Debates of May 26th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No problem.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

May I continue, Sir? I thank you very much for your indulgence and your attention; that is very nice.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I was answering your colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I can only listen to one speech at a time. I would ask the hon. member for Terrebonne to continue.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are people for whom causing the loss of jobs or unemployment insurance benefits is not a major problem. But it is for us.

The impact on workers from eastern Canada and Quebec will then be considerable. Taking measures that penalize a specific region is dishonest and illogical. Those taxpayers pay taxes and contribute to the unemployment insurance system as much as other Canadian taxpayers. They give their share but do not get much in return.

Once again, the federal government's approach shows us the importance of acting quickly to put an end to these irregularities. A sovereign Quebec could very well administer its unemployment insurance system. The cuts, or even the savings that the federal government is trying to achieve show us how our federal system is totally absurd, with its duplication that is costing Quebecers and Canadians millions of dollars every year. The Liberals cut where it is most painful because unemployment insurance recipients will be the first victims of this economic chaos.

Let us have a look to the so-called jobs creation that is supposed to be generated by the premium reduction. At this point, the premium rate is $3.07 per $100 of income. The Liberals intend to reduce the premiums to $3.00 on January 1, 1995. It should be reminded to Quebecers and Canadians that it is the Liberals who raised and voted in December the increase from $3.00 to $3.07.

The Liberals figure that the reduction next year will result in the creation of 40,000 new jobs in 1996. There is no need for a comprhensive financial analysis to understand that there will be no job creation and that we will only maintain existing jobs. These are two very different notions that the Liberals do not seem to understand.

Let us summarize in a simple way how unemployment insurance premiums went up and down. In 1993, they were at $3.00 for every $100 of income. In 1994, they were raised to $3.07 per $100. And they were supposed to reach $3.30 per $100 by 1995.

The new plan of the government is the following: $3.00 per $100 in 1993, $3.07 in 1994 and down again $3.00 in 1995. So we are back to the rate of 1993. Logically, as said Einstein, nothing is lost and nothing is created, but the Liberals do not understand that.

That is not the way the Liberals figure it. According to them, if the previous calculation formula had been kept, we would have lost 9,000 jobs in 1994 and 31,000 others in 1995.

By bringing the premiums back to $3.00 in 1995, the Liberals figure that 9,000 jobs will be saved in 1994 and 35,000 more in 1995, for a total of 40,000 jobs created. This is totally false. As was said previously, a simple calculation gives a grand total of zero. As a matter of fact, the increase decided by the Liberals for the current year has brought a loss of 9,000 jobs. If premiums get back to their 1993 rate of $3.00, we will only recover 9,000 jobs. Quite a number! Therefore, we are not talking here about 40,000 new jobs but about 31,000 jobs protected for 1995 and 9,000 others lost the previous year but recovered.

We should not try to mislead the public with such a vain promise. People are not so easily tricked any more. We must stop offering them empty shells and address the real problems. It is true that unemployment is a serious problem in Quebec and in Canada and we must not pretend we can solve it so easily.

The government must stop believing it can be the sole source of job creation. As we said before, small and medium-sized businesses are and will remain the main source of job creation and we could reduce the unemployment rate, for example, by increasing government assistance to those employers. Everybody is eagerly awaiting the recovery but unfortunately it is a long time coming.

Through its actions, the government must show a real will to fight down the economic difficulties that people of Quebec and Canada have been facing for too many years already. The trust they put in their leaders is not unconditional and we must show our constituents that the government really wants to get the country out of this economic abyss in which it is sinking and this is not what it is doing.

They must stop making empty promises and developing legislations which have negative financial impacts on the public. They must instead show they really want to get out of this economic impasse.

You might say that we criticize without proposing any solutions. Not so. My colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has proposed amendments to Bill C-17 which could help reduce job losses.

For example, why not lower the contribution to $3 per $100 starting June 1, 1994, instead of waiting until January 1, 1995? This would mean 9,000 jobs, about 9,000 families who would not have to wait another six months. Can we afford 9,000 more unemployed? Certainly not. Do you not think that workers would prefer a salary rather than unemployment insurance payments, also reduced by Bill C-17 I might add?

