Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today on this bill and I will vote against it. This bill is a good example of why Canada does not work.
Look at this morning's figures. I think that, instead of "jobs, jobs, jobs," their party's election slogan should have been "welfare, welfare, welfare." In Newfoundland, the higher eligibility standards will throw 1,635 more people on welfare, while the reduced maximum number of weeks of benefits will increase welfare rolls by 1,370. In New Brunswick, welfare rolls will grow by 1,165 because of the higher eligibility requirements and by 1,335 because of the reduced maximum period of benefits.
I would have expected government members representing ridings in these two provinces to rise and tell us that it does not make sense, that this is totally at odds with what their party said during the election campaign. This would have allowed the government to come to its senses and stop sending misleading messages.
We are telling people that the economy is stalled, to be even more cautious, to avoid consuming more, to be careful. We act in a way that will make more people go on welfare, consume less, and contribute less to the economy. We kill off the weak recovery our society may be experiencing. It is a strange message to give to Quebec and Canada, to Quebecers and Canadians.
In their previous speeches, government members told us there was a free debate on the budget, that opposition parties could make suggestions. Good, I think that is the purpose of the House of Commons! That is not the problem, the problem is that our suggestions are not acted on. Every time we propose job creation programs to kick-start the economy and make people proud to earn a living, they come up with measures such as this legislation; it will only put more people on unemployment insurance.
When I say that this bill is an example of why Canada does not work, it is because the people cut off from UI benefits will no longer have access to training programs linked to unemployment insurance. In that sense, it is linked to one of the fundamental problems with this system, namely its inefficiency when the federal government lacks the will to co-operate with the provinces.
The minister of Human Resources Development told us that youth employment was the priority. Now he is surprised that the opposition raises the need to respect the wishes of the provinces in that area. The minister should be the first to know-I would say this is a very important quality in a minister-that, if you want to get somewhere, the co-operation of the people you are working with is essential. The only indication he has given was to the effect that he wanted to bulldoze the issue. The reform he had in mind was one that would override the wishes of Quebec in the area of manpower.
What he did not bargain for, though-and it must have taught him a good lesson-was to see the governing federalists in Quebec, who can hardly be called "big bad separatists", pass a unanimous motion in the National Assembly yesterday. Here is what it said:
That the National Assembly of Quebec ask Mr. Jean Chrétien and the federal Liberal government to abide by the unanimous consensus among all concerned in Quebec on the need for Quebec to have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training.
It does not sound like a whim to me, yet it is said to be so in the case of the Parliament representing the only majority French-speaking nation in North America. It seems to me that some attention should be paid to that kind of thing.
In a way, the bill before us reflects this government's problem in that it sends a double message: on the one hand, promote economic recovery, but oddly enough on the other hand, do it on the backs of the least fortunate in our society.
Ontario will not be affected as much as other provinces by this reform, with 30 people or so not meeting the new eligibility requirements. That gives some idea of the influence the Ontario caucus has over this government, but I hope members who represent other provinces will make sure they have their say and convince the government to show a little more compassion for regional economies which do not necessarily keep going year-round. In that sense, I think it is important for the government to act quickly.
I would have preferred to vote today on a bill setting up real job creation programs. This bill touches on several issues; in fact, we might even say that someone tried to smother the unemployment insurance issue in this great omnibus bill, but no one was fooled. We realize that the reform before the House today is the same reform the Conservatives introduced last year and which the Liberals have re-established and will continue to apply.
That reminds me of the question Premier Daniel Johnson of Quebec, still a true federalist, put to this government. He asked: "Look, who is in charge in Ottawa, the bureaucrats or the government?" That is what we have come to realize with this bill. The machinery of government kept working after October 25, and no one bothered to stop it. That is why these things are still going on.
When you live in the lovely Ottawa region, it is very easy to forget that some people are stuck with unemployment rates of 20 or 25 per cent and to conclude that UI beneficiaries are people who do not want to work. It is not true. If the unemployed were happy, they would not have the highest rates of suicide and prescription drug use. They would not have to put up with high crime rates and other social problems.
Some ridings and regions are more dependent on the econo-mic situation; in those regions, we need new ways of coping with structural change. But this government lacks imagination and awareness and takes no action.
As a matter of fact, I am very happy to be part of the Official Opposition because it gives me the opportunity to speak for those who have no voice here. The two provinces most affected are Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Quebec, too, is hard hit. We have been taking the floor for three days in an attempt to convince members opposite to change their mind. Government members should be rising to demand that this bill or at least the clauses on unemployment insurance be withdrawn.