[English]
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on one of the most important pieces of legislation on the agenda of the government.
The government in its commitment to Canada said new employment insurance legislation would be law by July 1 of this year. I begin my remarks by encouraging hon. members to give swift passage to the bill so that Canadians can begin to quickly benefit from a more fair and balanced regime, one that removes the inequities that have characterized the current unemployment insurance system.
The new proposed EI system follows more than two years of consultation with Canadians in all walks of life. I held four town hall meetings in the fall of 1994 to get the input of people in my riding. Because of this public input, the new employment insurance bill will help unemployed Canadians get jobs. It will strengthen work initiatives, ensure fairer treatment for all workers and help workers adjust to our changing economic climate by investing in back to work benefits. It will save Canadian taxpayers $1.2 billion by the year 2001.
I will concentrate now on the benefits to a large group in my riding, the part time workers and multiple job holders. As amended by the standing committee, the new system is simpler, more modern and fairer. At the centre of the new approach is the method of qualifying for EI based on hours of work rather than weeks. A week is a very clumsy measure of a person's work. Using it to calculate unemployment insurance credits is neither accurate nor adequate.
For the current unemployment insurance purposes, a week is a week whether it contains 15 hours or 70 hours. This fails to accommodate the reality of today's labour market where more and more people are working part time and holding more than one part time job.
In the current system a person needs 15 hours of work in any one week to qualify for UI. Less than that and the person is out of luck. Over time this has led to a situation in which some employees hire a person for less than 15 hours a week in order to avoid UI premiums.
I have heard from many constituents in my riding who have suffered due to this barrier. A worker with less than 15 hours per week, even working year round, could not qualify for UI. Neither could a person holding two or three small jobs which may well be the hour equivalent to a full time job.
For example, someone holding down three part time jobs requiring 14 hours per week, totalling 42 hours, does not qualify for UI benefits. On the other hand, a person with a single 42 hour a week job does qualify. This is double jeopardy for part time workers and holders of multiple jobs. They have difficulty getting more hours of work because of the 15 hour ceiling imposed by employers. What they do get does not qualify them for UI benefits.
By counting hours per week, the new employment insurance act brings forward these inequities and treats them on a fair and
equitable basis. EI also provides better rules for setting the level of benefits for part time workers. Current UI benefits are based on total earning weeks prior to job loss. The new EI system will use average earnings over a fixed period before job loss. The period will vary with the unemployment rate in each region. Benefits will be based on the average weekly earnings figure, with the result that all earnings in the fixed period will count toward benefits. That is a fair system.
(1510)
With amendments introduced as a result of the standing committee review, the gaps in income will be taken into account through an improved method of looking back 26 weeks prior to the claim. Furthermore, regional differences in employment conditions will be taken into account by a new divisor that is two weeks more than the minimum entrance requirement for the region.
These measures link benefits more directly to earnings than the current UI system. They provide greater incentive for workers to seek additional work.
Bill C-12 benefits part time workers and multiple job holders in several fundamental ways. The higher a worker's earnings in the 26 week period prior to unemployment, up to an annual ceiling, the higher the benefit regardless of the work pattern. Total earnings in that 26 week period prior to unemployment from all jobs, including part time jobs of less than 15 hours per week, are included. Extra work during the fixed earnings period, even at lower wages, will add to average earnings and therefore benefits.
The effect of all of this is that under EI 2.4 million people who are now part time workers will have their earnings insured, compared with the current 1.9 million. No less than 500,000 additional part time workers will have their work insured for the first time. Some of these workers will have to pay premiums for the first time as well. It is estimated that 76 per cent, some 380,000, will have their premiums refunded.
As a group, fewer part time workers will pay premiums: 1.7 million under EI compared with 1.9 million under the old UI. About 300,000 part time workers now paying premiums who earn less than $2,000 per year will have their premiums refunded. That is significant. For the remaining 1.6 million part time workers who now pay premiums under the UI system there will be a reduction from $3 to $2.95 for every hundred dollars of insurable earnings. In all, part time workers as a group will pay a total of about $6 million less in premiums than they do today.
Bill C-12 provides an employment insurance system that matches current economic realities in Canada. Employment insurance will continue to provide income support for 2.4 million
unemployed Canadians. Employment insurance matches the varying labour market conditions across the country. Employment insurance treats all workers fairly and realistically measures their work in calculating benefits. Employment insurance encourages workers to add to their hours and incomes and discourages dependency on income support.
The new system's active employment measures will contribute to getting the unemployed back to work and will contribute to job creation and growth. Employment insurance requirements will be much simpler for employers to administer.
