system. Everyone I have spoken to thinks it is a tremendous improvement for the average worker in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. It is truly extraordinary that, each week-and the minister again complained about that today, as do people in his region-demonstrations are held every Sunday afternoon in his area, with some 2,000 or 3,000 people taking part.
The hon. member from Fredericton sat with us on the human resources development committee and we accompanied him. The three of us went to Bathurst last year and people, not just unions, made that point. I remember in particular four single mothers telling us that if what was being contemplated became reality, it would be terrible for the economy of the Caraquet region, Acadia in particular, but also the maritimes as a whole.
I know I will never convince the member opposite with this answer, but-and this is what people in these regions understand-that in itself should be enough to reconsider the issue. In fact, before he became parliamentary secretary, the hon. member said that he would ask the former human resources minister, who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs, to make these corrections. In other words, he recognized the situation.
In a recent statement, a colleague of yours, the member for Madawaska-Victoria, who is now acting speaker, said that if the bill was not changed, she would not be able to support it. I know that many government members have the same problem. Of course, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is now Acting Speaker. Because of this, she may not have to vote. But I do not wish to get into a debate on this matter.
I also object to the idea that taking into account the number of hours will improve the situation. The parliamentary secretary is saying that this will encourage those who have jobs to hustle to accumulate the highest number of hours. In other words, in the forest or tourism industry, for example, one would work two jobs at the same time in order to add up hours as quickly as possible.
As critic for training and youth, I say that this stiffens the competition for young people, women, part-time workers, and those who have a hard time finding what I might call ``McJobs''. Young people already have a hard time finding such jobs and, with this system taking hours into account, they will face even stronger competition against those who already have jobs, who are more experienced, and who have a better knowledge of their work environment, to add up hours of work.
In the so-called leisure-oriented society we have been promised for the past 20 years, we see exactly the opposite. People must work 60 or 70 hours for fear that their company will shut down in two weeks. Is that what the parliamentary secretary calls progress? I doubt it and I say that it is an unacceptable incentive for people to take on those jobs. This is another reason why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for this bill to be withdrawn.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, the member did a great job of dancing around the question. I can understand his reluctance to try and deal with it. I am aware that his party is trying to dance between two interest groups, one which is in favour of the hourly system and another which is not. Let me put it to him based on questions from some women in his caucus over the last couple of days relating to women's issues.
The vast majority of part time workers are women who do not fall under the present system and do not get any benefits. I happen to know some of them. Some are related to me, very close family members who work part time and do not have benefits because of the present system.
Is the member of the Bloc telling me that his party's position is that the vast majority of women who do not come under the present system should not be able to pay into the system and get benefits when they need them because his party has a couple of union friends who do not agree with the hourly system?
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problem with the government's arguments. It refers to circumstances like these, to ask if we are against that on an individual level. Finally, we have to admit that, for instance, some women who could not benefit from UI before might benefit from it now. It is possible.
But what is more likely is that we will see again the inequity condemned by the parliamentary secretary. I would like to quote, for instance, a document from the department which says: ``In 2001-2002, the decrease in women's benefits will reach 9 per cent and will represent a $560 million loss''. In my answer, I refer to government's figures.
Here, the government admits that women will lose $560 million in benefits. It is in black and white, and the parliamentary secretary would want me to say that this is an improvement.
I invite him to read the reports of his own department; he will find the answer there. It is detrimental to women, to everybody, but mainly to women. I hope that this answer will satisfy you. I invite you to have a look at the document, on page 8, and in particular at Part A which deals with the effects on governments.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, as you know, you must always address the Chair rather than addressing another member directly.
I would ask the member for Charlevoix, who has the floor, if he wants to speak on debate, or ask a question or make a comment.
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on questions and comments.
The Speaker: You have two and a half to three minutes.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois on their excellent work, particularly the party's critic, the member for Mercier, the member for Lévis and the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I congratulate them on the excellent work they are doing on the human resources development committee.
I assure you, members of the Bloc Quebecois who represent us on the human resources development committee, that there are many unemployed workers and low income families. These people expect you to defend them very well in this House, and at all times, because you have the chance to remind the government that it was elected by them and that it made promises in the red book. In it, the Prime Minister committed himself and his team to job creation.
We remember what the Prime Minister said about creating ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' as well as reducing the deficit. It is important to remind the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Human Resources Development of those words.
I will also ask the committee to remind the Minister of Human Resources Development not to eliminate the deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged, but rather to consult the auditor general's report, which indicates clearly to the government exactly where all the wastage of public funds is occurring.
I would like to say to the member for Lévis, who made a very fine speech on seasonal workers, in particular, that there are many seasonal workers in my riding of Charlevoix. Many of them work up to 15 hours per week, for a maximum of 10 to 12 weeks.
Tourism is developing in Charlevoix. We know that summer is very short so, unfortunately, those workers can not qualify for UI.
In my riding, there are also more and more people with innovative ideas and goodwill who want to create their own job. These people invest everything they have earned during their lifetime to create their own business. Unfortunately, there again, the government found the arm's length relationship rule to prevent such investors who are ready to create a business from being eligible for UI after the summer season.
I would like to ask my colleague from Lévis if they tried to bring that arm's length relationship rule to the minister's attention. It is important for Charlevoix because there are many seasonal businesses there. I am thinking, for example, of a landscaping company in which a woman from Charlevoix, her spouse and her brother-in-law invested but, because summer is so short, they are not eligible for UI benefits. Right now, they are getting dangerously close to welfare.
(1645)
I ask my colleague from Lévis if he intends to defend-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Lévis has only 10 seconds left. You can answer by yes or no.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and with all of our energy.
The Speaker: That is a good answer.
That notwithstanding the order made on Thursday, March 7, vote 130 of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 of the Department of Canadian Heritage be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations; and
That vote 140 of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 of the Department of Canadian Heritage be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.(Motion agreed to.)
That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to develop a code of conduct to guide senators and members of the House in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists;
That seven members of the Senate and fourteen members of the House of Commons be the members of the committee, and that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee;
That changes in the membership of the committee on the part of the House of Commons be effective immediately after notification signed by the member acting as the chief whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the committee;
That the committee be directed to consult broadly and to review the approaches taken with respect to these issues in Canada and in other jurisdictions with comparable systems of government;
That evidence adduced in the first session of the 35th Parliament by a special joint committee on the code of conduct be deemed to have been laid upon the table and referred to the committee;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the committee have power to report from time to time to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That quorum of the committee be 11 members whenever a vote, resolution or decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report to the Senate and to the House of Commons;
That the committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the committee make its final report no later than June 21, 1996;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the report be deposited with the clerk of the Senate and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to that House; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.(1650)
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time with the hon. member for St. Boniface. My first comments respond to the last couple of interventions from the other side.
There was reference to the social security review and a trip members of the HRD committee made to Bathurst one Saturday afternoon following the social security review. I remind the hon. member for Lévis that at the time many of the representations from Bathurst asked us to convert the measure for eligibility for unemployment insurance from weeks to hours.
It is a very well received change in most corners, business, labour and seasonal workers. I am surprised that recollection fails the hon. member, that he was not aware of how important that change is to the seasonal industries and to our region.
Similarly, another comment was made with regard to the need to defend the interests of the less fortunate in society. I bring to the attention of the members of the Bloc that for those people who would earn less than $26,000, the outcome of the changes even before the amendments that have been promised is an increase of 11 per cent in benefits.
I think it is very important to recognize that while there are things that need to be amended in the bill, which I will speak to, let us not forget that by throwing out the bill, withdrawing the bill, an awful lot of good things will go with it. For that reason I cannot support their motion.
I remind the House what those changes need to be so that the record is clear in terms of some of the commitments that have been made, some of the statements by colleagues particularly from Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We need to fix what has become known as the gap, basically the way benefits are calculated.
As the bill presently reads, that calculation would be done on the basis of the last 14, 16 or 18 consecutive weeks. If you work in a pattern that sees spaces between periods of work all of those spaces would have the effect of decreasing benefits unduly, and that change needs to be made. I look forward to participating in the committee's hearings to make some suggestions as to how that might be done.