To conclude, we are faced with a bill which is unacceptable for a large portion of voters. We should stop trying to make people believe that they have something to gain, where there is in fact nothing to gain. The people will not be fooled again by the government. What they want is a real economic recovery, they want real jobs. Let us proceed towards the economic upturn that the population of my riding and Quebec has been expecting for too long now.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in the debate but this morning I heard remarks by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and I could not resist the temptation to step in because of course what he said was an attempt to create a monster. He wanted to pretend that the government was a big bully boy, doing a bad thing in ramming the bill through the House.

I thought it was useful to clarify the position so that the statements made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, which were patently false, can be exposed for what they are. He knows that there have been no bullying tactics by the government on the bill. He tried to suggest the government was railroading this particular bill through the House.

As parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who has been more than fair in his dealings in all matters in respect of House business, I felt that the record should be clarified. I want to do that.

I cannot imagine where the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot got his ideas, but I can only suspect that he went through Hansard for the last few years and read speeches by the Liberal opposition in the last Parliament.

We were faced with a government that was using bully boy tactics all the time. It used closure a record number of times and time allocation a record number of times. He must have read our speeches, the only thing I can conclude, and decided he would make the same kind of speech himself at report stage of the bill because after all it is a budget bill.

The last government used closure on almost every budget bill that it introduced. We have not used closure on the bill. I want to state that for the record. There has been no time allocation on the bill. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has been given ample opportunity to express his views and he knows it. He tried to suggest otherwise this morning. That is why I am rising this afternoon: to correct the record.

Let us look at what happened and let us not bother looking back at the old Liberal speeches in the last House. Let us look at the record that has gone on in Parliament in respect of the bill.

The bill was introduced on March 16 and was called for second reading on March 25. Therefore nine days had elapsed between first and second reading. At second reading there was ample opportunity for members on all sides to read the bill and become familiar with its terms and indeed also for members of the public to obtain copies and become familiar with the terms of the bill.

The bill was called for second reading on March 25. There were a number of speakers that day. It was called again on April 11 and there were a number of speakers on that day as well. There were a number of speakers again on April 14. It was called again on April 15, when the bill was given second reading after the speeches ran out. There were no more speakers; speeches ran out on April 15.

Seventy-one speakers participated in the debate. Some members spoke twice. I for one spoke twice. There was ample opportunity again for the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and all his colleagues to make speeches on second reading of the bill. Second reading occurred on April 15 and the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance at that time.

This morning the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot suggested it was rammed through the committee in a week. It was referred to the committee on April 19-I do not know why my record is different from the last day of debate on the 15th-but it was referred at the latest by April 19 and it just came back from the committee yesterday.

Where is this week the hon. member speaks of? That sounds to me like a lot more than a week. Yesterday was May 25 and the bill went to committee on April 19. Where is the week in here? That sounds like five weeks. What happened in this case was the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot suddenly discovered there was some opposition to the bill and he had better oppose it because he had done nothing of any significance up to that time to oppose the bill.

When the bill was in committee he discovered there were some opponents to it, so what did he do? He ran back to the Hansard for the last Parliament and pulled out the speeches saying: ``What do I do now?'' He read all the precedents and said that the first thing to do was to attack the government and make it look like a bully boy.

In committee he tried to make it appear the government was a bully. He tried in the House in his speech this morning to make it appear the government was a bully. If he made it appear as though the government was a bully then maybe people would think the government was doing something wrong.

The government is not doing anything wrong. This is a normal budget bill. It was introduced in the House with notice in the budget. The minister said what the bill was going to contain. It was introduced in the House on March 16 after the budget. It has been debated extensively in the House since that time. There have been 71 speakers on the bill at second reading stage. There were extended committee hearings and there was opportunity for five weeks of hearings.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot obviously took his time in the committee. He had ample opportunity to consider the bill in committee and this morning he had the nerve to stand in this House and rant and rave, whine and whimper a lot of stuff and nonsense about the government being a bully and ramming this bill through the House. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have not heard a peep about that kind of tactic from the Reform Party because it knows better. It knows the government has behaved with perfect propriety in this matter. It knows the government has dealt honourably with the opposition in giving ample opportunity for debate at all stages of the bill.

We agreed by all-party agreement to limit debate to two days at report stage and one day at third reading. It was all-party agreement, but it is a good agreement. It is a reasonable time to debate the bill. Therefore we have all day today and all day Monday. They are long days.

At the request of the opposition, we deliberately selected long days for the debate on the bill. Instead of having it on a Friday we put it on a Monday so there would be a long debate. At report stage everyone is limited to 10-minute speeches anyway so there is plenty of time for members to express their views. There is no bullying here. This is a fair and sensible arrangement in respect of the bill.