Having contributed for 32 years to this program, I know it needs to be changed. The members of our party and I are prepared to support this legislation. We must move quickly to assist the taxpayers of Canada so that $1.2 billion will be saved by the year 2001. Members have every reason to pass the bill into law without delay.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain was in Prince Edward Island with the committee studying youth last weekend. We were most fortunate to have him with us. When he was there he was also talking to quite a number of islanders. Could he tell us the islanders' views on the new EI legislation? I will give the member a little background. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Lévis left a mistaken impression of what the minister of economic development for P.E.I said at committee.
(1515)
I quote for the benefit of both the hon. members for Souris-Moose Mountain and Lévis what the minister of economic development for P.E.I. said: ``We were never afraid from a Prince Edward Island perspective to change the existing system. We have gone through that a number of times''.
He went on to say: ``I do hope you have some influence on government members who sit on the committee as well, because I think it is very important that you take the opportunity to hear from some people within the seasonal industry''.
He concluded by saying: ``We in Prince Edward Island certainly support the government's move to address the situation you identified. You have the support of the Government of Prince Edward Island and, I would assume, of all the political parties in Prince Edward Island''.
Based on the hon. member's assessment, does he believe that the people at the meeting in Prince Edward Island view the changes made as being very positive and forward looking, contrary to what the member for Lévis tried to indicate earlier?
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member for Malpeque.
Let me assure the member that the people on the island and across eastern Canada support the initiatives put forward. If anyone understands the problem, certainly it would be the people on the island.
They are prepared to change and they are looking for the leadership that the government, through the minister and the committee, can provide. They understand that change is inevitable and that change will accommodate those people who have been left out the system through some of the inequities of the past. If a person works 15 hours a week, those 15 hours should be recognized as a contribution.
I thank the member for raising this question. From time to time there are errors in quotations that are read. I am happy that the the minister of economic development for P.E.I. came before the committee to clarify the issue. Workers are able to see the positive initiatives and recognize that those people with less than 15 hours of week can accumulate those hours. They will recognize that through EI benefits they will be treated fairly by the system.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. By inviting his colleague to corroborate his comments, the hon. member for Malpeque tried to correct an impression. Even though I do not have the blues in front of me at this time, I remember full well the answer he gave to one of my questions. I asked him what he meant by talking to other Liberal members to convince them to ease up a little because, as he said, the changes were a little too fast.
I will ask the hon. member a very simple question to give him an opportunity to answer. Does he, who represents a riding in Prince Edward Island, agree that his fellow citizens are losing $11 million?
[English]
Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I understood the first part of the question.
When we are going through with the changes to this bill, in summary for all Canadians whether they are from the riding of the hon. member or from Prince Edward Island, I think he will find that the legislation will deal fairly with all those people who had been left out of the system.
Will there be enough money for everybody? Yes, there will. Just the idea of reducing the payment feature from $3 to $2.95 is significant. Women who had been left out of the system because they had to work at a number of small jobs are now going to become part of the process. I believe the government is to be commended. I am sure the legislation will receive support across Canada.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is not just about modernizing an outdated unemployment insurance system. It is about jobs. It is about creating new opportunities and a climate for job creation. It is about helping
unemployed Canadians find jobs. It is about breaking through the status quo, helping young people, women, displaced workers across the country get back to work quickly and back in control of their lives. It is about the government's number one priority: investing in Canadians.
(1520)
In the last four months, employment jumped by 91,000 jobs, the largest quarterly growth in two years. Since November 1993, more than half a million jobs, 596,000, have been created in the country. Our job strategy is working. Employment insurance is a key part of this strategy. The cornerstone of employment insurance is set out in part II of Bill C-12, the new employment benefits.
We are making active pro-employment measures an integral part of the insurance program. We are saying that employment insurance should not just be about passive income support for the unemployed. It should help break down the barriers that keep the unemployed from working. It should help to make sure that people who lose their jobs get the help they need as they try to adjust and adapt to a fast changing economy. It should make sure that as our economy grows and changes, people get the type of assistance they need to adjust.
Employment insurance will do this by focusing on what works, the things that really make a difference for people looking for work; by working together, building bridges between different levels of government, business, communities and service organizations; by clarifying the federal government's role in the labour market and creating new flexible arrangements with the provinces and territories to harmonize the delivery of the proposed employment benefits with provincial programs.
Let us look at how these points are addressed in Bill C-12. The bill defines in the clearest and simplest way possible the objective of active employment benefits: helping people find and keep employment.
Employment benefits are focused on results and they will be managed by results. Only one rule really matters: getting people back to work. This rule is enshrined right in the legislation in section 57(1)(f). We are simplifying the maze of federal employment programs into a much simpler, more flexible set of tools that have been tried, tested and proven to get results.