The divisor is an instrument that would allow the government to separate the measure of eligibility from the measure of calculation of benefits. That can be a good thing if it is used to allow people easier access to unemployment insurance in some instances while at the same time protecting the system from the possibility that some people would assume that access is their ultimate objective.
We have to be careful to make sure the divisor is not so great as to have a negative impact on the rate of benefits as a result of those calculations. It is very important that be attended to. Originally the discussion was around a divisor of 20. That would mean that if someone were eligible for unemployment insurance with what would be the hourly equivalent of 12 weeks of work, that would be divided by 20 and the result would be a very low rate of benefits. However, if the divisor were small enough-I will be participating in the discussion with the committee on that as well-it could be a helpful tool to allow people easier access to the system.
(1655)
The final point is the intensity rule. It is very important to recognize the difference of the intensity rule as it is applied to people with low incomes as against the intensity rule as it is applied to people with high incomes.
In order to explain this it is necessary to understand the two principal objectives of the new employment insurance program. The first objective is to insure people against the loss of work or income replacement in the case of loss of work. The second objective is to offer income support or an income supplement in various areas where people simply cannot put together enough work, time or wages to sustain a family over the course of an entire year. Those two objectives are fundamental to unemployment insurance.
The income supplement objective has been hijacked by many people who apply the rules which allow the income supplement at very high income levels. People who are making $60,000 and $70,000 are the exception. I would want to be accused of using those exceptions to beat up on people who are blameless. However, there are people who have taken the annual supplement component of the UI program and who are using it to give themselves supplements. Very often they are not individuals. Very often they are businesses. Very often they are governments and large organizations which use that possibility to supplement incomes which do not require a supplement.
It is very important to understand the two functions of the unemployment insurance program. We can challenge the annual use of the system by people with high incomes. I doubt there are many Canadians who would disagree with that sentiment.
Despite the fact there are changes which need to be made, and I have every confidence they will be made, I want the House to know why it would be wrong to withdraw the bill at this time. There are many things in the bill which will help the people who need help, whether in the Atlantic region, in Quebec or any place with seasonal industries such as tourism, the resource area or in construction.
Before I get into that subject I thank the former minister, the present minister, the HRD committee and its members from all sides of the House. It has been a very vigorous debate, one which has flushed out beyond most people's expectations. In my constituency we have had forums going back almost two years on the issue. It is very important to Atlantic Canada. It is very important to my riding. I am thankful that so many people in my constituency have been engaged in the debate.
What are the good things in the bill we cannot afford to withdraw? The shift from weeks to hours; anyone familiar with seasonal industries will realize that when those industries work they work long hours. Consequently if a person works 70 hours a week, in this system that is worth two weeks. That is very important.
It is important that everyone recognize that to withdraw the bill would be to withdraw a provision which would allow 270,000 people three more weeks. On average in Atlantic Canada it would mean two more weeks. It would also make the system available to half a million Canadians who cannot now get into the system.
On the low income protection, if a person makes less than $26,000, with the new legislation they could claim up to 80 per cent. It is very important to recognize that provision would be gone with the withdrawal of the bill.
The high income clawback is a good thing. It takes out of the system all of those people who are making large amounts of money. They are the exception, but they are there. There are people working year round at minimum wage, paying premiums so the money can be given over to people making much more money on an annual basis. I believe that is wrong.
(1700 )
The employment provisions contained in the bill will take 39 programs to 5 and make them much more flexible. They will be administered by local communities which is another improvement.
Finally, the macro impact of this change in our region is significant, even though I support many of the provisions. Having said that, we have a transition fund which will allow us to make the adjustment. Generally speaking, it would be a genuine shame, subject to the amendments that I talked about, for our region to have this bill withdrawn.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague from Fredericton-York-Sudbury, with whom I have worked on the human resources development committee.
The question that comes to my mind following his speech is how will we get out of this situation? We know and people in the Maritimes know as well that this bill contains many important elements that are unacceptable. As of today, neither the minister nor the government have given us a clue as to which amendments will be proposed.
After reading the bill, we would be tempted to say that, if we have to accept this legislation in its present form, if we have to take the whole package, we would rather have nothing at all. We would rather have no reform than have the one contained in this bill. Nobody in Canada would be against a reform that would propose an active job creation policy. Nobody is against giving people an opportunity to work more or helping the regions that have seasonal industries to diversify. Why is there not, in this reform, an active job creation policy?
Where are the economic diversification measures that would help seasonal workers instead of penalizing them, accusing them of not wanting to work or saying that it is their fault that they have that kind of job? The government could have proposed a policy that would have given the regions that have seasonal industries a period of 5, 8 or 10 years to adjust their economy. If the situation has not improved at the end of that period, then it can draw the necessary conclusions. But there has to be an adjustment period.
I want to raise another point. At the end of his speech, my colleague talked about a new program, namely the transition job fund. Let us be realistic; we had a decentralized program, the job development program, which allowed each employment centre to make its own decisions, to make adjustments based on a local approach, and now, with the new transition job fund, each project has to be approved by the minister. We have gone back to the stone age in terms of decision making. Does the member really think that this is an improvement? Does he not think that the government should withdraw this bill rather than go through with it in spite of all the criticism it draws, especially in Atlantic Canada?
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for the questions.
The first questions put were: Where are the amendments? What are they going to look like? I am a bit astonished, at this point, that anybody would not know what these amendments are going to be. I have a hard time distinguishing between the bill that is going to be and the bill that is in terms of my speaking on it. We have talked about these amendments so much. We have to fix the gap. We have to fix the divisor. We have to fix the intensity rule. I do not know how much clearer I can be.
As the member is a member on the committee, I think he knows exactly what I am speaking about. We will have an enjoyable three weeks attending to these things.
As far as confidence in whether or not these changes are going to be made, the member will recall how much resistance there was to two-tiered UI in the green book during the social security review. It is gone. The member will recall how much resistance there was to experience rating which is having one's premiums based on the likelihood of one drawing unemployment insurance. I am sure the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup realizes how bad it would be for his region and my region if that were to happen, notwithstanding the fact that the Reform critic on HRD is quoted in a New Brunswick paper this morning as saying that is exactly what we should be doing, restoring this back to original insurance principles, which I can only say would be absolutely devastating to Atlantic Canada, period.
(1705 )
We are going to be delivering the programs that create jobs in the communities to the communities. In my case, there is a human resource development office in Fredericton that will be making the decisions. I am sure that taking these decisions out of Ottawa and larger centres and giving them to the communities is exactly the kind of progress we want. It was suggested during the social security review that we need to bring more flexibility into the system.
A significant number of times during the social security review people came before us and said: ``The biggest problem with the program is that you have to be getting income benefits in order to get employment benefits''. We have changed that. Now people will be eligible for employment benefits even if they are not drawing income benefits. That is another reason why we cannot support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to set the record straight and, second, to bring a matter up for discussion.
You are probably aware of the fact that the Employment Insurance Act provides for the modernisation of the Canadian unemployment insurance system, which is 50 years old, and for the revision of federal employment programs. In fact, the Employment Insurance Act will establish a two part re-employment assistance system.
First, the revised insurance benefits. Income support will continue to be provided on a temporary basis to recipients while they are looking for work. The benefits were revised to give more value to the work effort.
On the subject of hours, the insurance system is based, not on weeks of work but on total hours worked.
As for earnings, each dollar earned is taken into account in the benefit calculation. The higher the total earnings during a reference period of 16 to 20 weeks, the higher the benefits paid upon becoming unemployed.
Regarding the intensity rule, as you know, the benefit rate will be gradually reduced based on the number of previous weeks of benefits.
Finally, as regards the family supplement, this new supplement will raise the benefit rate of low income families with children. This means that claimants whose family income is lower than $25,921 could see their benefit rate increase by 7 per cent on average.
Second, the active employment benefits. The 39 programs which are currently centralized will be replaced with an employment benefits program focusing on set goals.