Ample opportunity was granted at second reading. Ample opportunity was given to the Standing Committee on Finance and its subcommittee which considered the bill to review the bill.

I know the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance spent endless hours listening to complaints and whining from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot because he decided he had to oppose the bill late in the process. He has shown great patience in enduring hours of argument. I know members of the Reform Party have been subjected to the same kind of treatment, but we have all survived that.

Why continue the whining today in the House? Why not acknowledge that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot has made a good arrangement. He has had ample opportunity to express his opposition. Certainly he objects to the bill; he has reservations about it. I was in opposition once. I used to make speeches of the kind he made, but I had some reason for it.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

You did not whine.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I had some reason for it and of course I did not whine.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been speaking for the last five minutes about the way we deal with speeches, about the way we treated the people who came before the committee of the House of Commons.

He did not address the real issue, which is Bill C-17. I think he is wasting our time. He says that we are wasting our time, but in fact he is the one who is wasting our time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please! It is not really a point of order. It is rather a matter of debate.

To conclude his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost finished, anyway.

I am glad the hon. member is paying close attention to what I have to say.

I wanted to say that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has been an exemplar of patience in his dealings on the bill. I know he has put up with a great deal. I know he has bent every nerve and every muscle to assist opposition members so that they have full opportunity to debate the bill in the House and in committee. That opportunity has been granted. This government is not using bully boy tactics to get the bill through the House.

I can appreciate the hon. member has disagreement with parts of the bill. I recognize that in government sometimes tough decisions have to be made. However I respect the Minister of Finance for the decisions he has chosen to make in this case.

I believe it was the hon. member for Terrebonne who suggested it was somehow improper for the Minister of Finance to make the changes he did and he could have reduced the rate of contribution to the unemployment insurance fund on January 1 this year instead of next year. Yes, he could have. However, for financially and fiscally prudent reasons the minister chose not to do that. He chose to do it next year and I respect his decision in that regard.

Frankly, the reception the minister has received from the Canadian press and the media and indeed from the business community generally has been very positive for this budget. This is notwithstanding the cries from the Reform Party that deficit slashing did not go far enough and notwithstanding the cries from Bloc Quebecois members along the same lines. They have also complained about the lack of deficit reduction.

I see my time is running out. I could go on at length on this bill. I appreciate the opportunity to address my remarks and to explain the government's tactics in respect of this legislation.

[Gaston Péloquin, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government introduces today its Bill C-17 resulting from the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in this House a few weeks ago.

The measures respecting unemployment insurance which are contained in that bill have two purposes. First, the minister wants to get the national treasury back on a sound financial footing by taking the money out of the pockets of most unemployed in Canada. Second, he is trying to give us the illusion that this bill contains fair measures for those who have lost their jobs.

The minister must have performed numerous legislative contortions in order to meet the two targets he had set himself. You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-17, as most of the initiatives that this government has introduced in this House since the beginning of its mandate, lacks cohesion and consistency, which is the least one can say.

The Liberals have always bragged about being the ones who had introduced social programs in Canada and who have really promoted them.

How many times during the last campaign have we heard them speak about the importance of preserving the integrity of these programs? God knows that they rent their clothes in public, when they were in the opposition! At that time, nothing seemed more important than our social programs. Every single time that the Conservatives dared propose any minor amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Liberals were quick to once again defend the Canadian social safety net.

The current Prime Minister of Canada was seeing himself as the Canadian Robin Hood, great protector of widows and orphans, always ready to come to the rescue of the poorest of the poor. At the time, he kept stressing the importance for Canada to clearly distinguish itself from the United States and kept saying that the best way to do so was to maintain the quality of the social programs provided to Canadians. The unemployment insurance seemed then to be on the list of programs sacred to our friend Robin.

But the noble philosophy of our Liberal companions seems to have changed dramatically since they came to office. It appears that the new Minister of Finance had no difficulty in taking over the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham which I must admit, seems to be made for him.

As insensitive and ruthless as the famous character of the legend, not only has he continued to grossly overtax Canadians, he has also decided to attack without mercy the most vulnerable among us: the elderly and the unemployed.

With bill C-17, the rate of UI benefits drops from 57 to 55 per cent of insurable income.

The very first goal that the Minister of Finance had set for himself when he tabled the budget has been achieved. We will save money on the backs of the unemployed and the deficit will be partly paid by those who are basically victims of the federal government'a mismanagement of public funds.

