Debates of Nov. 17th, 1994

Via Rail

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

As the minister knows, VIA Rail will terminate passenger service from Saint John, New Brunswick to Sherbrooke, Quebec as of December 15, 1994 and CPR intends to abandon the rail line on January 1, 1995.

The private sector seems to have taken great interest in freight service from Saint John through the state of Maine and then through to Sherbrooke.

Could the minister tell us if he sees an option to renew passenger service from Saint John, New Brunswick to Sherbrooke, Quebec?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I know the interest of the hon. member in this matter, but I want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding. There has not been a single request from VIA to abandon any service in Canada, with the exception of this one area where it was not through its wishes but as a result of a decision by CP to abandon the freight activity on that line.

I would not want to give any indication of what may or may not happen in the future. The problem of the existing line on the basis of the freight operations has not been resolved. I would not care to speculate other than to say that I am sure VIA will continue to try to provide the very best service it can within the parameters of the limited budget we are allowing it to operate under.

Social Housing

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 7, before the tenants' association in his riding, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reiterated his party's election commitment not to raise the contribution of families living in social housing beyond the current level of 25 per cent of their income.

Will the Minister of Public Works promise families living in social housing not to raise their rents and increase their financial contribution from 25 per cent to 30 per cent of total income?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

He will know that that particular subject matter was the subject of debate of ministers of the crown federally and provincially at two housing ministers conferences which took place in the last year.

It is a subject matter which we are presently reviewing. It is an issue whereby in eight jurisdictions the rise from 25 per cent to 30 per cent is now in effect. The Government of Canada will review all of the options presented to it regarding this particular matter.

I do not want to give the hon. member the false impression that we can continue in the social housing end without providing the necessary kinds of revenues from a variety of different sources in order to refurbish the existing stock which is across this country.

Canada Communication Group

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today's Treasury Board report into the deliberate financial mismanagement at Canada Communication Group makes no mention of the disciplinary action.

In February 1992 the Comptroller General's department said: "Don't do this anymore". In November 1992 the Auditor General said it was illegal. In 1993 his own department said to cease and desist. Yet we find these things have been ongoing.

Will the President of the Treasury Board assure this House and all Canadians that we will never again see this type of dishonest and illegal activity again?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to the report which the Treasury Board minister has tabled.

Let it be particularly clear there have been breaches if you will of the Financial Administration Act. Treasury Board in co-operation with other ministries has taken corrective action to make certain this does not happen again.

With regard to my own department, management control has been removed from that agency and transferred to another. Second, the chief executive officer has been replaced and is no longer in existence. Third, on the very substance of the issue and the continuation of that operation we are at present as a result of program review looking at the possibility of either privatizing or discontinuing the special operating agency which it is under.

Endangered Species

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in Canada. I too commend her for recognizing the seriousness of the situation as well as the need for consultation in developing federal legislation.

My question recognizes that there would have to be co-operation between federal, provincial and aboriginal leaders before federal legislation could be effective.

Would the minister give us some idea as to what type of consultation she has planned and what specific date she has in mind for the introduction of federal legislation?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to acknowledge the work of the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment on this issue. It is a very crucial issue. We have had some preliminary discussions with the provinces including the province of British Columbia whose minister of environment has expressed strong support for the initiatives we are taking.

We hope to complete a public input process in January and February across the country. We will be dealing on a bilateral level with aboriginal leaders and we hope to be able to introduce framework legislation in the spring.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Habib Ben Yahia, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tunisia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State give us an overview of the legislative agenda for the next few days?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will take note of the debate on social security review. Next week we will commence report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-48, natural resources reorganization; Bill C-52, government services reorganization; and Bill C-55, Yukon surface rights. We will also want to consult concerning completion of second reading stage of Bill C-53, Canadian Heritage Reorganization. As the House is aware there is a time factor involved with regard to Bill C-57, the World Trade Organization.