It is estimated that 400,000 individuals will receive direct assistance in their job search through the five measures put forth: wage subsidy, income supplement, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and development grants and loans.
These five measures will be tailored to individual needs and will support the jobless in their efforts to return to work. These are flexible tools, which will be tailored to meet the needs of local communities as well.
Our goal is to ensure that everyone is treated with fairness. We want the population as a whole to be treated fairly. Low income families with children will get increased protection, thanks to a family supplement. This is one example.
Here is another one: some of the new rules will be applied gradually to give individuals and communities time to adjust to the new situation.
Third, jobless people in regions with a high rate of unemployment will need fewer hours to be eligible.
People earning $2,000 or less per year will get a refund of their premiums through the income tax system. Small businesses will be eligible for a temporary refund if the amount of the contributions that they pay over the next two years increases significantly.
(1710)
All claimants will be allowed to work on a temporary basis and to earn at least $50 per week without their benefits being affected. The program will take into account all the hours spent working. Regions where unemployment is high will get proportionally greater support.
These measures are designed to facilitate the program's implementation, to be fair to all Canadians, and to be receptive to the needs of regions and communities.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to share, with you and with members of this House, some comments made regarding this bill. I am not referring to comments made by members of the opposition parties, but by people who look at this legislation with an independent mind, if you will.
Raynald Langlois, president of Quebec's chamber of commerce, said: ``As regards vocational training, the proposed legislation provides an interesting approach to reduce, if not eliminate, useless and costly overlap''.
Yvon Charbonneau, a member of Quebec's national assembly and a former union leader, said: ``At this point, the Quebec government's responsibility is to go to Ottawa and start negotiating directly and immediately''.
Here is another quote: ``The Conseil du patronat du Québec feels this is the first true federal overture in the manpower training sector. Consequently, the CPQ hopes that Quebec will agree to hold real discussions on this proposal with Ottawa''. This from Ghislain Dufour, chairman of the Conseil du patronat du Québec.
There are other headlines and comments. Le Soleil stated: ``A good test for the good faith of the Government in Quebec''. And Jean-Jacques Samson, in Le Soleil, stated: ``The minister's plan is an invitation for provincial governments to negotiate an agreement on labour which will be a good test of the good faith of the Government of Quebec''.
Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, in Le Devoir, said: ``Under the new plan, claimants with children whose family income is under $26,000 will become eligible for benefits of up to 80 per cent of their salary. This is an excellent measure''. Alain Dubuc, in La Presse, commented: ``The minister has broken the wall of inertia and has launched the process of change''.
Jean Jacques Samson, in Le Soleil, stated: ``The new employment insurance proposed by the minister was designed to reduce costs, indeed, but it has many other merits, the main one being that 500,000 part time workers will become eligible. This measure is well adapted to one on the new realities of the labour market''.
There is more. The Ottawa Citizen stated that the plan is ``reasonable, practical and urgently important''. The Financial Post stated: ``The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''. The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``Responsible and fair''.
The Halifax Chronicle Herald stated: ``The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''. Sharon Clover, vice-chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: ``These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work''.
[English]
What about other regions of Canada? It was stated in the Ottawa Citizen that the minister's plan is ``reasonable, practical and urgently important''.
The Financial Post stated: ``The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''.
The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``responsible and fair''.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald stated: ``The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''.
The vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, Sharon Glover, stated: ``These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work''.
I have indicated clearly what this particular piece of legislation is all about. I have quoted people who are not members of the opposition, who were there in part to embarrass the government, to try to destabilize whatever project it brought forward. I have quoted neutral third parties who have looked at it with a detached eye. These are the kinds of comments they have made.
(1715)
If I have more time, I have much more to say about this. May I have an indication?
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the member only has about 25 seconds.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in 25 seconds I can reiterate that I would welcome questions from my colleagues with respect to the descriptions I have shared as well as the quotes I have put forward. These were not from members of the opposition, but from people who have looked at this with some objectivity. Perhaps they would like to share the views of their own champions on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very broad general question of my hon. colleague from St. Boniface concerning the nature of employment at this time throughout the world. We are aware that the problem affecting Canada and Quebec is not peculiar to ourselves. One has only to look at the rising unemployment levels in virtually all of the usual industrialized countries at the present time to realize that the nature of work is in the process of being totally redefined.
We understand that there is an increasing trend toward robotics and computer assisted design, which means higher production, better products, and fewer and fewer people involved. This is a fundamental problem. We will recall Henry Ford's saying in the early years of this century: ``When I start production, I will make sure that my workers earn enough to be able to purchase what I am producing''. Today we are doing the very opposite. At the very moment that companies are recording the highest profits, they are laying off the most people, and in the medium term, within ten years or so, there will be a fundamental problem everywhere in the world: no one will be able to afford the products available for sale any more.
My question to the hon. colleague is a general one, therefore. He has kept abreast of this issue since entering the House, and therefore during several mandates now. I would ask if he does not think that the time has come on the international level for countries such as Canada to start redefining the concepts of work, wealth and production?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which I consider of prime importance. Yes indeed we must study more and discuss open-mindedly the whole concept of work, the way we work and the way we used to work. We must look at the changes that have occurred not only in Canada, including Quebec, but throughout the world.
It is true that things are done differently, dramatically so. This is no doubt the reason, and I want to share this with my colleagues, that, the government's speech from the throne promoted job creation primarily in the sense of ensuring our finances were in order. But we did the same in the budget. We want to be sure we create a better climate for creating jobs, which is what we want for all the Canadians we represent.
But I come back to the key point my colleague made. Yes, indeed, we must examine, we must look and we must consider what the future holds, because, like him, I think things will be different again. If we look at the last decade, we can see a major change. And if we look ahead into the next decade, I think there will be as many changes.
This is why I support this bill in principle. We are well aware it can stand improvement. But, we also know that it meets certain needs today. I will give you two quick examples. When we include the people working part time, we meet their needs. There are other measures, however. Some should perhaps be added; some should perhaps be improved. But as my colleague said earlier, certain adjustments will be made.
However, I entirely agree with him on the fundamental issue. We have to look at what is happening, what has happened and what will have to be done in addition to what we did to improve things for workers.
(1720)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the floor. I hope his question will be brief.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Indeed, it will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.
How is the member for St. Boniface going to explain to a person who received $400 a week, who worked 42 hours a week for 10 weeks, that, after January 1, 1997, the amount to which he or she will be entitled will be divided by 16 weeks and that-because the work is seasonal-benefits will be cut by 50 per cent and the benefits collected will be $125 per week? What is fair about that system?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to further consider that. If my colleague has clear and precise suggestions to make in this case as well as others, the government and the minister would be quite ready to consider them.
We, on this side of the House, are very open-minded and ready to remedy any inequity.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Prior to resuming debate it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-Grain; the hon. member for Delta-Canadian waterways.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago in the first throne speech of the 35th Parliament the government promised to make Canada's social security system responsive to the economic and social realities of the nineties.
After two years of extensive and expensive travel by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and countless expensive studies and testimonies by bureaucrats and experts, the cosmetic changes to the unemployment insurance were a real letdown. After listening to Liberal doublespeak for the last two years I cannot say that I am surprised.
Canadians are realizing the government's idea of an action plan really only amounts to a play on words: employment insurance or unemployment insurance. Only the name has changed. The program will remain as unworkable as ever.
Consider the goods and services tax. Scrapping the GST in Liberal terms means changing the name to the federal sales tax.
The Liberal definition for maintaining universality for old age pensioners seems to be combining the old age assistance plan and the guaranteed income supplement plan to come up with a seniors' benefit that most seniors will not qualify to receive. This is truly amazing since the Liberals scoffed at the Reform Party's 1993 election proposal to base seniors' benefits on family income. At least under our plan we suggested that benefits be reduced when family income reached the level of $54,000. Under the new Liberal seniors' benefit, couples whose total income exceeds $45,000 would see a drop in their pension benefits.