It is certainly not by choice that some find themselves in the difficult situation of the unemployed. The problem is rooted in the federal employment policies of the last 30 years. The lack of any long term vision in areas like job training is the only factor responsible for the precariousness of employment.

The minister's second goal was to create the illusion that his proposed measures were equitable and progressive. So, he decided to provide relief to 15 per cent of those affected by his bill. Thus, he is increasing the benefit rate of low-income unemployed with dependents from 57 to 60 per cent. As if Canadians were too stupid to realize that the government is taking away millions of dollars from the unemployed only to give hand-outs to a select few. The relief promised by the minister is only an illusion and we did not buy it this time. Canadians, and especially Quebecers, are no longer fooled.

Last year, the Prime Minister kept repeating that Canadians were lucky because they could benefit from social programs. He kept saying how envious Americans were of our social security system. Perhaps he should be reminded that, in several American States, unemployment insurance benefits are approximately 50 per cent of average insurable earnings. By cutting the rate from 57 to 55 per cent for most claimants, the Liberals are doing precisely what they always said the Conservatives were doing: bringing our standard of living more and more in line with that of the Americans. There is really nothing to brag about, Mr. Speaker.

The situation here is becoming dangerously similar to that in the United States and the Liberals have done nothing about it since they came into office. Bill C-17 is but one example among many of the lack of respect this government has for the people. Our national Robin Hood has lost a lot of his prestige since being put in charge of the Canadian Sherwood Forest.

Indeed, up to now, the Liberals have reneged on so many of their election promises and taken so many measures that contradict their traditional philosophy that Canadians and Quebecers came to see the government as a very little Little John.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before 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 Yukon-Trade; the hon. member for London-Middlesex-Food labelling; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-Pacific salmon treaty.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to this bill and I would like to ask some questions in this House. For example, what is an unemployed person?

In my riding of Matapédia-Matane, an unemployed person is someone who does not want to be unemployed. It is someone who wants to work. I find that the Liberal infrastructure program is a joke, because it does not provide work in our area, or so little.

In my riding, we decided to seek out our own solutions. We made incredible efforts, but we still have many unemployed persons who are receiving UI benefits. It is not because they want to receive benefits. It is because they are forced to be unemployed, and I will tell you why. We live far away from large centres, like Quebec City, Montreal and of course Toronto. A lot of things are going to Toronto.

In my riding, it is very hard to organize further processing, which means that everything we produce materially, physically, goes outside the region. So economic activity is of course very seasonal. People would love to have second or third stage processing. We have been asking for it forever, but we are told that since transportation is so costly, we cannot have second or third stage processing.

In our area, we have wood. Last year, we were declared forestry capital of Canada. It was marvellous. But when it comes to the second or third stage of processing-such as lobster traps or snow fences-we cannot even do that in our region. You want to know why? Because transportation costs are too high. It means that we have to ship the whole lot to be processed outside. But people want to work.

Do you know what we have done in my area? We decided to band together and set up what we called Operation Dignity. It involved people who took matters into their own hands, who did incredible things, investing all their energy and even their money to achieve something. With the first Operation Dignity, we managed to create a few jobs, but it was not enough. So, what did we do? We formed grassroots movements, marched in the streets, rattled the governments a little and finally got certain things. It was not much, though. To create a few jobs we had to expend a lot of energy.

And now what is the Liberal government proposing to do? People in my riding have tried very hard, setting up development corporations where owners would get together to create jobs. They would share their woodlots, telling others to come and work on their woodlots, which they did. It worked, but now we are wondering if this will continue, if they will be generous enough-you must invest in forestry-if they will give us our fair share, a share we can claim as our own with great dignity. We are not even sure if the Canada-Quebec program, the federal-provincial agreements will be renewed.

For us, they mean employment, but we cannot even be sure that the program will be renewed in the east. For people living in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, an increase of two weeks-from 10 to 12 weeks-in the qualifying period may not be too significant, but for those living in our region, two weeks can be an incredibly long period of time. Winters in our part of the country are long. When I left Matapédia and reached Montmagny, the trees were just starting to bud. Here, the Tulip Festival is under way, when back home, the tulips are not yet in bloom. The natural resources committee was planning to cancel, if it has not already done so, its scheduled visit to my riding, supposedly because the logging roads were still snow-covered. That is not quite true and I was rather angry that they would consider cancelling their visit, ostensibly for this reason.