For example, wage subsidies work. They encourage employers to hire an individual who is likely to face long term unemployment or barriers to employment. Under past programs people who received these subsidies were able to get an average of 16 more weeks of work, increase average annual earnings by close to $5,000, eliminate almost four weeks of social assistance, and all this at a cost of just $3,000 per participant.
Targeted earnings supplements work. They help make work for unemployed workers who need help getting re-established in a job. Self-assistance employment works to help unemployed people create their own work and in the process create work for others as well.
Our experience to date shows that these new entrepreneurs earn $142 a week more than non-participants, claim 92 per cent less UI than comparable workers and are 30 per cent less likely to use social assistance. On average, each participant who starts up a new business for themselves also creates another job for someone else.
Job creation partnerships work. Under this benefit, unemployed workers are encouraged to earn income while developing new skills and acquiring valuable work experience. This type of employment benefit not only improves an individual's future job prospects but helps to develop and diversify local economies.
We also know that skills work. The best ticket to a job for any Canadian is having the skills required for today's economy. Where provinces agree, a fifth employment benefit, skill loans and grants, will be offered, allowing unemployed workers to pursue skills training. These grants and loans will be focused on individual choice and responsibility rather than government directed training.
We also recognize that training and education are provincial responsibilities. Therefore, skill loans and grants will only be implemented in a province with the agreement of that province. In fact, one of the strengths of Bill C-12 is that it clarifies, more than ever before, federal and provincial responsibilities in this area. It commits the federal government to working in concert with provinces to help workers find jobs.
(1525)
The federal government through formal agreements with provinces will ensure that the needs of the unemployed are addressed and that the employment measures allow them to return quickly to the workforce. This is an unprecedented gesture of openness and flexibility that proves federalism is a dynamic, evolving system that can change to meet the needs of real people.
Ultimately Bill C-12 is about building bridges, breaking down the old barriers that stopped us from working together in the past, and breaking down the barriers which keep Canadians from working. Results are what really matter to Canadians, no matter what level of government delivers the employment benefits and measures. Flexibility, accountability, co-operation and partnerships are the key to getting results.
Employment insurance allows new partnerships to develop and evolve for the future. It will lead to more effective labour market programs, better matched to local labour market realities. It will focus all resources and energies on the real challenge at hand; helping Canadians find and keep employment.
We will be investing some $800 million of the savings we will achieve with this legislation into active employment benefits. With the current $1.9 billion already budgeted for employment services, this means a total of $2.7 billion to actively help unemployed people get back to work.
That investment will pay off by helping up to 400,000 Canadians each year and creating more than 100,000 new jobs. In addition a $300 million transitional jobs fund will create thousands more jobs in high unemployment areas. Those are the kinds of results we need. That is what employment insurance should be all about, helping people who lose their jobs get back to work as quickly as possible.
This is a top priority for the government and for all Canadians across this country. Working Canadians want more than rigid, bureaucratic programs and an outdated UI program designed to preserve the status quo. Canadians want jobs. They want a system that gets results, an employment insurance system for the 21st century. They need a modern, active, effective employment insurance system defined in this legislation and I recommend this bill to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to make a 20 minute speech, but I am told that we are now limited to 10 minutes, so I will outline 10 ideas. The first one that comes to mind is self-evident. For me, today is an ill-fated day, a sad day, because it is the third and last reading of Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform.
It is sad because this reform brings with it $2 billion in cuts, in addition to the $5 billion in cuts prescribed by the first federal budget and Bill C-17 on unemployment insurance, let us not forget.
These cuts are in addition to the others. Let us not forget either the 3 million people who, at one time or another in the past year, qualified for UI benefits. Everyone will be hit by cuts of at least 10 per cent.
But it is also sad for democracy, because if there is an important bill now under consideration, it is this one, which affects 3 million people. If there is an important bill that has been introduced by this government in the course of this Parliament, it is this one.
What did the government do with its most important bill? It tried to cover up by setting an agenda throwing as little light as possible on this bill.
(1530)
I sat on the human resources development committee. We talked about a comprehensive social program reform which included an unemployment insurance reform component. We toured the country and 80 per cent of the people told us they were against this reform. We tabled our report in February 1995 and waited a very long time, until after the referendum. Seven or eight months went by before this bill was finally introduced in the House of Commons on December 1.
Why December 1? Because it was Christmastime. They were hoping that the bill would go through unnoticed, but it did not. Demonstrations were held all over the place, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. But reaction to the proposed reform was not as strong in some regions, for instance the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region. At first glance, the news does not seem to have cause much of a stir in that region.