The member for Guelph-Wellington suggested that parties to the right of centre have a difficult time coming up with social programs. She should look at the province of Alberta. Its main problem at the moment is what to do with a budgetary surplus. When we as taxpayers and as government are paying out some $48 billion a year in interest that severely handcuffs the government to come up with any social programs.
Canadians are catching on that Liberals make great election promises which unfortunately are very conveniently forgotten immediately after the votes are counted. When it comes to legislation they also fail miserably. Bill C-12 is a prime example of this.
It is hard to imagine how the government could come up with a plan that could anger so many people. The consensus from all sides is that this is a flawed bill. Despite the musings of the new Minister of Human Resources Development that he will sweeten the bill, it will be another step backward for those Canadians who want to reduce their dependence on government social programs. The government somehow thinks it can win votes and maintain its popularity by perpetuating the social welfare system. Insurance means insurance, whether it is called employment insurance or unemployment insurance. The reason this bill should be withdrawn is that it does not resemble insurance in any way, other than the fact that it needs to have premiums paid into it.
(1725)
Let us talk about insurance the way Canadians understand the concept. For instance, if you own and operate a motor vehicle you are required by law to purchase and maintain insurance on that automobile. If you have an accident or if the car is stolen you receive some monetary compensation. Also if your house burns down and your insurance premiums are paid up, you would be entitled to some monetary remuneration as long as you did not set the fire.
The unemployment insurance program is not a true insurance plan. It includes wage supplement programs, training programs and other add-ons that drain the resources of the employers and employees who fund the program.
The day the Minister of Human Resources Development unveiled his long awaited proposal for reforming the unemployment insurance program, Statistics Canada reported that full time employment fell by 64,000. In reply to my colleague opposite who
says that government creates jobs, this shows exactly the converse. The number of people with jobs dropped by 44,000 to 13.5 million in November. This is the worst monthly performance in more than three years. The proportion of young people in the labour force is at a 20-year low of 61 per cent.
In answer to these problems and in an attempt to look like its two-year review is worthwhile, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced $800 million for training benefit programs and another $300 million for disadvantaged areas. One has to wonder if these new programs are nothing more than slush funds set up to provide temporary jobs just in time for a new election.
The former Minister of Human Resources Development said that the jobs fund could be used to support local infrastructure projects. Does this mean that there may be more make-work programs and expensive projects for seasonal exploits like perhaps bike paths or exclusive boxes in sports stadiums or perhaps a canoe museum?
The government brags about replacing 39 centrally controlled programs with five benefits. What it really did was camouflage old ideas into a new package. Shades of the GST, more renaming and more repackaging.
When I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development in December about changes to the delivery of training programs, he said that we really should be transferring resources to the people, to the private sector, to communities. I would like to know why the government does not transfer labour market training exclusively to the private sector where the marketplace can create real jobs and that way Canadians can look forward to training that is specific to the economy and the jobs that they may be entering.
How does the minister reconcile his department's continued involvement in training programs when the Prime Minister announced that labour market training would be the sole responsibility of the provinces? The provinces will have to enter into agreements with the federal government on programs and their delivery and if they do not sign a deal with Ottawa no federal training money will be spent there. Instead the money will be earmarked for other programs for the province in question.
This is an arcane idea that somehow the government believes that it can keep provinces in line by manipulating the purse strings.
When the Liberals last revamped unemployment insurance in 1971 it was a tool to redistribute income on both class and regional lines. This time is has brought in a $3 million job fund designed to create new permanent jobs in disadvantaged areas.
(1730 )
What it really amounts to is a pay off to Atlantic Canada premiers so they will not complain about being short changed by not receiving complete control over training programs.
The hon. member for Mississauga West complained that Ontario was tired of supporting less prosperous provinces. In that case she should support the Reform plan to turn UI into a true insurance plan.
Bill C-12 will generate huge tax revenues of over $1 billion but it will increase business costs and it will kill off the creation of part time jobs. The government is still trying to make it look as though it is fulfilling its red book promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.
When will the government realize governments do not create jobs, governments are good at creating debt and that taxation is the killer of jobs? It will be about the time that hell freezes over and Satan learns how to play hockey.
The 7 per cent payroll tax on part time workers will be used to fund the $800 million of employment benefits. It did not take the private sector long to figure out that it was to bear the brunt of yet another tax grab. As it stands, the provisions of the legislation will have a detrimental effect on both part time employers and their employees.
Take for example the fast food industry. An owner-operator of a quick service restaurant in my constituency told me his costs would increase by 30 per cent if Bill C-12 is passed into law. He employs 90 people, many of whom are students working to defray university tuition costs. He says his customers are very price sensitive. In other words, he is unable to raise his prices. He will have no choice but to cut back on employee hours and reduce the number of new people he hires in his business. Taxation kills jobs. He went on to say that implementing the payroll tax would run counter to the government's job creation objective.
As I said earlier, the real killer of jobs is high taxation. Small business people realize it, students are coming to grips with it and soon Canadian voters will tell the Liberals they have had enough taxation.
Incredibly generous benefits introduced by a former Liberal minister were left basically unchanged until the mid-eighties when attempts to tighten the system were met with cries from the left and social activists. The Tories backed away from the far reaching reforms which were required, reforms which should have taken place at that time.
Now as a result of procrastination by governments for 20 years we have a Liberal government saddled with a $579 billion debt, a debt which will have grown by $100 billion after three years of this Liberal government. It still has a social conscience that it finds extremely difficult to finance.
There is the old saying that if something is not broken do not fix it. However, the employment program is broken beyond repair. When that happens we have to park it and start over. The government only has one option: scrap it. I mean really do away with it. It should not harmonize it and it should not change its name. It should replace it with a new system that provides
Canadians with a true insurance plan to protect them in times of temporary job loss.
The amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast should be supported by all members of the House if they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's dissertation.
(1735)
I heard him say scrap the UI bill. I heard him say scrap the GST. I wonder what else he wants to scrap around here. I do not here much about responsibility of the Reform Party. I do not hear it saying for $15 billion with GST revenue where that money is to come from; `poof' out of the air I suppose.
The bottom line says harmonize and make it fairer for small and medium size businesses. I travelled on the committee across the country and that is what people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in the maritimes told us. That is what we will do as a government.
The hon. member remarkably starts talking about UI and how people are looking for jobs more and more everyday neglecting that this economy is creating jobs as we are talking here today. The reason why there are more people looking for jobs today is what is called labour force participation rate. It means as one person gets a job there is a second person who has given up looking up for a job two years ago and suddenly decides they want a job too and then joins the labour force and starts looking for a job. That is good. That is positive.
People are saying there are jobs being created and I will go out an look for one. That is positive. That is not negative.
We talk about the cost of small and medium size business. The government reduced the unemployment insurance rate from $3 per $100 to $2.95 per $100. That is good. That is positive. That reduced small and medium size business costs and is employing people. Let them increase their employment.
The hon. member talks somebody in his constituency who will end up paying more UI, and that may well be if he is hiring students. What he neglects to mention are the people working in part time employment, possibly less than 15 hours a week, who never could access the system before. He is saying it is quite all right that those people cannot access the unemployment insurance system. He thinks it is fine that because they chose part time work they have to pay benefits but have no way of receiving them. He thinks that is a fine situation.
The bottom line is this legislation attempts to make a connection between getting people back to work. It gives them an incentive to find work. It even gives them incentives to get a lower paying job if they have to do that. It provides a top-up credit to them to access new employment to get people back to work. That is not something you scrap, that is something you applaud. I wonder if the speaker could address some of these issues.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to reply to my hon. colleague.
He asks me how I will come up with the $16 billion the GST generates. It was the Liberal Party that went door to door in October 1993 and said it will scrap it, abolish it, throw it away.
The question should be asked of the Prime Minister and particularly the Deputy Prime Minister how they will come up with the $16 billion. It is not my question to answer.
The hon. member makes the point of the five-cent reduction in premiums. That is five cents, one-twentieth of 1 per cent; five cents on every $100 of earned income. We were told this huge reduction, five cents on $100, will produce 25,000 jobs. That must be the new math, the Liberal math perhaps.