The House should take note that we intend to give consideration to that bill at report stage and third reading a high priority, as soon as it has been reported from committee.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, November 22, will be an opposition day.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond on a point of order expressing some concerns about the report just given by the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs.

We are rather concerned that there have been a very limited number of bills that have been eligible to go on the Order Paper. We substituted that opportunity to debate legislation with take note debates. I certainly do not want to express the view that we are against take note debates. But it seems like they are being placed in substitution for actual bills to debate.

There are only three bills to my understanding that could be placed on the Order Paper this week. The minister did not announce the introduction of any new bills.

Our concern is what is happening with the starvation of legislation in the House is causing bills to be rammed through committee stage much more quickly than members of those committees have an opportunity to deal with those bills in a substantial way.

In light of the indication we got earlier that committees would have time to do their job and would receive new importance in this House in dealing with legislation, I would urge the government to provide more legislation for us to deal with in this House so that bills may not be rammed through at committee stage, but have proper time for discussion, amendments and witnesses to appear.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me assure the member that in due course new bills will be introduced. Also, as he can see from my weekly business statement, there are a certain number of bills that are in committee. As soon as the committees report to the House they will be debated. That is what I announced for the coming week.

I want to reassure him that it is not the customary intention in the weekly business statement to announce new legislation. New legislation will be announced in due course and at the right moment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will assume that the discussion related to the Thursday traditional question is concluded.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Social Security Programs

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Lotbinière has about five minutes left for questions and comments. The hon. member for Lévis.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech given by the hon. member for Lotbinière before Question Period. He addressed two issues, or two client groups, of particular interest to me in the context of this social security reform. He talked about young people and the tuition fee problem. I would like him to clarify his position on this.

I would also ask him, if we have enough time, to elaborate on unemployment insurance proposals concerning women.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague and also to inform all members of this House. A secret document published in the Toronto Star shows that with this reform, students will pay twice as much tuition.

When the minister asks these students to put their shoulder to the wheel, I think that is rather hard to do, since some students will leave university with a $50,000 debt.

I would also like to answer the question about women. With this new reform, women in Quebec and Canada, even if they have paid into UI all their lives, will not be entitled to benefits if their income is over a certain amount. I think it is unfortunate to pick on women in that way.

I must also say that the reform of social programs will cost $170 million just in Quebec and force 40,000 households onto welfare. We must look deeper into the reform of social programs.

Take a family in which the father loses his job for some reason or other or has an insecure job and winds up on welfare. Imagine what it costs the government. First, it often causes problems like depression, medical problems; he has to see psychologists and psychiatrists. We must analyze the whole situation. We must not have a reform just for the sake of having a reform. We must also analyze the whole situation.

I often say that we must do prevention. We know that there is $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes to collect, $6.4 billion for the government's finances. It is out there, but it must be collected. That is all. When we opposition members tell you about the $6.4 billion, we are not here just to make trouble. Not at all! We are here to find solutions with the government, not just to criticize.

As politicians, we must deal with this situation. Unions have noticed that today employers hire more and more people on three- or four-month contracts. That is what happens more and more. Some employment agencies do just that. They hire people and tell them: You are hired for four or five months. Consequently, you can expect these people to come back every year. This is a problem.

In my region, unemployment runs very high and there are many seasonal workers. The social program reform will be applied uniformly everywhere, whether a province is prosperous or not, and that creates an injustice. So, let us take a closer look at these issues, which affect the workers and the unemployed. Whether or not you are unionized, the problem will surface some day. I tell unions that, at some point, the problem will come up.

Problems will surface and some say we will perhaps need a better immigration policy. If a reform is necessary, we should go that far. I am not saying we should not let anybody in. What I am saying is we have to create jobs. Thanks to modern technology, a machine can do the work of 100 workers. But what happens to these people? They find themselves out of work. This is what happens. I have nothing against progress, but it is a matter of balancing the positive against the negative. And this is what my comments are all about.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to the motion of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In his social security reform package, the minister proposes to deal with social problems and unemployment, at the expense of the unemployed and the poorest people in this country. The government is asking the unemployed to pay more for a solution to their problems and asks the poor to be even poorer, if they would enjoy the benefits of this reform which, as I said before, will take more money from the unemployed and the poor.