The season is quite short in our region. And when this is the case, one or two weeks can make a big difference as far as unemployment is concerned. It could mean ten additional weeks of benefits. That is what is absurd. Everyone says that Canada is a vast, beautiful country. However, I find it quite sad that disparities exist. One another point we need to consider is that each region is unique. Companies have come and created jobs. In the forestry sector, the federal-provincial agreement is based on a 50/50 arrangement.

And now, it seems we are not sure if we are going to renew this agreement, the Eastern Development Plan, for another five years. What does that mean? It means that we are constantly living in a state of uncertainty.

The situation is terrible at home. Elsewhere in Canada, it may not be so bad, but I am talking about the area I know best, and I can tell you that the situation back home is terrible. Can the members opposite realize that going from 10 to 12 weeks, to use only that example, can have more serious consequences in my area that elsewhere in the country?

Things are even worse in the Magdalen Islands. The fishermen have a highly seasonal job and work only for six to seven weeks. Sometimes, for ten weeks maximum. In their case, however much we try, whatever we come up with, if we cannot keep them working for a bit longer, what do we do?

If people cannot work for 12 weeks in the Magdalen Islands, what are they going to do? They will have to rely on income security. In other words, the federal government is transferring the problem to the provinces and having them pay for it all. Is that what equalization is all about? I really wonder, I hope not.

Back home, if we go from 57 per cent to 55 per cent, it is almost a tragedy. If people took to the streets for Operation Rural Dignity and for the Ralliement populaire, what are they going to do now?

I do not advocate violence at any time. I want the people to stay calm, but I know tension is high and I hope that members opposite will understand that, in some areas in Canada and in Quebec, something needs to be done, if not, I do not know what will happen. When there is no food on the table, what is left for you to do? What is next?

Patience, of course. You can always try to create your own job, of course. But maybe there is something else that can be done, something for the members opposite to do.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to support the amendments by my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup dealing with the premium increases. Of course, he wants to come back to the previous level of premiums for the workers as well as for the businesses.

I also support the amendments by my colleague for Mercier, who is afraid that the Minister of Human Resources Development will use the Unemployment Insurance Bill to increase his power over regions where pilot projects will be implemented.

That is why she suggests that these amendments or clauses be at least approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. There is also the amendment by my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe, who naturally proposes to delete clause 28. For the benefit of our audience, clause 28 has to do with the number of weeks one will now have to work to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

I want to remind members that this bill reduces the benefit period, increases the qualifying period and reduces the benefits from 57 to 55 per cent of the claimant's average weekly insurable earnings.

The role of a member of Parliament is to represent the opinion of his or her constituents, among other things. Like my colleague from Matapédia, I met with many people over the last few months and I will use the testimony of those people who came to my constituency office in the riding of Lévis to tell me why they were opposed to these cuts in the unemployment insurance program. They are very significant cuts, $1.3 billion a year. That is $300 million more than the infrastructure project that the government intends to implement in cooperation with the municipalities and the provincial governments. By the way, if there is a level of government for which this job creation program will be less costly, it is the federal government since it will be able to recoup part of its investment through income tax and GST revenues.

But I do not want to stray away from the subject, which is unemployment insurance. So, $1.3 billion in cuts is very significant. What are my constituents telling me? First of all, I will tell you about an important group, the workers of MIL Davie. Some members opposite are smiling, but I can assure you that there is no reason to smile. The members opposite should listen instead of smiling. They do not bother to listen and they keep laughing when we deal with the plight of hundreds of workers at MIL Davie. The workforce there was 3,000 strong last year, but the number of workers is down to only 1,200 now and should drop to a mere 700 or 800 in the coming weeks. The very survival of the MIL Davie shipyard is in jeopardy. Why? Because, among other things, the Minister of Industry, as he confirmed today, does not intend to implement new programs to help military industries convert to civil production.

The government turns a deaf ear to MIL Davie concerning the Magdalen Islands ferry. It turns a deaf ear concerning the smart ship too, when it could help this industry which gave jobs to 3,000 workers last year. When the Liberal Party was writing and publicizing its red book, there were 3,000 workers there when the Prime Minister came to meet them one week before the end of the election campaign. He told them he would look after the shipyard. What did he do? Nothing. In that same campaign, the present Prime Minister said during the leaders' debate that he did not intend to cut social programs. What does he do now? Through Bill C-17, he slashes $1.3 billion in the unemployment insurance program. So much for the MIL Davie workers.