Following that reasoning, why do we not bring down the premium a full percentage point and create half a million jobs? We could reduce it 2 per cent, 3 per cent. We would have to import people to fill all the jobs in this country if we followed the reasoning of the members opposite.
The member opposite says we can create jobs, and maybe we can. Private industry can create jobs, private enterprise can. I do not believe for one minute that governments can create jobs. Every government over the last 25 years has said it would create jobs and that it is capable of creating jobs. If this is true we should all be working at two or three jobs.
(1740)
I think the problem is being attacked from the wrong end. If we did not have to pay $48 billion in interest to the international bankers every 12 months, $4 billion a month in interest, we would be able to fund social programs, unemployment insurance and medicare to the fullest extent. If the government had followed the Reform plan it would be sitting over there debating what it would do with the surplus next year and not about how it is saddled with all this.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under the EI changes and the family supplement some 350,000 claimants and low income families will be guaranteed a supplement. That works out that all claimants and low income families with children will average 7 per cent more in benefits.
I ask the member if he thinks that is a bad thing for low income Canadians and whether his party agrees that is a necessary step under these legislative changes. Does he think we should scrap that
as well and leave low income Canadians to drift in the wind, as some of the issues he put forward today suggest?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify one thing. I did not suggest for one minute that we should let anything, to use the hon. member's words, drift in the wind.
I am suggesting that whether a low or a medium income earner or wherever one may be in the earning ability we would all benefit if we could lift this millstone of debt off our necks. This is something the Liberal Party has not address. If it really wanted to do something, not simply for low income earners but for every resident, it would get control of the debt and start living within its means and cut those interest payments down. The money that would be saved could be put to all kinds of wonderful uses.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Mont-Laurier-Sainte-Marie has the floor on a point of order.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Mr. Speaker, not Mont-Laurier. I would be pleased if it were the case, it would be very nice, but I am not that much of an expansionist.
Today, we held up the proceeedings of the House because of a motion brought forward by the Reform Party. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue with the debate on the official opposition's motion until 8 p.m. at the latest, on the understanding that the question be deemed to have been put at 6.15 p.m., as stated on the Order Paper, and the recorded division deferred until tomorrow, at the end of the sitting.
I consulted with the Liberal Party, which agrees with this proposal. I did not have time to consult our colleagues from the Reform Party. There would be no delaying motion. This would simply give members who wish to speak to the official opposition's motion the possibility to do so.
I ask for unanimous consent of the House on this proposal.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have no objection. We are prepared to give unanimous consent, as the opposition House leader said, that the debate not go any later than at 8 p.m., with no calling of quorum or presenting of delaying motions, and that the question be deemed to have been put and the recorded division deferred until tomorrow, at 6.30 p.m.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the assurance there would be no votes or quorum calls I would have no objection to the debate being extended until 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie gave his assurance there would be no quorum calls, no dilatory motions and that the vote would be deferred until tomorrow at 6.30 p.m.
(1745 )
Just to wrap this business up, the debate on the official opposition motion today is being extended no later than 8 p.m. with no quorum calls or dilatory motions. The question will be put and the vote deferred until tomorrow at the time of adjournment at 6.30 p.m. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore today.
It gives me great pleasure to speak to the employment insurance reforms in the legislation that has been put forward by the Minister of Human Resource Development. This legislation is appropriate and is an improvement over the system currently in place. This legislation deserves the support of the House.
I will deal with some general principles upon which I believe the legislation has been formulated. These principles are worth enunciating in the House to make it clear exactly what it is the government is trying to accomplish.
The first principle is a recognition that the best social program one can have is a job. Beyond all else that is the best way of securing one's financial future and is the best social program that can possibly exist.
The second principle is that as a government and as individuals here in Parliament, we need to create an environment in the private sector that allows business in general and small business in particular to create jobs.
The third principle is we need to design programs which encourage rather than discourage people to work.
The fourth principle, and one the government has demonstrated over and over again on the various pieces of legislation it has brought forward, is that the benefits should be directed to those who are most in need. That is an appropriate principle to build reform on.
The fifth principle is we must recognize that the deficit we have as a government and a nation is too high. It simply is not sustainable in the long run.
Those are principles our government has looked at in formulating not only this legislation but many other pieces of legislation. They are good principles and ones that definitely need to be followed.
All members in this House should recognize as I certainly do that an employment insurance system has to be more than an income support program. One of the members from the third party who spoke in the House said it should be a stop gap measure or a temporary income support for times of difficulty.
That might have been an appropriate approach 30 or 40 years ago. Back then most unemployment was of a very temporary nature and individuals who lost their jobs would be re-employed in a number of weeks or months down the road when the supply and demand equalized out. That is not the case today. Today many people who are unemployed find themselves in that position not because there has been a temporary lack of demand for a product or service but because their jobs have permanently disappeared.
It is important when designing a program that it have more than the income support component. It must have a job creation component. It must help individuals become re-employed. They must be able to develop new skills and find new jobs so they can re-enter the workforce. It is not appropriate to simply concentrate on income support alone in today's environment.
(1750 )
The EI program is certainly one that helps in the area of job creation. It does it in three ways. First, it does it through a series of employment tools. The minister announced the employment tools which go along with the program. They will assist in the area of job creation. Second, contrary to what the hon. member from the third party mentioned in debate, this EI program is going to help small business create jobs. Third, the EI program will provide incentives that will lead to increased employment.
This reform is calling for an additional $800 million in revenue for employment tools. That is on top of the $1.9 billion which is already being spent in that area. A significant amount of new money will be spent on employment tools. These tools are more than just handing out a dollar to someone hoping they have a temporary job for a while and then when it is gone it is not to be seen again. These tools are designed to help people obtain long term employment and to create sustainable economies in the areas in which they work.
Many of my colleagues have gone into some detail on these but I will enunciate them here. There are wage subsidies and earning supplements. The self-employment initiative is one that is already in place but which is going to be expanded. It is one I personally believe in. It assists unemployed individuals and provides them with the tools to start their own businesses which not only will employ themselves but possibly will employ others.
There are job creation partnerships which provide valuable job experience for the individual. At the same time they work on creating infrastructure that leads to permanent jobs. There is going to be some specific assistance to areas of high unemployment as well. The employment tools are an important step toward increasing job creation.
There is assistance to small business. I want to correct an impression that might have been left by my colleague from the third party when he suggested that small businesses do not like this reform. I had an opportunity to read the latest bulletin put out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a very well respected business organization. It terms the employment insurance program as a hard won victory for small business.
To suggest that small business is opposed to this reform is inappropriate. Small business is in support of this reform because it does reduce payroll taxes not only in terms of the rate but in terms of the maximum insurable earnings. More important, it provides a simplified system for small businesses to keep track of their employees' records of employment.
Too often small business people spend so much of their time dealing with paperwork and basically trying to adhere to government regulations that they are taken away from doing what they do best which is running their small businesses, creating wealth and creating jobs. I am not going to deny that there are some businesses that might face increased costs through this program. They will receive rebates from the government in order to ease the transition if they are faced with higher costs.
We have talked about some incentives to help individuals. Obviously the way the program is designed now, the more they work the more their benefits are. They can earn up to 25 per cent while staying in the system. Lower income Canadians will be eligible for enhanced benefits. It is also important to point out that 500,000 part time workers who were not eligible for UI under the existing program are going to be eligible. That is an important reform.
In wrapping up I want to refer to something which occurred in question period yesterday. It had to do with the exchange which took place between the hon. member for Mercier and the human resources minister. It dealt with the issue of how we were coming along with EI reform. The hon. Bloc member suggested that the minister could not seriously be looking at changing things because we did not see any more money in the budget.
(1755)
I know the hon. member cares deeply and is committed to this process. However what that showed was a mindset from back in the 1970s and 1960s where something was fixed simply by throwing money at it. That is not necessarily the way to deal with things. Things are fixed by creating something better by being innovative in the approach. Simply throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it is going to be fixed.