But that is because a gag order was imposed on us, as the government repeatedly tried to prevent us from speaking up, starting at the first reading stage. Then second reading was skipped altogether and the bill underwent prestudy in committee, where limitations were put on the scope of the committee's work. Only twice since Confederation has a gag order being put on a committee and its work curtailed.
At report stage, the House was again gagged and now, at third reading, debate is limited to just one day. But the day was carefully chosen to coincide with juicier political events, or at least so they seem. First, there was Bill C-33, a bill on discrimination against homosexuals. That is an important issue, I agree. What do they do? They make this debate coincide with all the debates in Quebec and elsewhere around Mr. Bertrand's case, intended to draw media attention to an important issue indeed, namely the Canadian Constitution and the law Mr. Bertrand wishes to have invoked to prevent Quebec from achieving sovereignty. The bill before us is important, but set against this political backdrop, it is overshadowed.
I mentioned petitions. Some can be entertained by the House while other are not in order. Yesterday, I was in Beauce, a quiet region boasting the largest concentration of small and medium size businesses in Quebec, with more than 500 businesses, and I was handed a petition signed by 2,142 citizens circulated by a coalition for social fairness. Unfortunately, they forgot to specify to whom the petition was being addressed, by saying: ``We pray that the House of Commons will withdraw the bill''. They were opposed to the bill, but they forgot the words ``House of Commons''. Therefore, the petition is out of order, but I pledged to give it to whom it may concern, so, at the end of my speech, I will deliver it to the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development, because this is very important.
This morning, I tabled a petition signed by MIL Davie workers, who were hit very hard. As you know, MIL Davie is the largest private company in the Quebec City region. I looked at the impact the bill would have on these workers. Assuming that, this year, the unemployment rate and the number of jobless remain the same as in the last five years, the impact will amount to $884,280. This is
just for these workers. However, after five years, because of the recurrent effect, the shortfall for these workers from the Lévis region, who have to feed their family and buy goods and groceries, will be close to $1.4 million. People seem to forget this.
Last year, 59,000 people received unemployment insurance benefits in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region. These benefits totalled $586,064,393. This is a lot of money. Using the percentage set by the government itself for the purpose of the reform, that is 10 per cent when fully implemented, it means a shortfall of $58 million, almost $60 million, for the Quebec City region. This will have an impact on corner store owners, but also on automobile dealers.
(1535)
It will have an impact on everyone, not just the families affected. For the province as a whole, the total economic impact of this reform when fully implemented will be an annual shortfall of $534 million, or a 10 per cent reduction.
When Liberal members rise in this House, I systematically ask them if they realize that this annual shortfall will amount to $105 million in Newfoundland, $116 million in Prince Edward Island, $63 million in Nova Scotia, $72 million in New Brunswick. In Quebec, as I said, the shortfall will be $534 million per year, in addition to some $700 million lost through Bill C-17. In other words, the Liberal government will deprive Quebecers of an annual amount of $1.2 billion in the coming years. The annual shortfall will be $380 million in Ontario, $31 million in Manitoba, $26 million in Saskatchewan, $93 million in Alberta, as for British Columbia-I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat, a region of Alberta close to B.C.-it will be $240 million.
So, based on the government's own figures, we are talking about a total of $1.56 billion. Observers say that, on the contrary, it is over $2 billion.
There is also an impact on industries, some of which are more affected than others. In forestry, 14 per cent less; in agriculture, 12 per cent less; in manufacturing, 9 per cent less; in construction, 9 per cent less; in transportation, 8 per cent less; in the hotel industry, 8 per cent less; in mining, 7 per cent less; in government services, because of cutbacks, 7 per cent less; in real estate, 6 per cent less; in business, 6 per cent less; in finance, etc., 5 per cent less, and so on. No sector will benefit from the reform.
What is scandalous about this is that members across the way got themselves elected under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, the very one who wrote a letter on March 26, 1993 denouncing as scandalous the bill the Conservatives wanted to pass. He objected, he found it unjust. I say to him, that this bill he presented before the House is also unjust, regressive and poverty creating.
And if they think that it is only the Bloc Quebecois that is against this bill, the results of a survey appeared in Le Devoir today,
indicating Quebecers' views on the issue. The article is entitled: ``75 per cent of Quebecers for patriation of unemployment insurance''. But they are against the effects of the measures announced.
The Bloc Quebec is here to represent the interests of Quebec and also, as the official opposition, of all Canadians. And we feel we have people's support.
The member for Mercier gave the Minister of Human Resources Development 40,000 protest postcards from people throughout Quebec. We do not feel alone. The newspaper says that the member for Mercier found a closed door. The minister was not there, just as he was not there last week for people who had travelled 14 hours by bus to meet with him here in Ottawa. No minister wanted to meet with them. No minister, not even the Prime Minister, wanted to meet with them.