Construction workers also fell on hard times; they are still going through hard times. They experience seasonal unemployment. They came to my riding office, and to those of all members in my area, including that of the Prime Minister, to tell him that this situation is intolerable.

The situation is problematic in the construction industry. Some degree of security is required. Unemployment insurance provided that security. Now it is being cut. At the time, jobs were created through the job development program which was funded in part by UI funds. Hundreds of organizations in Quebec and Canada are waiting for an answer from the government in

the form of job development programs. Months have gone by and they are still waiting.

You know, not all the blame lays with this government. Just before the election, the previous government had emptied the tills of the job development program and incurred commitments that carried over into the current fiscal year. What does this government do? It announces a social program reform sometimes used to cover up a certain lack of decisiveness, but pilot projects are supposedly essential. As far as youth programs are concerned, I am the youth spokesman and young people have told me how precarious their situation is in Quebec, with 19 per cent of workers between the ages of 20 and 24 out of a job. That is 19 per cent. In Canada, 400,000 young people are unemployed and, during that time, the government introduces bills to tell them to study longer at the price of getting further into debt. UI benefit rates are reduced while the qualifying period is extended. At some point, young people who got jobs best described as menial, sometimes a combination of part-time jobs found here and there, find themselves incapable of meeting the UI entrance requirement. What are they facing then? Welfare.

What are they offering? The Youth Service Corps. After starting at $61 a week in the fall, 2,500 young Canadians will see their weekly salary rise to $150. They then dare to cut unemployment insurance.

When this government was in opposition, they fought with the former Minister of Employment whom I can name, Mr. Valcourt-

[An hon. member]

He was incompetent.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Yes, he was incompetent but you are doing what he did and worse. You are following in the previous government's footsteps. You continue to reduce the number of weeks of benefits while you increase, let rise or implement the planned premium hikes.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You are shouting.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Yes, I am shouting, sir, because the situation is troubling and tragic. This is no time to laugh while there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who are now listening to us and who are suffering. That is what we hear from the people in our ridings.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I understand that this is a very important subject, which leads to a lively debate. All the same, I would like to give the floor for the few minutes that remain to the hon. member for Lévis.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I not only seem indignant, I am indignant about the insensitivity now being shown to the poorest people in our society. These are not people who go to cocktails or to social activities to which members of Parliament are invited and which I attend as little as possible but only when I believe it is useful for making representations.

Meanwhile, these people's purchasing power is declining. It is not a trivial thing. Purchasing power to do what? To pay rent, buy food, get what their children need to go to school. Every day in my riding, my region, the Quebec City region, the Lower Town of Quebec, I see people who did not go and have a good time on the weekend, hundreds of families that sometimes are on their last week before they go on welfare. They are worried about what they will eat. We should not laugh. We must act. I think that when the government wanted to reform social programs, it should have sent another message, one of hope, not a message of lower spending on social programs, but a plan for work-

[An hon. member]

Jobs, jobs, jobs!

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

But we are still waiting for your jobs!

Mr. Speaker, I will not let myself be provoked by that. I will calm down and ask this government, while it is still time, to make C-17 consistent with the positions it took when it was in opposition and to be sensitive also to what thousands of workers did on May 1 in various large cities in this country.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have only just begun to prepare this speech, I will rely on you to stop me if I run over my time.

While Bill C-17 contains parts which are acceptable to me, I would have preferred that the government had introduced separate bills for each act for which it is suggesting changes. In particular, I would have preferred the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act to be a separate bill.

As we know the government's budget proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program. We support the direction of the changes, the reduction in benefits, the increases in the qualifying period and the reduction in the employer premiums. However we in the Reform Party feel that the government did not go far enough.

The proposed changes or amendments could have gone much further. This is a good time to state that the Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss.

Is that not the purpose of such a program? Should it not be a self-sustainable program? Is it supposed to serve a purpose? Yes, it is supposed to serve a purpose; unexpected job loss, unplanned job loss. Yet in Canada we have seasonal workers who go on unemployment every year like clock work.

If the Canadian economy were flush, if it were abundant in a surplus of tax dollars unused and needing or waiting for a recipient, okay, great. Then perhaps we could understand this abuse of our tax dollars. We all know that the premiums paid through the unemployment insurance plan do not even begin to cover the cost of our current program.