It spoke volumes for the perspective being presented that an absolute relationship was trying to be made that if we do not spend more money then we cannot be doing something positive. That is not a legitimate way of looking at it. This reform shows that through innovation and a new approach we can accomplish something positive and something that works well.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka says that the principle, the main goal of this reform is to encourage people to work. But where are the jobs? Could he tell us where to find them? I do not know where the Liberal government is heading with this reform. It is doing things event the Tories did not dare doing. As far as I am concerned, this is tantamount to aggression. It is a frontal attack against workers, the unemployed and labour.
Earlier this afternoon, during question period, I was deeply distressed when the Minister of Human Resources Development viciously attacked labour leaders, especially Bob White, the CLC president.
I come from organized labour and I am proud of it. I know Mr. White, he is a dedicated labour advocate. He has served Canadian workers well. Internationally, he was the head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union for years. He has lead historical battles on behalf of auto workers.
I ask the member where is the government headed with this reform? Why make cuts? What is the logic of cutting unemployment insurance benefits when the fund has a surplus? What is the logic of cutting benefits the government is not funding? Where is the logic in all that? Answer me, please.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about logic to suggest that you have a program that simply provides income support and does not provide tools to help create employment, that is an illogical argument.
To answer a specific question about jobs that the hon. member asked, let me tell him about jobs. Let me tell this House about jobs. There have been 650,000 jobs created in this country since this government came to power. That is an answer about jobs. We can talk about the 150,000 new jobs that Statistics Canada just reported which have been created in this economy in the last three years.
We could talk about what our government has done to ensure that the fundamentals of our economy are right so that job creation can occur. Perhaps we want to talk about the fact that inflation is at its lowest sustained level in 30 years and we want to talk about that.
We could talk about the fact that interest rates in this country have come down by 3 percentage points in the last year and that this is stimulating job growth. I think we want to talk about that fundamental.
We can talk about the fundamental that the borrowings the federal government is having to make is going to drop to $13 billion this year, $6 billion next year. The best of the G-7 nations. We are not crowding out the private sector any longer so they are able to have the necessary moneys to invest in new jobs.
What we have is inflation down, interest down, government borrowings down and job creation up. That is what we are talking about with jobs.
(1800 )
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this debate and to address one aspect of the discussion that came from the opposition which spoke to the fact that women would be disadvantaged by this reform.
The changes to UI will benefit women. The changes to UI and the arguments that are made on the other side are far from the truth. The new system is designed to smooth out inequities. It is much more inclusive than the old one. The whole idea is to make the system more relevant to today's workplace, to extend the coverage to more people and to shift the emphasis toward employment.
The EI system will mean that all part time work will be insurable. Women represent 70 per cent of part time workers. In fact, 270,000 women in part time jobs will have their work insured for the first time.
Under current UI rules there is a so-called ceiling of 15-hour weeks that affects many part time workers and therefore many Canadian women. To avoid paying premiums employers restrict them to less than 15 hours of work a week. I think most of us know that story. However, with employment insurance premiums will be paid on the first dollar earned, enabling individuals to ensure much more of their work and encouraging employers to provide additional hours of work for part time workers.
In addition, the eligibility and the duration of benefits will be based on all the hours a person has worked in the past 12 months. This simple change may encourage employers to offer part time employees more work and encourage individuals to accept more part time work because it is now insurable. It also means that many women will be eligible for benefits for the first time.
Women currently make up about 70 per cent of Canada's part time workforce. By insuring all part time work, 270,000 more women will now have their work insured. In addition 700,000 women with very low earnings will receive a full premium refund.
Many women hold down more than one part time job trying to make ends meet. Most of these multiple job holders currently do not qualify for UI and often only some or even none of their work is insurable. Under this new system every hour worked counts. Again
many of these multiple job holders will be eligible for insurance benefits for the first time. Maternity and parental benefits will continue to be a fundamental support for women and families.
One of the overriding features of these reforms is that they are fair and balanced. Employment insurance is designed to strengthen the social safety net, to provide added security for those who need it most, among them women in low income families and single mothers.
Benefits for single parents and low income families with children will actually increase thanks to an innovative family supplement to top up their benefits. Single parents, most of whom are women, will receive an average 10 per cent more than they currently do in benefits. Overall, claimants in low income families with children will receive about 7 per cent more in benefits.
The new rules mean that low income women will be able to increase their weekly income while claiming benefits. Changes brought about by this bill mean that Canadians, both men and women, will be able to earn up to $50 a week without having their benefits reduced.
A general analysis shows that employment insurance measures will have a positive effect on many women, particularly those in low income families. With employment insurance what counts are results, getting unemployed Canadians back to work as quickly as possible. Perhaps the best new measure for women are five basic employment benefits. My friend who spoke earlier mentioned those employment benefits, measures that have been tested for results.
(1805)
One cornerstone of the reform is to move from a passive to an active approach to re-employment by investing $800 million of the savings in employment benefits. These innovative employment benefits will provide women with opportunities to establish themselves in today's workplace, that will help them increase their earnings and most important, that will help them build a bridge back to employment.
Access to these measures will be extended to anyone who has had a claim for insurable benefits in the past three years and to those who received maternity or parental benefits in the past five years. Women re-entering the workforce after caring for their children can use employment benefits to make the transition to work. For example, wage subsidies to employers can help level the playing field for people facing disadvantages in the workplace, like women.
Studies show this approach works. It can mean an increase of $5,000 a year on average in earnings. Income supplements will increase the incomes of people who might be reluctant to take lower paying jobs. These projects help unemployed single parents get back on their feet and gain new experience.
I can quote stories of individuals who over the many years have worked at low paying, temporary and part time jobs. For them it has been a struggle. They can take advantage of some of the new initiatives to do well for themselves.
I can boast of a Toronto woman who took advantage of a federal program to help budding entrepreneurs create their own future. After losing her job as a psychotherapist, Sheena Singh used her own funds and talent to create a multicultural calendar promoting greater understanding between different cultures and ethnic groups.
With self-employment assistance she turned her calendar into a full fledged business. Sheena's calendar is now sold across Canada and her orders have doubled for the coming year. She tells us: ``My ultimate goal is to have one of these calendars in every home in Canada and the United States''.
The self-employment assistance program has already helped more than 34,000 Canadians start their own businesses, injecting about $188 million into the economy. Not only will EI enhance opportunities for women but it will also create work. EI reforms are expected to generate between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs.
Fairness and opportunities for women have been improved by strengthening employment equity legislation. Women are being helped to break through the barriers into non-traditional jobs. One and a half million dollars will be contributed over three years to a project to help female youth find work in trades, technology and the so-called blue collar jobs. At the same time a new national employment service will tell women where the jobs are. Across Canada job centres, self-serve computer kiosks will help match unemployed women with suitable job openings.
Canadians want to work and they have told us that they want a system that makes work pay. A government cheque every two weeks is not enough for many Canadians. They are working hard to find new job opportunities and adjust to a changing economy. They want programs that get results.
Employment insurance will get more unemployed women back into the workforce as quickly as possible and boost their earning power. That is why $300 million is being invested in a three-year transitional jobs fund, targeted at regions that suffer from high levels of unemployment. This fund will encourage partnerships between provinces, communities and business to create new sustainable jobs. Canadians have long held the idea of sharing the load, of helping each other through difficult times. It is fundamental to the vision that created this country. Employment insurance taps into the spirit of shared strength to help get more Canadians back to work.
It is important that the opposition parties understand the benefits that are in the programs, especially the benefits that will come to women as a result of the new changes.
(1810)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The honourable Alfonso Gagliano, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will have unanimous consent for the House to proceed with the debate on the adjournment proceedings immediately after the speech of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and afterwards to resume debate on the motion now before us, pursuant to an order of the House adopted earlier today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the honourable Minister of Labour. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Debate is resumed with question period.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech from my colleague. She talked about the situation of women which, according to her, would be improved by the new system.