All this is to tell you in the few minutes I have that Quebec, and not just Quebec, but people from the maritimes, as well as 80 per cent of people who submitted briefs were against UI reform.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I have a comment on what the hon. member across the floor has just said.
I would like to comment on employment insurance and women. The bill before the House this afternoon is one which eliminates the 15 hour-week gimmick. In order to avoid having to contribute to unemployment insurance, certain employers keep their part time employees under 15 hours a week.
The new system, based on hours worked, will eliminate that invisible limit. In the new system as well, employers will have fewer reasons to limit their part time workers' hours, because all hours worked will be insurable under the system.
(1540)
It must be remembered also that women make up the bulk of such workers, 69 per cent in fact. When it comes to women and employment insurance, we wanted to extend the protection offered to all part time workers. It must also be kept in mind that of the 270,000 women working part time in Canada, only 204,000 will be entitled to a refund of their contributions.
It is also worth mentioning that many women in this country hold down more than one job. They do so simply because they are not eligible for employment insurance, since they work fewer than 15 hours a week.
Another important point is that the monies paid out in employment insurance support measures will assist more than 180,000 women here in this country to find work.
My question is as follows. The hon. member opposite has made a comment about this bill being regressive in nature, and about its
creating joblessness. Does he not recognize that this bill represents a certain equity toward women?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The member's timing is perfect. I know that, in a speech she will be making soon, the hon. member for Québec will have the opportunity to give him this information. It is true that the majority of unsure part time jobs-70 per cent-are held by women, but some are also held by young people. What should be remembered is that, in theory, they will be able to qualify, but in practice, exactly the opposite will happen.
I will explain to the member who usually understands things pretty well. This is what will happen. It is true that some employers did as the hon. member said, but there will be a change of behaviour on their part. Before, they did not pay premiums for employees who worked 15 hours or less. Now that they will have to pay premiums, what will happen? They will prefer making permanent employees work overtime instead of paying premiums.
It must be remembered that the bill is a bit like Robin Hood in reverse. This bill lowers the ceiling of insurable earnings from $42,380 to $39,000, so that employers will be inclined to ask those employees to work overtime and there will be less work for part time employees. This is the opposite of what was intended.
As for the statistics, according to projections made by a number of experts in the field, 25 per cent of women working part time for more than 15 hours per week will be dropped from the system because the number of hours is being raised. In order to qualify, a person in my region would now have to work 17 hours and a half per week for 26 weeks. Before, the number of hours required was much less.
People are being eliminated. At least 25 per cent of people are going to be dropped from the system. Only an additional 5 per cent will be covered. The difference then is minus 20 per cent. This are real figures, these are the department's figures. These are not made-up figures, they are not juggled up. These are the figures from the department.
If this bill is so good, how is it that, last Sunday, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, said-after a thorough study-that it was discriminating against women and young people? They even wondered if they should not go to court to condemn the discriminatory nature of this legislation, given that the two groups most affected by these changes are the women and young people.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although I was born in the Saguenay region, I am the member for Québec. I am happy to be able to express my views on this bill again today. I can say that I am happy to be able to express my views on this bill, but I am not so happy about what this government is getting ready to vote on.
Let me tell you why I am not so happy about this bill. This bill will penalize a great many people in my riding. I am thinking, for example, of the artists, the women and the people in my riding who are currently unemployed. Some of the people in my riding live below the poverty line; in some parts of my riding, 50 per cent of the population live below the poverty line.
(1545)
So I can say that artists and seasonal workers in my riding, including those working in the tourist industry, will be penalized by this bill.
I am also thinking of the young people and women in my riding. I know that there are many single mothers and young people in my riding who are currently unemployed.
This bill also creates overlap and duplication, despite the fine promises in the throne speech. As recently as yesterday, Mr. Chrétien, the Prime Minister said that he might take steps to end federal encroachment in areas of provincial jurisdiction. More fine promises. They made a commitment in the throne speech, but they do not even have the courage to do so in a bill like the one now under consideration.
I am not happy either about the criteria being tightened. Yet, the government is able to keep $5 billion in the UI fund, even though it no longer pays a single penny into it.
I think this is a bad bill that will penalize a lot of people. It does not take into consideration the labour market reality, the economic situation and the fact that jobs are precarious. This bill also completely disregards the Quebec people's desire to repatriate manpower training.
According to a SONDAGEM survey just released 75 per cent of the people want Quebec to administer the unemployment insurance program. Seventy per cent were of the opinion that occupational training should also come under provincial jurisdiction. That is not coming from us, but from the people, who happen to think like us. This government does not respect the wishes of Quebecers.