However the program is not working as it was set out to work, as a sincere and caring effort to help those in need who through perhaps no fault of their own were suddenly without a job and therefore income. Those people pay into the unemployment insurance plan in good faith, hoping it is there for them if they ever need it.

The unemployment insurance act was first passed in 1940 and has been amended many times. When it began in 1941 UI was limited to full time wage earners. Part time workers as well as salaried employees with high pay and good job security were excluded. The subsequent history of the plan has been its step by step expansion to include high risk seasonal workers as well as low risk workers, civil servants and teachers. About 90 per cent of Canadian workers are now included although MPs and senators have not chosen to include themselves, yet.

Particularly noteworthy were the reforms undertaken by the Liberal government in 1971 when Bryce Mackasey was the responsible minister. Mr. Mackasey made UI much more generous and introduced regionally extended and maternity benefits.

Subsequent studies and reforms have tried to undo the damage but progress has been limited. The Conservative government appointed the Forget commission in 1985 but did not have the courage to act upon its excellent report. The changes made by the Tories in 1990, higher contributions, stiffer conditions for eligibility and directing some benefits to job training were in the right direction but far from sufficient.

How should unemployment insurance be reformed?

Decades of politically inspired manipulation have produced grave defects in the Canadian unemployment insurance program and system. It is discriminatory. The combination of regional entrance requirements and regionally extended benefits means that claimants are treated more generously in regions of the country where the unemployment rate is higher.

The result is unfair inequality between individuals. Simply by living in a certain place, one person may be entitled to far greater UI benefits than another even though both have contributed equally to the plan.

It increases unemployment. After the Liberals reformed UI in 1971, the Canadian plan became the most generous in the world. Overly generous benefits create what economists call induced unemployment. In plain English, people are tempted to slow down their job search to take maximum advantage of their benefits.

It creates despondency and dependency, for one certainly brings on the other. When one can work 10 weeks and collect UI benefits for 40 weeks there is little incentive to switch to a more stable employment. Extending UI to fishermen and other seasonal workers has had the perverse effect of encouraging workers to remain in declining industries. It has become an inefficient income support plan rather than social insurance.

Politicians have loaded so many special features on to the UI, regional preference, coverage of seasonal workers, benefits for pregnancy, child birth and adoption and so on, that the original purpose of providing temporary income in case of unforeseeable and unintentional job loss has been lost.

These and other problems of UI have been pointed out in several studies, most notably the one I have just mentioned, the Forget commission appointed by the Conservatives in 1985 when they first came to power. The Conservatives lacked the courage to do what all impartial students of UI agree needs to be done; namely, reform the system so that it treats people equally, bring benefits into line with those paid in other countries and stop using UI to subsidize seasonal industries. Rather, stand up to the entrenched special interests.

The Tories conveniently decided to forget Forget. The Reform policy, in contrast, is to make UI a sensible, sustainable program of social insurance. As with all social programs, reform will be undertaken prudently with due regard to the expectations that people have been led to develop. It would be desirable to phase in reform of UI at a high point of the business cycle when unemployment is relatively low.

To finish and sum up, the Reform Party will return unemployment insurance to its original and basically sound purpose of providing temporary income in case of unexpected job loss.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, you said this was a very important debate. I think you are absolutely right.

Just now I listened to the parliamentary secretary who said that since March 15, there had been very extensive debates during which people had plenty of time to express their views. He is right. There was a lot of debate and a lot of consultation in committee. This went on for a long time. We heard testimony from business and the unemployed. The committee even travelled across Canada to hear people's views. The government, however, failed to act on what it heard. And that is what is so unfortunate.

Today, we are told there was a lot of consultation, a lot of debate. Of course there was, but this afternoon they were saying there had been more than enough debate and that we had to vote on this bill as soon as possible. That is not playing fair. It is unfair and misleading to tell the public that there was a lot of consultation. Oh, yes, there was, but no one was listening. Recommendations were ignored, and that is the problem.

To Quebecers, these measures are quite a shock.

We have an unemployment rate of 12.6 per cent, while the Canadian average is 11 per cent. This means that there are 1.6 per cent more unemployed than in the rest of Canada.

It means we have more unemployment, and reducing the number of benefit weeks means reducing the amount of money the federal government invests in Quebec. This means it will be up to Quebec to support people when their unemployment insurance runs out, and Quebec will spend millions of dollars more as a result of this measure.