I would like the hon. member to answer the following question. For instance, in my riding, some women are finishing their degree in nursing or in recreation techniques. According to the information they received, with the unemployment insurance reform, when they enter the system they will have to work 910 hours a year, which is the equivalent of 26 35-hour weeks, while previously, with the system currently in place, they were eligible for benefits after 20 weeks at a minimum of 15 hours a week, that is to say after 300 hours.
Could the hon. member explain to me what is the advantage for women, and for men, when anyone entering the labour force goes from a system requiring 300 hours of work to be eligible for benefits to a system requiring 910 hours? If we had applied the same rules as before we would have said: ``Now we require the equivalent of 20 weeks of 35 hours'' and we would have talked about 700 hours. Young people looking at these figures get the feeling that they are being taken for a ride. They are required to work even longer than the 20 weeks required before. They will have to work 910 hours.
Are we not encouraging the underground economy? The young worker who has tried to work 910 hours during a given year and realizes at the end of the year that he or she cannot reach that number, especially if he or she works in an area of seasonal employment, will be simply encouraged to work underground and offer employers to work outside the rules, because the rules are neither acceptable nor viable for that person?
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, we are starting the whole process of debate on the bill, which the hon. member has been working on in committee.
I want to focus on the fact that women's groups and others who have looked at the draft legislation have all commented on the positive aspects of the bill.
To ask me in one minute or so to define the finer points of the bill is not giving due consideration to the fact that the House is spending time on the details of the bill. However, it is important to note that groups such as the New Brunswick Advisory Council and others across the country support the move from weeks to hours.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate today because, it is worth repeating, the opposition motion asks that this House require the Minister of Human Resources Development to withdraw Bill C-12, an Act respecting employment insurance in Canada, from the Order Paper immediately and go back to the drawing board, since this reform hits young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.
What is the first question we can ask ourselves? Why is the opposition asking the government to withdraw the bill as a whole?
(1815)
Could we not be satisfied with some cosmetic changes? The first reason is that there is an error in the title of the act. They speak about employment insurance, although nowhere in the program is there an active employment policy which would guarantee to people who are losing their job that they will be able to find another one. The objective of this program is absolutely not to guarantee a job to people. It is to define the rules under which they will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
So, right at that moment, the government made the choice of saying: ``We will use a popular term that responds to the concerns of the people, to the fact that they want jobs, but basically, the contents of the bill will not reflect the reality.'' Right there I think the bill is unacceptable.
Another reason why it seems important to us that the minister withdraws his bill is that it was said everywhere that people who were complaining about the bill were professional agitators, people who were doing that professionally. I can tell you that the people that I met in public meetings in Trois-Rivières, Saint-Pascal, Rivière-du-Loup, Pohénégamook, almost 1,000 people who came throughout the day during the protest, were not professional agitators.
They are people who were asking questions because, for the last 5, 10 or 20 years, they have been working in a region with a seasonal industry where they must sacrifice their lives to manage to get by. In Trois-Pistoles, it was not the president of a national labour body who was asking questions. It was young people who asked me: ``How is the 900- hour thing going to work? Does it mean that, in order to qualify for UI, someone who lives in Trois-Pistoles and has managed to work 300 or 400 hours in his region in the summer will have to move to Montreal to work the rest and chase hours of work everywhere, so that he will no longer want to live in his home town?''
By its action, the government wants somewhat to ensure that the market will empty the regions. People are aware of that. It is not a sociologist or someone with a very theoretical approach who came to talk to us about that. It is people who feel it in their daily lives; they want to stay in their own environments and they find this unacceptable.
The people in Saint-Pascal mostly talked to me about benefit calculation, which is arousing a great deal of anger. People must understand what this means. In the future, someone filing UI claims year after year will need 420 hours of work to qualify for benefits. He may have worked 42 hours a week for 10 weeks for a total of 420 hours. However, starting in January 1997, benefits will be calculated by dividing the total not by 10, the actual number of weeks of work, but by 16.
You can imagine what that does to benefits. This cut is totally unacceptable. For example, a salary of $400 a week divided by 16 weeks will result in an average benefit of $250. And, after a few years, the benefits of seasonal workers will be slashed by 50 per cent. This means that some people will go from a $400 weekly salary to a UI benefit of $125 a week. I do not know if you can imagine the consequences. This is less than welfare.
The proposed reform would systematically impoverish people. These people are wondering: ``If they are doing this and if we are really in a difficult financial situation, we might be willing to do our share. But are others doing their share?'' Yet, they hear about the tremendous increase in the banks' after-tax profits. They also hear that the UI fund is probably not in such bad shape, since it runs an annual surplus of $5 billion, which now comes from the pockets of employers and employees.
As for the surplus at the end of the year, insurance plan managers normally look at annual costs and see if rebates could be given to policy holders. They look for ways to humanize the system. In the case of a dental plan, for example, managers see if additional services can be provided. Not so in this case. Instead of looking at the UI system to find ways of helping people in difficult situations, the government has decided to use the surplus as evidence that it has succeeded in reducing the deficit.
It is in fact a hidden tax, and this is the negative side of this reform. The members across the way often claim that people want a reform.
(1820)
When asked in a survey if they are for employment insurance reform, people are likely to say yes. But ask them, for instance, what they think about the current situation, and they will tell you that, right across eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, everyone agrees that, if the government keeps it up, it will have hell to pay.
This should have happened only after the next elections, and everyone will have been penalized by then, but now there is a chance that the government might withdraw the bill. Luckily, we have a new minister. He could take the time, as suggested in our motion, to go back to the drawing board and see if it would not be possible to go about it differently, so that the public can see that a real effort is being made to create jobs.
To ask regions that depend on seasonal industries to tighten their belts, so to speak, with measures such as these, while at the same time not providing any government support to help these regions diversify their economies is to penalize the workers, who are the producers in these regions and whose products often benefit larger centres, among others. This is therefore an unacceptable reform, and it appears essential to us that it be amended.
The reform, as it stands, is also disrespectful. In Pohenegamook, what was on the minds of the people there, was the fate of forestry workers. They asked me: ``What is going to happen to us? We are jobbers, contract workers. Our job is to cut trees in a certain area. Also, the number of weeks is calculated differently.'' In the context of this reform, no one has been able so far to respond to these people. No one has been able to tell them what their coverage will be starting next summer. This is unacceptable to me.
I think that the government make a major mistake when, last December, it decided to skip the second reading debate through some procedural device. The bill was then referred to committee, at which stage we will hear the testimony of experts and look at what amendments could be made, but the merits of the issue were never debated. This is why the official opposition must spend the whole day on this issue today, because there has been no debate in the House, and we could not deliver the message we have received since December, when the terms were made public, indicating that Canadians were terribly disappointed with the reform being proposed to them.
The hon. members from the Maritimes are certainly asking the same questions as we are. Let us hope that they will carry enough weight in the government to have it drastically change its reform. More than two or three minor changes are needed here. Canadians
want the reform to be replaced with an approach which is really focused on productivity, on the realization that, even in times of economic growth like today, even when government members are right in saying that 100 000 jobs have been created in Canada, the fact is that these jobs still exclude many people, either because they are young and just entering the labour market or because they are 45 or 50 years old and losing their jobs due to the implementation of new technologies.
The government must not only ensure that these people are still able to feed themselves, but it must also see that they are retrained, that an active employment policy is in place, and that productivity gains are being redistributed among workers, so that they can be proud to produce interesting things. So, what would a constructive employment policy include? After all, opposition members are often told: ``You criticize a lot, but what would you suggest to improve the situation?''
The first thing that we should do is to remove the obligation for employees to work overtime. That should immediately become a social value. The government should say: ``Our priority is to bring the unemployment rate down to 6 or 8 per cent today''. We are told that the deficit should not exceed 3 per cent of the GDP. I challenge the government to set similar goals regarding employment and to act on them.
(1825)
The government must realize that, in two or three years, its performance will be evaluated not only in terms of productivity, but also in terms of how it made sure that every working-age person living in Quebec and in Canada has a chance to work and to support his or her family on the territory where that person lives.