Instead of looking at the underlying cause of unemployment, instead of looking at the causes of social problems, the minister and his experts are telling the unemployed they will have to pay the bill. As if the unemployed and the poor were responsible for unemployment rates and the large percentage of people living on welfare, especially in Quebec.

That is why this afternoon, I would prefer to discuss what causes unemployment and the reasons for welfare. The federal Liberals have not been very helpful in this respect. After working for about ten years here in the House of Commons and seeing how the government runs its affairs, I could give you a few examples to prove that the federal government causes unemployment, not the unemployed.

My first example concerns interest rates. In 1990, the Governor of the Bank of Canada decided to raise interest rates, saying that there were inflationary tendencies in Canada and that we absolutely had to raise interest rates to reduce economic growth, although he knew perfectly well that these inflationary tendencies were restricted to a few specific locations in Canada and that their causes were well-known.

Inflation tended to be concentrated in the Toronto area. Why? Because the federal government had invested too much money in federal-provincial shared-cost programs. In 1981, 1982 and 1983, the Liberal government had set up special programs to fight the recession. At the time, inflation was really high and you may remember that the government had raised interest rates up to 21 per cent. It also had to set up programs, precisely to ensure that people on unemployment or welfare rolls would not suffer unduly from the situation.

However, the Conservative Party, which was in office then and of which I was a member, did not have the courage to reduce the budgets of those programs and continued to spend more or less the same amounts in joint cost-shared federal-provincial programs. There was a 50-50 split.

The result of this was that Quebec, which had less money than some other provinces and which was spending less on its joint programs, received less money. This is why the inflation rate in Quebec was somewhat more reasonable or acceptable. The situation was just the opposite in Toronto, which was going full speed ahead with the federal programs. Indeed, through these 50-50 programs, the federal government was spending a lot of money, with the result that the economy of that region overheated, thus generating more inflation.

It was obvious that the inflation was the direct result of this overheating generated by the federal government. The government of the time never wanted to use the means at its disposal to lower inflation. Instead, it left the Governor of the Bank of Canada on his own. And the governor had no choice but to increase interest rates. Vancouver is the other place where inflation was high. A lot of money was being invested by people from Hong Kong and Far East Pacific Rim countries. The inflation there was also very much a local phenomenon.

And what did the federal government do? Nothing. It let interest rates go up, with the result that Quebec's small and medium-sized businesses, which had worked tremendously hard to survive, went bankrupt one after the other. Unemployment went up, since workers were being laid off. All this because the federal government did not take its responsibility. I personally told the Governor of the Bank of Canada then that he was creating a recession we would have great difficulty pulling out of.

We have been in a recession for four years, yet did not manage to bring it under control. That is terrible. So, when I hear that the unemployed should be the ones to pay for the problems, I find it absolutely ridiculous. That is all the Minister of Human Resources Development talks about in his plan.

The other event that took place was the signing, in 1989, of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Quebec investors in particular, and I am still one of them, were told: "Invest in your business because this is a golden opportunity to gain access to a unique market, the US market". We were told: "Invest in your businesses and life will be great. In the years to come, you will make good money, do good business and create jobs. It is going to be just great".

A short time afterwards, interest rates went up, curbing growth and killing the very businesses that had just been put in a vulnerable position by investing in infrastructure and equipment. They were crushed with higher interests rates, reduced growth and reduced production capacity, at a time when they are very vulnerable. Many had to shut down. That is outrageous! And that is what is going on right now.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, if we want to address the UI and social welfare issue, instead of making a big fuss, publishing nice green books and talking about UI and social reform, we should start by creating favourable conditions for our businesses. Jobs do not appear suddenly, out of thin air; they are created by businesses and our businesses need favourable conditions to do so. They must not be required to do what they are currently doing on behalf of governments, namely handling enormous amounts of money collected left and right. Let me name a few of the tasks imposed upon our businesses.