And that is also why we are in no hurry to pass a bill which has such a negative impact on Quebec. And another good reason is that the government keeps bragging about creating jobs, saying that if it creates jobs there will be less unemployment and that would solve part of the problem.

Unfortunately, so far, since it came into office, this government has not taken any action to indicate that it will reduce unemployment. It started by raising unemployment insurance premiums, since we are talking about unemployment today, and these premiums will cost companies and individuals about $800 million.

This means taking $800 million out of the pockets of consumers. It means people will have $800 million less to spend. If this is supposed to create jobs, the government is really out to lunch. It says it will inject about the same amount into its infrastructures program.

Infrastructures will be a three-year project, while unemployment insurance will be around for much longer. Which means that absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The number of jobs created by the infrastructures program will have zero impact as a result of the increase in unemployment insurance premiums.

Neither infrastructures nor unemployment insurance reform will in the end create more jobs. The government also intends to raise personal income tax by $1.5 billion over the next three years and will do the same in the case of corporate taxes. Altogether this means $3 billion, at a rate of $1 billion annually. One billion dollars in corporate and personal tax increases.

Here again, consumers will have $1 billion less to spend. And of course, most of this money will be used to pay interest to American, Japanese or European lenders. It will not be used to create jobs. It will not be used in Canada. This money will leave the country.

If the government expects to create jobs with the timid measures it has put in place, it is in for a surprise. There will definitely be no jobs created as a result of these measures.

If any jobs are created, they will be generated by small businesses which innovate and thus create jobs. So basically, the government has no long term vision.

The government is taking stopgap measures. Instead of resurfacing the entire road, it is merely filling up the potholes. It does the trick for a while, but it is lacking any real long- term vision.

These are merely bandaid solutions. They stop the bleeding momentarily, but do not attack the root of the problem. There are, of course, other well-known and obvious solutions to these fundamental problems, but the government continues to ignore them. It has its reasons, reasons with which the Bloc Quebecois disagrees.

The first reason is that the government is being told to be a centralizing government. It keeps on trying to take over manpower, health and education, whereas these fields come under provincial jurisdiction. Duplication is an extremely costly phenomenon. It is costly not only in dollar terms, but in terms of inefficiency. There is considerable lack of cohesion between the projects, programs and regulations of the provincial government-particularly the Quebec government with which I am most familiar-and those of the federal government. This lack of cohesion hinders operations and prevents small and medium-sized businesses from flourishing and expanding as much as they could.

Our businesses must have the opportunity to expand if jobs are to be created. That is how we must go about creating jobs, not by increasing UI premiums or by penalizing the jobless. One does not create employment by penalizing the jobless or social assistance recipients. One creates jobs by giving our small and medium-sized businesses what they need to flourish. And this government is doing exactly the opposite of that.

The folly of this Liberal government is its determination to be a centralizing government. It wants to control everything from Ottawa. That is crazy. Everyone knows that decentralization is the key to economic growth. Major corporations such as General Motors and Ford are experts at decentralization. They turn over responsibility to their plants and have them compete directly with one another. The federal government, on the other hand, wants to control everything. That is ridiculous and that is why Canada is heading toward bankruptcy.

Day after day, we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt and everyone knows it. The business community and international investors know it. Where are investors putting their money today? They are investing it in the United States, in Europe, in Japan or in Asia. They are no longer investing on the same scale as they used to in Canada. Why is this? Because the economic climate is not beneficial. The basic employment problem is due to the fact that Canada does not handle its affairs in a way that benefits our businesses, so they leave the country. Finally, according to a Canadian Chamber of Commerce survey, 20 per cent of Canadian businesses are leaving or are about to leave Canada to move to the United States. That is tragic.

The government itself creates unemployment by stubbornly trying to manage everything from here. How can the federal government adopt national laws and regulations when Quebec's economic culture is totally different from that of Ontario, the Maritimes or Western Canada? To withstand international competition and freer trade, our businesses must become sophisticated competitors. To help them achieve this goal, we must stop hindering them as is now the case. Do not look any further, that is what is happening.

The government should invest a little more in technology and make more equitable choices. It gave Ontario $1.2 million more than Quebec for science and technology; that is what creates the most unemployment in Quebec. I made another very important discovery this week. According to a study, Ontario has 100,000 more federal public service jobs than Quebec. Again, this represents a very significant amount. Quebec has more unemployment than Ontario because it is very poorly served by the federal government. That is why we want Quebec to become sovereign.