There are ways to achieve that. For example, we could make good use of the productivity gains made through the use of new computer technologies. Someone, somewhere is making additional profits. Some of these profits are made by banks.
Why are there no measures to ensure a constructive employment policy? Thus, if banks want to keep the savings they made through technological change, they would have to use it for job creation, but not necessarily in their area of activity. Why not require them to make a social contribution allowing for bank profits to be used to create jobs for people taking care of seniors at home?
The issue requires innovative solutions, but there are none in the present government proposals. The budget speech only provided for a technical committee on taxation, something that will have effects after a year or two whereas the problem is today.
I will give another example. Officials in the public and quasi-public sectors could be encouraged to facilitate work time reduction. Has there been any action in that regard as part of a full action plan or a concerted action plan by the government? We could remove the right for retired government employees to work for the government while receiving retirement benefits. There are many such situations in the public service at present. I am sure the national capital area, the Ottawa area, would benefit a lot from that.
Young people graduating from the CEGEP de l'Outaouais and young people already on the labour market could be very productive, and that would be very beneficial to society.
I want to raise another issue. It may look a little farfetched, but it is important to me. Why not start taxing robots? Why not tax what is bringing about job reduction for workers who lack specialized training? Why should we praise a business that is introducing new technologies while laying off workers without seeing to it that those people can find another occupation? Some measures should be put forward in that area, but they are nowhere to be found in the government proposals.
For the government, reform means cutting. We think the goal of reform should be to improve the lives of those who cannot find a job, and try to give them more opportunities to get back in the system and find a new job as quickly as possible, and not put them in a position where they periodically have to go back on welfare.
When a young student who has just finished school gets the message that he has to work 910 hours in the coming year, he might as well tell his employers that he will join the underground economy and that he will manage better that way. When our society sends out a message like that, you cannot claim to have done what you were elected for. Remember your slogan was ``jobs, jobs, jobs''.
If the Conservatives had been elected to form a new government, given the platform they ran on, they would do just like the Liberals, and we could always say that they are simply carrying out the program they were elected on, and that we have to live with that and try to manage as best we can. But we are now faced with a clear case of false representation. We have been told that the government would create jobs, but it is just riding the wave of economic growth, a growth that does not necessarily create jobs. The government will even do worse than that: with the reform fully in force, it will rake in $2 billion more, at the expense of those who fund the system.
That is quite something. Our system is funded by the employers and the employees, but they have no control over its operation. They are not the ones who decide how it should develop. Instead of having a $5 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, would it not be possible to reduce that surplus to $3 billion and to inject the remaining $2 billion in the economy by lowering the contribution paid by the employees and the employers?
(1830)
Since we are continually reminded that job creation is best left to the private sector, would it not have been a good way to ensure that jobs are created? Why insist on creating this situation? Well, part of the answer resides in the constitutional dossier. In the last few years, the federal government has had little money to spend on areas of provincial jurisdiction. So, with the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, the government has found a way to continue to interfere in the area of manpower training. With the surplus it has set aside for itself, it will be able to spend and to say to the community organizations and to everyone who wants to get some training: ``We have the money, so we get to set the standards. In fact, we think we should become the Canadian Department of Education.''
This is basically why the government has planned a surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, but it also wanted to use the money to hide the fact that it has not reduced its expenditures in order to fight the deficit. No, instead it is maintaining its expenditures at their current level and ensuring that the top civil servants, with their vision which dates back to the seventies, can keep carrying out their activities, thanks to a hidden tax known as the unemployment insurance fund.
This is why the workers, the young people, the women, the seasonal workers and the immigrants have told us and keep telling us day in and day out that this reform is unacceptable and has to be withdrawn by the government. If not, we have to ensure that several major changes are put forward.
In conclusion, let me summarize their arguments. They say that the 910 hours expected from the young people and the required hours of work in the future are totally unacceptable, as is the penalty for seasonal workers. A lot of things like that are brought to our attention, but, in fact, the real problem is that this reform is based on principles which are, in themselves, unacceptable. Under these circumstances, the government now has a very courageous decision to make. It must acknowledge that this reform proposal, which was developed by top federal civil servants, is not what Quebecers and Canadians want. Today, the Official Opposition has made that message even clearer and I think the government will have to take responsibility if it does not come to the same conclusion as the opposition.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his presentation. He demonstrated the weaknesses of the UI ``reform'' plan in such an eloquent manner that government members had to blush, if Liberal members can blush at all.
In the few moments at my disposal, I would like to make some comments about the government's attitude regarding this reform and especially that of the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Twice today the minister showed quite well how he feels about this reform. First, when he took part in the debate, this morning, he offered his philosophy on the reform, which can be summarized this way: ``Finally, yes, this bill must be improved upon; so, if someone has suggestions to this end, they should make them.'' As if, as Minister of Human Resources Development, he was not responsible for this issue and did not himself have to propose amendments to the bill.
He also said during his presentation that, due to his long experience both at the provincial and federal levels of government, he was aware of the needs of the people. So, acting as a know-it-all, if I may say so, the minister tells us on the one hand that he is aware of the needs of the people and, on the other hand, that he wants us to come up with some good ideas, that he might take them into consideration.
(1835)
What is worse, though, is the attitude that the minister showed and reiterated during the question period, when the hon. member for Mercier reminded him of what he said only a few hours ago when he criticized the demonstrations being held and a union representative in particular. He named individuals, which is rather uncommon on the part of a minister, saying: ``These individuals who come from New Brunswick, from my own area, are troublemakers. They like to use their Sunday afternoon to create problems for the government. These people do not know what to do on Sunday afternoon, so they look for demonstrations to go to''. He added in the House: ``The President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bob White, who earns more money than I, was also there as a political agitator. He is only interested in rousing the public against the government. He is not interested at all in helping ordinary folk.''
If I had had the chance to ask him when he made that comment in the House, I would have asked the minister, who is an elected representative-just like Bob White is-whom he was speaking for. Was he speaking for the banks, which made exorbitantly high profits last year and will be making even higher profits in the coming year? Whom is the Minister of Human Resources Development talking for?
We must ask that question because he is the one who will give its soul to that reform. If he is convinced that the UI beneficiaries, the people who protest against his so-called UI reform, are people who have nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon or who are loafers,
do you really believe that his reform will benefit the workers? To ask the question is to answer it.
People who listen to us, those who heard the minister will understand that this is a big joke, that the government's only objective is to claw back the money to reduce its deficit. There are very simple calculations to be made and I challenge the minister to prove that they are false. With the measures already taken in past years the government can cash every year a UI surplus of $5 billion to reduce its deficit, and we agree with that. But it takes that money directly in the pockets of the unemployed while, it is worth repeating, banks alone register profits exceeding $5 billion. What should be done to improve the UI reform? To ask the question is to answer it.
Instead of criticizing the union leaders and the thousands of people in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Maritimes and all over Quebec and Ontario who demonstrated against his reform, I would prefer to see the minister restrain himself and propose amendments which would make the bill more acceptable.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, my colleague made me think of something when he asked where the minister's position comes from. It is often said that the opposition criticizes for the sake of criticizing.
(1840)
When we look at the positions taken by some people, for example by the municipal council of Pohénégamook, a small town located in my riding, which says that it is fiercely opposed to this reform because it does not respect regional economies which are based on seasonal activities and because the 910 hour minimum requirement to be eligible for benefits is unrealistic, these judgments come from people with a lot of common sense.
Several elements of this reform will result in a drastic reduction in regional economic activity. That is why such a solidarity has developed. Opposition to this reform does not come only from UI beneficiaries, but also from regional boards of trade, community groups and business people.
Once the government cuts the money available in a particular region, this will result in significant job losses because when people have less money to buy cars or to pay the rent, when they have to move away, this has an impact on the economy of a region. If we want Canada and Quebec to be a fully developed country, these kinds of reforms have to be put aside because they are not in line with the vision we must have of what the development of a country like Quebec or Canada should be.