First, they have to pay CSST premiums, UI premiums, federal and provincial sales taxes as well as federal and provincial income tax. They must deal with two sets of taxes: Quebec's and Ottawa's. I could give other examples.

Each time that a business is unable, or fails, to satisfy all these requests, which come in daily, there are additional penalties to pay.

Our small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec have to live in this negative environment. We think that it is terrible, unacceptable and discouraging for those who want to go into business, to succeed, to create, to invent and to export to have to look after all this administration for the two levels of government.

When I say that support to businesses must be more flexible, I am not talking about money, but rather, at the very least, an environment that would facilitate their growth.

The government's insistence on centralizing, on trying to control everything from here, on creating terrible confrontations between the two levels of government, leaves our businesses vulnerable in this sort of environment.

This is just another example. I think that the Minister of Human Resources Development hit on it himself when he said that there are many difficulties and problems associated with unemployment insurance and other social programs. There are many problems to resolve. But having read the document, I can tell you that there are not many solutions, because he did not really understand the cause of the problem.

We have here proof, once again, that federalism does not work. When a government can no longer meet the basic needs of its citizens, it is clear that federalism is not working. The debt is now $550 billion.

Our deficit will again be close to $40 billion. What more proof do we need that federalism does not work?

So what is the answer? As the Premier of Quebec told the Chamber of Commerce last Tuesday, although the federal government siphons off our money and, as a result, our resources are diminished, Quebecers manage to do a better job than the federal government as far as economic development and job creation are concerned. My view is that as far as we are concerned, this reform is redundant. The federal government should simply transfer full responsibility to Quebec, since it has given us ample proof it cannot make a go of it. I can assure you that Quebecers with their dynamic outlook will do a much better job. I am positive about that.

That is why I look forward to the challenge of a sovereign Quebec, where Quebecers will be able to develop their potential and get a really good start by investing all their resources and skills and productivity. They will be able to create jobs, reduce unemployment and reduce the number of welfare recipients so that this nation can live with honour and enthusiasm.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to comment on the member's remarks and on the whole social program review debate.

I wonder how seriously the government takes this whole program. When we look back at the chronology of events leading up to today and some of the recent statements by the human resources development minister, it makes us wonder how devoted the government really is to tackling the problem of social programs, the debt in general and how to make government run much more efficiently.

When I think back to the election campaign I remember distinctly how our party talked quite a bit about social programs and how they needed to be reformed. I remember Kim Campbell, the then Prime Minister, talking about social program reforms in so far as she said they were too important to be discussed during an election.

I also remember the deafening silence of the Liberal Party on this whole issue. If one looks at the government's red book it is almost without mention of social program reform. That was one year ago. I guess the Liberals must have been holding this close to their vests because shortly after they became government they started to make noises about the need to change social programs.

What happened is they came face to face with the reality, at that time, of about a $500 billion debt. Today it is just about $540 billion. They realized that they were going to have to do something to deal with the deficit and debt so they looked at social program reform.

During the throne speech and in the days shortly thereafter they said they would launch a task force and have an action plan on the reform of Canada's social programs. A motion was made to that effect at the end of January of this year if memory serves me.

Over the course of days after that, we found that it was going to be the same old thing, the same old way of doing politics. First we found out that this group was going to be hearing not from regular Canadians but instead from special interest groups who, in most cases, were funded by the government. In fact I sat on that committee as an associate member.

I remember as a newly minted MP how disappointed I was to find out we were not going to hear from some of the Canadians who have a vested interest, as taxpayers, in seeing social programs work well. We were pretty disappointed that this was not happening.

