Debates of May 26th, 1994

Indian Affairs

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Okay. The Bloc agrees he is a very competent person with a big reputation.

As to the process, everything is on the table. There is going to be an orderly process on the cemetery, the houses north of 344, the houses south of 344, the Seigneurie of Deux-Montagnes, past housing grievances, working with the Mohawk community toward some of the catch up on the program of financial responsibility.

What I wanted was a process that would move pragmatically ahead. With the appointment of Michel Robert as our negotiator that will happen. Moreover, I have approached a member of the Quebec judiciary at the Supreme Court level. If we get permission, not only will we have Mr. Robert, but also a very eminent person from the judiciary who will act as a mediator and facilitator. I think my friend will be happy with that type of procedure.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never questioned Michel Robert's competence. However, I ask the minister: Is there a link between the mandate which he just gave to Michel Robert regarding the Oka issue and the fact that Mr. Robert currently sits on the Security Intelligence Review Committee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, in its quiet way, that is an unacceptable slur on a man of the highest integrity.

He was president of the Canadian Bar Association, a member of the International Bar Association, the American College of Trial Lawyers. Do you want more? He was a Corporation of Industrial Relations counsellor, a member of the royal commission on economic union and development prospects for Canada, the McDonald commission, an appointed member of the Privy Council and, incidentally, a member of the security intelligence review committee.

He is acceptable to us. He is acceptable to the Mohawk community and I do not accept that slur on a man of this type of integrity.

We should be glad that these types of men are prepared to come forward from Quebec to help the country.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Carbon Tax

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Recently the former and current premiers of Alberta, as well as senior oil patch executives, voiced their concerns about the imposition of a carbon tax.

When questioned by my colleague from Prince George-Peace River, the Minister of Natural Resources said that to get a definitive answer we should ask the Minister of Finance. I ask him to provide the House with a one-word answer. Is the government planning to impose a carbon tax? Yes or no.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member has been listening over the last little while. The only place I have heard a carbon tax mentioned is on the Reform Party.

We have never mentioned a carbon tax. We are not in the business of doing that. It seems the Reform Party is.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us lay this speculation to rest. We are genuinely concerned, given the fact that the national energy program was imposed by a Liberal government in the early eighties which was disastrous to Alberta and the west.

Will the government put an end to the speculation and just answer the question? Is the government considering a carbon tax. Yes or no.

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which part of the word "no" he does not understand. We have never mentioned a carbon tax. Read the red book. Is it found in the red book? No, it is not in the red book. It is not a part of our policy, period.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ahmed Abdulaziz Al-Sadoun, Speaker of the National Assembly of Kuwait, and parliamentarians who are on a delegation to Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the leader of the government in the House to inform us of the order of business for the next few days.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, with the weekly business statement, today we are debating the report stage of Bill C-17, the budget implementation bill.

Tomorrow the House will consider a number of bills. First, we will consider Bill C-26 regarding the National Library. Then we will move on to Bill C-30 regarding assistance to workers and then to Bill S-2 regarding certain international tax agreements.

If we make progress very quickly we could also look at the bill introduced today by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to deal with support for the Canadian Film Development Corporation.

On Monday the House will continue the report stage of Bill C-17 and on Tuesday the House will deal with third reading stage of that bill. On Wednesday the House will consider legislation, to be confirmed later, although I expect that Bill C-18 will be one of the items for discussion that day. Thursday, June 2 shall be an allotted day.

Finally I want to dispose of the rumours that seem to abound every year around this time with respect to the date for the adjournment for the summer.

As usual, the rumours are not well founded. They keep talking about June 10 as a possible date of adjournment, but I want to say it is the present intention of the government to follow the parliamentary calendar set down in the rules and adjourn on June 23.

I should point out we have more than a dozen and a half bills to be dealt with by that date and members therefore can expect the House to sit during the evenings as provided in the rules for the period made up of the last 10 days before the adjournment.

That is my statement.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994 as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 23 to 38.

Budget Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I understand the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has six minutes remaining on his intervention and therefore I will give the floor to the hon. member.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I made the point that we could not accept the omnibus bill here. There are parts of it that we agree with but there is a part that we disagree with and therefore we have to vote against the whole thing because of one element, and that is not acceptable. I want to continue my remarks with regard to Bill C-17 and the Unemployment Insurance Act with the fourth point that I was making.

The bill will increase the minimum amount of time a person needs to qualify for UI from 10 to 12 weeks. The Reform Party supports this measure and would ask the government to consider making it tougher for repeaters to continue to get UI benefits.

The fifth point is that the bill will allow more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs or are fired with just cause to collect benefits. The Reform Party is opposed to this measure because there are now 43 just cause reasons which allow job quitters to collect UI. Need more be said?

Finally, the bill will reduce the length of time a worker can remain on claim and include specific provisions for areas of high unemployment. The Reform Party supports this measure because it will encourage workers to move to areas where there is a better chance of finding work.

As members can see, of the six major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act the Reform Party supports five. Had the bill been only addressing these specific changes, the Reform Party would be voting in favour.

When I spoke on Bill C-17, I put the UI reforms outlined in this bill to a simple test which I referred to as the taxpayer's test. I would like to take my remaining time to discuss the principles we believe should be used to design and develop a true unemployment insurance program.

Reformers believe that the UI program is no longer a true insurance program. The system has been used and abused by politicians over the years. Now it is operating more like a social welfare program. People in many regions of the country are so confused that they now think unemployment insurance is a right.

Many Canadians see UI as an entitlement that comes without any obligations. A common observation for many workers is that "I have paid into it, therefore I am entitled to draw as long as I want". They proceed to do just that.