Mr. Nault: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Neither do you, my hon. friend opposite. But when you speak, I listen to what you have to say.
This is a bad bill because it will make the number of welfare recipients swell in Quebec and perhaps in Canada as well. This bill does not take this reality into account. In fact, the President of the Treasury Board boasted that, when the Quebec government brought its budget down, the federal government would be able to say that
only the Canadian government can provide the required social safety net.
That is what makes me say that the number of welfare recipients in Quebec will swell as a result of this bill. Who will bear the brunt of this? The provinces of course, and Quebec in particular. Especially since cuts have been made in the Canada social transfer as well. Some may have forgotten, but I will repeat it for the benefit of those listening to what I have to say, cuts to the Canada social transfer will also reduce funding for welfare.
This is a bad bill because it will drive people down poverty lane even faster than before. It is a punitive bill, penalizing the unemployed. They are being made to pay for the fact that jobs are precarious. I will tell you why in a moment.
What a shame that I do not have more than ten minutes to speak on this bill, because many people will be penalized by a great many aspects of this bill.
At the same time, the bill gives presents to certain people: employers and those employees who hold a job and earn more than $39,000. These employees will no longer have to pay premiums, which would otherwise amount to $900 million. What impact will this measure have? Employees earning $39,000 will work overtime because no employer will want to hire part time or occasional employees for whom they would have to pay employer contributions to the UI fund. This is therefore a bad bill.
(1550)
I am going to tell you why it is a bad bill. It is bad because 77 per cent of women have part time jobs and 31 per cent of these jobs are held by women working fewer than 15 hours. We know that, with this bill, those working fewer than 15 hours will have to pay premiums, but will not be able to qualify.
It is a well known fact that one way of governing is to go after the public for more money. It is therefore a bad bill because women earn $25,000 and less. It is a bad bill because they will double their hours of work and those working part time will not be able to qualify.
When women who have children or leave the labour market for a prolonged period want to return on a part time basis, they still have to put in much more time and will still not be able to qualify.
Although the Secretary of State for the Status of Women has told us that this is an equitable and inclusive bill, the tightening of criteria leads us to expect the contrary. Fewer people will qualify, and they will receive much less money and many fewer weeks of benefits.
A UN rapporteur said that violence is a social problem rooted in the inequality between the sexes. I bring this to your attention today because I know that the government has boasted that it has a strategic plan on equality between the sexes and that this plan will be implemented in all departments. I think that they have got off to a bad start. The Minister of Human Resources Development is passing a bill that will run counter to the economic interests of women.
I also wanted to point out that artists in my riding will suffer. In a letter addressed to this same Minister of Human Resources Development, the Conseil de la culture de Québec said that it was a bad bill because artists' work is seasonal and this will aggravate their economic conditions. There will therefore be an important loss of income for dancers, given the contractual and seasonal nature of their work.
Why? For three reasons: eligibility is based on the number of hours worked; the length of the benefit period is linked to the weeks immediately preceding the last week worked; and an intensity rule has been added. We know that when women and seasonal workers, including artists and people working in the tourist industry, apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance, because of the precarious nature of their employment, they will lose 1 per cent a year over five years.
If this is a good bill, why did 40,000 people sign a petition condemning it? Why did the Fédération des femmes du Québec and other groups representing women in Canada condemn this bill? Why did 75 per cent of those who submitted briefs to the committee with suggestions for this minister and the people who are going to pass this bill today say they were against it?
It is a pity, and I hope that this government will pay the price one day.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the hon. member for Quebec does not mention in her remarks that part II of the bill lays out very clearly the five major employment tools that will be used with the consent of the provinces, in this case the province of Quebec.
(1555 )
I want to ask her a very specific question relating to seasonal workers and part time workers. The member has said over and over again that part time workers are worse off.
Under this bill, some 18,000 people in Quebec who fall outside the old UI system will now be eligible for unemployment insurance under this system. For the first time in the history of this program these people will qualify because they are part timers. They are women, students and low income Canadians. If a person is working part time, they are not making a whole lot of money. These folks are eligible.
Why does the member continue to say that this bill excludes people under the system when the facts show that 18,000 Quebecers will benefit, going to the hourly based system from the week system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague, who is preparing to vote in favour of this bad bill, has not got a very accurate handle on the reality of part time work. Let me take the example of someone who holds down two part time jobs in order to qualify and then finds this is no longer possible, because the hours do not suit, or because, if a woman, her household duties do not allow.
Mr. Nault: That's the best you can do?