I must also comment that over the course of events we saw that the task force the minister was going to refer to was in many cases a bunch of hand picked patronage appointments, people who had strong ties to the Liberal government. Over the course of the summer we found that it lost its impetus and now the action plan has become a discussion paper. Over the course of events we have found that the government has failed to really pursue this with the necessary vigour considering this country's huge debt. Now taxpayers are running, afraid that the fat greedy fingers of government are going to get them.

So far this government has been unable to bring forward a real action plan. I encourage the government to move with dispatch. Get a handle on this serious problem by dealing with the social program review forthwith. Bring forward a real action plan that will bring the deficit and debt to heel.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Given the general nature of the overall comments of the hon. member, I still want to give the member for Longueuil the opportunity to rebut.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was so little in the way of questions in the hon. member's comments that I thought he had started on a speech.

Initially, he asked whether the government was serious about its reform proposals. I doubt it, because if you consider that there is nothing in this document about demands Quebec has been repeating for 30 years, I think we can hardly say that this is a serious document, when they keep wanting to centralize and create confrontational situations.

Another point I wanted to mention earlier, which may answer part of his question, is that just this week, Softimage, a software company that invested several million dollars in Quebec, was looking for 70 computer experts but failed to find any. This means that manpower training is not adapted to the needs of companies. Once again, this manpower training mess is aggravating the unemployment problem but the minister does not seem to mention that in his report. There is a serious problem with manpower training and as a result, a number of companies cannot find the qualified employees they need, although we have a high unemployment rate.

We also have scientists who are doing very advanced research, but we do not have the companies that can manufacture these new products. This means there is a lack of consistency, so that a lot of time and money is wasted and we are not as efficient as we could be. We have trouble producing a low-cost, quality product, and at the same time we are trying to break into international markets. These incredible inconsistencies cost a lot of money and make us inefficient.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my time is up. I could have gone on for much longer because there is so much to say about this. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the hon. member for Longueuil for his co-operation.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I almost hate to break up this Bloc-Reform love-in on a government motion which puts forth provisions for a discussion paper and discussion on something that is very important to the country.

The changing nature of employment over the past several years has had considerable impact on the unemployment insurance program. Since UI is the key component in social security, it is essential that we revitalize the program to meet the needs of all Canadians in all provinces in the 1990s and beyond.

Originally UI was intended to provide temporary financial assistance for workers between jobs. Today people use UI for long term support and many use the programs repeatedly. Last year 13 per cent of unemployed Canadians had been out of work for a year or more. Compared to 1976 that is three times the level of long term unemployment.

Almost 40 per cent of UI recipients have claimed benefits at least three times during the previous five years. The number of frequent claimants has almost doubled in 13 years.

The problem with UI is not the claimants. The problem is the program. It works well for people who require short term help while looking for a job, but it does help workers who need to adjust to the changing economic structure.

Many individuals alternate short periods of work with periods of receiving UI benefits. It becomes a way of life. These UI recipients need more than basic support. Their problem is more complex. They may need skills training, even basic academic upgrading or some counselling to get started in a new, more stable occupation.

A recent study by StatsCanada suggests that some employers take unfair advantage of the program. They do so by organizing schedules around the required number of weeks people need to qualify for UI benefits. Employers plan layoffs to coincide with UI qualification periods and plan recalls when worker benefits come to an end.

The business community complains that increases in UI premiums discourage job creation. Since premiums often increase during the latter part of a recession, we are taxing jobs at the worst possible time. Also, due to the changes in the labour market many more workers are not covered by UI. This is especially true for women and young Canadians.

What we need is an effective, sustainable insurance program that recognizes an individual's responsibility to become self-reliant. At the same time the program must ensure an income support system for those who truly need it.

To that end, we are recommending for discussion two possibilities for revitalizing UI. One approach calls for a new employment insurance program that closely integrates assistance with employment development services, or we could adjust the existing UI program to discourage abuse and better serve those who genuinely need it. Some elements overlap in both approaches. A new employment insurance program could divide benefits into two kinds: basic insurance and adjustment insurance.

Under basic insurance occasional users of UI could receive help returning to work much as they do now. These claimants could receive UI benefits and training employment programs more or less as they do now. Basic insurance would include the special benefits available in the current system. This insurance

would be for those who are caught between two jobs or who may need some assistance on a temporary basis.

Adjustment insurance could be available to frequent claimants. Who is a frequent claimant would have to be determined. For discussion we are using the example of a person who files three or more claims in five years. As well, adjustment insurance would consider regional differences in the workforce.

Other questions under adjustment insurance include: How long should a claimant draw these benefits? Should adjustment benefits be income tested? Should adjustment benefits depend upon a claimant's willingness to participate in adjustment programs? In considering the answers to these questions it will be important to recognize the significance of the UI system to many parts of the economy and in many parts of the country.

A fair approach which allows people to respond and adjust will be important. That is one approach, a new employment insurance program. A second approach, adjusting the current UI program, would not distinguish between occasional and frequent claimants.

We can increase the time a person had to work to qualify for UI, or we could reduce benefits by shortening duration and/or lowering the level of benefits. This approach would free up significant resources for reinvestment in employment programs, but it would not identify claimants who require the most help in staying employed. Those most in need of income support will not receive adequate assistance. Nonetheless this approach might be taken in conjunction with the first to create an equitable and balanced reform strategy.

As well, UI reform must address the needs of the workers in non-standard employment: part timers, self-employed, temporary workers, and people with multiple jobs. Last year more than 60 per cent of all new jobs were part time. Many of these workers are not fully covered or not covered at all.

We also have to determine the best way to fund the renewed insurance program. Employers and workers are concerned about how UI premium rates are set. Higher premiums are killing jobs. We need to think about how the burden of premiums is shared.

Options for improving funding include: building a surplus in the insurance account during strong economic growth; requiring employers to pay premiums on their total payroll; expanding earnings subject to premiums; increasing premium rates for those who use the program the most; and reducing premiums for employers who support training.

Funds saved from a revitalized UI program could be used to reduce premiums or to make employment development services more effective. The two must work hand in hand.

Employment development services help the chronically unemployed by offering them job counselling, training, labour market information and work experience. When people move from welfare to work, employment development services are a good investment. Unfortunately they do not do that often enough.

Employment development services need to be flexible, to be tailored to individual needs and community opportunities. We must give more UI claimants personalized job counselling that directs them toward the specific help they require. Up to date relevant information about job opportunities would help people make better informed decisions about jobs, training and education.

Millions of adults require additional training in reading, writing and arithmetic, the basic skills essential for almost all employment. The federal government sends UI recipients to classroom courses but again training must fit individual needs. Workplace training provided by employers is often the most effective approach. To encourage this we could offer employers tax credits, levies for training and paid educational leave.

Another consideration is to supplement wages for unemployed workers facing specific barriers to employment such as persons with disabilities or long term unemployed workers who may need an extra bit of support to break into the labour market.

Much of the success of employment development services depends upon good management. Success should be measured by results, not by bureaucratic enforcement of the program's rules. We should consider setting broad goals and then inviting local communities to decide which programs will best achieve those goals.

Once again effective EDS will require effective partnerships. We have invited the provinces and territories to plan many employment development services and to manage the purchase of institutional training. The province could manage single window offices to bring federal-provincial programs under one roof. This would make access easier for both UI recipients and those on social assistance who should also have access to EDS.

We must do more to help people with disabilities overcome barriers and become fully integrated into Canadian society. Constructive partnerships could lead to more accessible workplaces, flexible working conditions, appropriate training and better management practices for persons with disabilities.

I know hon. members appreciate the complexity and magnitude of reforming UI and adjusting employment development

services. I trust the ideas I have presented will help them prepare input for the government's discussion paper. I look forward to hearing the responses of my hon. colleagues.