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): You asked me a question and I am going to answer, but listen. I will speak up a bit. These people will not be able to qualify because they will have dropped one of their two jobs. That is the McJob syndrome. It is quite obvious that the hon. member has a full time job.
Let me tell you that a number of people in Quebec and, I am happy to say, elsewhere in Canada have objected to this bill, specifically as it relates to part time workers. It is obvious that the hon. member has not had to live with such working conditions on a daily basis, and his contempt and lack of understanding are equally obvious.
When 75 per cent of people have come out against this bill, I think some of them must be right. Therefore-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, begging your pardon, but my colleague from Québec has not had her ten minutes, for I stopped at ten minutes to the hour. Moreover, and I do not know if you will accept this argument, she was constantly heckled by the parliamentary secretary, who showed his contempt for the unemployed, the victims of unemployment.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the time was already several minutes past the limit. If the House is unanimous in extending her time, that can be done, but it is the unfortunate duty of the Speaker to cut people off from time to time. I have not done the calculation, but I believe enough time has been allowed for asking and responding to the question.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this debate is proving to be about how the different parties in the House see the future.
It shows this government is putting even more tools in place to help Canadians get the jobs of today's economy as part of its commitment to a productive jobs strategy.
It shows we have found an appropriate middle course in this key labour market area between the unrealistic claims of the official opposition, and the narrow policies of the third party.
It shows this government is committed to a respect for, and partnerships with, other governments that will work far better than the old top-down solutions. We are determined to work with others to do more to put unemployed people back to work.
(1600)
In my comments in this debate, I want to focus on what these factors mean in Quebec. There are two main issues: training and employment benefits and measures. I will address both.
The federal government understands that its strategy to foster economic growth and job creation depends on having a highly skilled, mobile and adaptable workforce. Employment insurance provides, through partnership with provinces and the private sector, a range of active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians find and keep work.
We want them to have access to effective re-employment measures-ones that get people jobs quickly. Ones that reduce future demands on income benefits under employment insurance.
The goal is to provide practical, proven measures that will help Canadians get back to work quickly, and keep working. The old system is not good enough in today's economy. Quebec shares these interests. On November 27, 1995, the Prime Minister stated our intention with complete clarity.
Let me remind the House of his words when he spoke about employment insurance. ``The Government of Canada will propose an approach that respects provincial jurisdiction and responsibilities in the fields of education and labour market training. Accordingly, the government of Canada will withdraw from labour market training, apprenticeship programs, co-operative education programs and workplace based training. It will no longer purchase training courses, either directly or indirectly, from provincial establishments, either public or private''.
Our government repeated this commitment in the throne speech of February 27. It promised once more that it would gradually withdraw from this sector within three years, so that there will be a smooth transition for all those involved. I fact, we will bring that process to a conclusion much sooner if this is what the provinces want.
This was not a hollow commitment. It is backed up by the approach to active employment benefits in Bill C-12. To hear some hon. members talk, one would think they still do not know this. One would think they had not read the bill. Let me help them.
For example, this bill expressly limits the federal capacity to implement the skills loans and grants employment benefits to those provinces in which that government agrees. If Quebec says no, then there would be no such activity for employment insurance clients in Quebec.
Part II of Bill C-12 also commits the government of Canada to work in concert with Quebec and other provincial governments on the design, implementation and evaluation of employment measures for employment insurance clients. Those measures include wage subsidies, earnings supplements, self employment assistance and job creation partnerships. We want to develop flexible new arrangements for the delivery of employment benefits.
That flexibility extends to the use of provincial programs to assist employment insurance clients. What does this mean? Quite simply, it means that the Quebec government could deliver any or all of these employment benefits to employment insurance clients. It could do so through its own existing programs, with support from the federal government, as long as those programs meet the objectives set out in part II of this bill and are broadly similar to the measures outlined in the legislation.
Federal guidelines will be followed in the deveopment and implementation of the employment measures: harmonization of programs to prevent overlap and duplication, programs that reduce dependency on income benefits, and emphasis on personal responsibility, co-operation and partnership, flexibility to allow local decision-making, and a framework for evaluating results.
The key, of course, is results, that is getting Canadians back to work quickly.
(1605)
We believe that our approach based on partnership with provinces will ensure that every dollar spent, is spent in a way that is linked to local labour market priorities. We believe it will ensure value for the money we spend to help our clients improve their employability.
In Quebec, as elsewhere, we are determined to translate these commitments and objectives into results. This government is doing so by negotiating a series of labour market agreements with provincial governments. These arrangements could vary from province to province to meet local circumstances and needs.
We are putting turf wars behind us-and concentrating on getting Canadians back to work. And, let us be very clear about this, the federal government has responsibilities. It cannot ignore them.
It has a responsibility to the millions of workers and employers accross Canada who fund the employment insurance program and who share the risks of unemployment in a way that works for Quebecers' advantage.
It has a responsibility to manage this program in the best interests of the Canadian economy and a labour market with national elements and needs. It has a responsibility to this House to be able to track and provide it the information it needs on activities under this act.
It has a responsibility to ensure that every dollar that is earmarked for the employment benefits of employment insurance clients is used for precisely that purpose and used effectively.
In general, the conditions that I have mentioned are simply ones that recognize that EI contributors from across this country are entitled to expect results and to get their money's worth.
New agreements would ensure more effective help for the unemployed, reduce overlap and duplication and promote coherence and harmonization in federal and provincial programs.
Let me quote Mr. Ghislain Dufour on this issue: ``In this regard, our federation of employers welcomes the reform proposals to harmonize federal and provincial programs and to allow provinces to make administrative arrangements with the federal government in order to administer these programs fully''.
Mr. Dufour recognizes this is a good opportunity for both levels of government. Part II respects the legitimate constitutional jurisdictions of each government, and is fair and reasonable.
The door is open to an agreement that can move both governments closer to our shared goal of better employment opportunities for people in Quebec. Bill C-12 will put that process fully in motion. I urge the members of the official opposition to support this opportunity.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest and surprise, especially since, this morning, the daily Le Devoir published the results of a poll on Quebecers' opinion of the unemployment insurance reform.
Let us look at a few results. The first is that 75 per cent of Quebecers support moving the unemployment insurance program to Quebec. Those opposing the reform account for 59.8 per cent; those in favour, 27.5 per cent. Some 79 per cent of Quebecers believe the reform will benefit the government first. The reduction in benefits to the unemployed is opposed by 72.3 per cent of people, and the reduction in the benefits entitlement period is opposed by 66 per cent.
How can the member ask the opposition to support the government's motion, when it is very obvious that it goes totally against the grain of all the people of Quebec? There is a clear majority. Furthermore, 73 per cent of people have heard about the reform.
We cannot assume today that this is the opinion of professional agitators. We cannot assume either that we are talking about experts in negotiations or union people. This is the public opinion of Quebecers in general, who are concerned about this issue, who have analyzed the reform, who have looked into the possible effects of the reform, who have seen that the reform will penalize seasonal workers and who are totally opposed to it.
(1610)
Had the same poll been taken in the maritime provinces, I think that the Liberal members who are all set to vote for this bill would see the major impact it will have on the results of the next election. All the members from the maritimes who got elected on a platform of ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' and who, today, will vote in favour of this bill will come up against the same kind of disapproval on the part of their voters as the one clearly identified in the poll taken in Quebec.
That being so, I would like the hon. member to tell us why we should implement a reform that will only have adverse consequences, resulting in drastic changes to regional economies, when no buffers have been put in place. There are no measures designed to boost the economy and to diversify regional economies. It is a bit like this guy who drove an old car that burned much more oil than it should have and decided to stop adding oil in the motor instead of having the motor fixed. This is exactly what will happen to regional economies with this bill.
I would like the hon. member to tell us what good he feels will come from this reform that all Quebecers have rejected?
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He may surprised to learn that I am among the 75 per cent of Quebecers asking that responsibility over manpower training be handed over to Quebec. I am proud to be one of them and proud as well of this employment bill. That is why I urge opposition members to vote for this bill.
Regarding manpower training, that is exactly what the federal government intends to do within the next three years, as indicated in part II of Bill C-12. If the Quebec government wants these powers to be repatriated even faster, I submit that it should enter into negotiations with the Government of Canada, and I am sure that we will agree to negotiate and that these negotiations will certainly be carried out in good faith.
[English]
That, when the House adjourns on Wednesday, June 5, 1996 it shall stand adjourned until Monday, June 10, 1996;
That, on Monday, June 3, 1996 and Tuesday, June 4, 1996 the House shall continue to sit until 9.30 p.m. for the purpose of considering Government Orders, and that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up at 9:30 p.m.;
That, Wednesday, June 5, 1996 shall be deemed to be the day on which a motion may be proposed pursuant to Standing Order 27;
That, on Tuesday, June 11, 1996 the House shall not meet at 10 a.m., but shall meet 2:00 p.m. and Routine Proceedings shall take place following oral questions;
That, on the morning of June 11, 1996 the president of the United States of Mexico may address a meeting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons in the Chamber of the House of Commons;
That, such address and all customary introductory and related remarks shall be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and form part of the records of this House, and;
That the media recording and transmission of the said proceedings be authorized according to House of Commons guidelines.(Motion agreed to)