The majority of workers who have paid into the unemployment insurance program year after year and have never collected are tired. They are tired of paying the bills for the minority of workers who collect UI year after year.

Employers who pay UI premiums are tired of subsidizing other employers who use and abuse the UI program to keep a captive workforce. Reformers believe it is time to get back to some basic principles and return unemployment insurance to its original purpose, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of an unexpected job loss.

We know that the Minister of Human Resources Development is currently trying to develop an action plan for the reform of social programs. Reformers would like the minister to keep these fundamental principles in mind. The government says it is listening. I hope this is true.

I will go through this list without explanation because I do not believe my time will allow it.

(1) Social programs should be designed to eliminate all administrative duplication between the federal government and other levels of government.

(2) Social programs should be structured so as to minimize economic distortions and disincentives and thereby encourage clients to become economically productive.

(3) Social programs fall into one of two categories, income supplements or income insurance. Both should be financially sustainable but only income insurance programs can be self-financing.

(4) Income insurance programs should operate on true insurance principles. This means the workers who make repeated claims on the program and employers who repeatedly lay off workers would have to pay higher premiums.

(5) Income insurance programs should be democratized, meaning they should be administered by employers and the employees who pay for them.

(6) Income insurance programs must be accountable. Every Canadian should receive annual statements indicating how much he or she has paid into the program and how much she or he has received in benefits.

(7) Income insurance programs should treat all Canadians equally, regardless of the area of the country in which they reside. Regionally based entrance requirements, regionally extended benefits and other forms of geographically based discrimination should be prohibited.

(8) Income insurance programs should be designed to minimize abuse of the system. It should be possible to virtually eliminate abuse of income insurance programs once they are made completely self-financing and administered by workers and employers.

(9) Any large scale reforms to the federally administered social programs should be approved by the electorate in a national program.

I believe if the government is serious about reforming the UI programs, it should seriously consider applying these principles.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated more time in order to address the amendments we proposed one by one. However, since according to our procedure, we can speak only once, addressing all the amendments to this clause which deals with unemployment insurance, I will keep my remarks fairly general.

I would like to start by commenting on what was said by the hon. member for the Reform Party. I was amazed he did not know how much he paid into the unemployment insurance fund and how much he received. You have to know both figures to do your income tax return.

This unemployment insurance reform has split Canada in two, and the people who support a united Canada and a great Canadian federation are now the first to attack-that is the term we must use, under the circumstances-the economy of the Atlantic provinces and the economy of Quebec, with no warning to all their supporters who voted for them in the Maritimes. On the whole, these proposals will bleed more than $1.3 billion annually from the economy in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. The members opposite have not heard the last of this from us, believe me. It is going to take a lot of infrastructure programs to make up for that.

We in the opposition are convinced that the government failed to consider the economic impact, because budget measures do have an impact on the economy. At a time when the economy is very weak and growth is slow and is not supported by an increase in employment, taking this kind of money out of the economy of the eastern provinces which are already in poor shape merely undermines what the government is trying to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to two of the amendments we proposed. My colleagues will address the others, but since not much has been said about this aspect, I want to address the provision in clause 22 which reads as follows:

"(1.1)For purposes of paragraph (1)( b )'',-

It sounds confusing, but it is about making sure that claimants with dependants will receive 60 per cent of their insured earnings, and we want to ensure that the onus is on the Commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided.

Let me explain. Claimants with dependants and insurable earnings of up to $390 per week will be entitled to this 60 per cent. Three hundred and ninety dollars per week for someone with dependants is not much, but by introducing a form of assistance in an insurance program, the government may be faced with resorting to some kind of inquisitorial means test in the case of individuals who receive this kind of assistance instead of straightforward unemployment insurance benefits.

The purpose of our amendment is to allow the claimant who would receive the 60 per cent to establish a prima facie entitlement, and to put the onus on the commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to this rate.

I would like to make a few comments regarding another provision, which we are also proposing to amend, and which may appear rather innocuous, in spite of the fact that it gives the minister all latitude to suspend the application of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act in the case of workers who have lost their jobs in areas where a pilot project is being conducted.

If you are lucky or unlucky enough to be involved in a pilot projet, the usual provisions of the act may not apply any more, if the minister so decides. We believe that it does not make any sense at all and that is why we want the House of Commons to give its approval by resolution, to make sure that we have a public debate and that each pilot project is examined on its own merits. As I said before, being involved in a pilot project may be worth it, but you never can tell, and it is important to ensure that the minister cannot change, at will, the provisions of the UI Act.

The minister may say that he would never do such a thing, but the legislation is there, regardless of who is responsible for it. That is why it is very important for us to convince our colleagues opposite to accept this amendment. They may not have realized how enormous the powers they are vesting on the minister are. By giving him full latitude to deprive anyone, anywhere, of his or her legal rights to unemployment insurance, they are indeed giving the minister discretionary powers.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill is a shame. As we said many times before, we do understand that the government is in a serious financial situation and that it must deal with the deficit.

We strenuously object to this being done on the backs of people who are not only becoming vulnerable from loosing their jobs but living in regions in which the economy is the most vulnerable.

To wrap up, those who cloak themselves in the Canadian identity are in fact engaging in a shameful cover-up because the proposed measures affect directly the economy, and even more so in Atlantic Canada than in Quebec, although Quebec's economy is also hard hit. Only 8 per cent of the total population of Canada lives in the Atlantic provinces; yet, they are hit with 26 per cent of the cuts. All the adjustment programs for Atlantic fishermen practicing ground-fishing will not make up-it will not even come close-for these drastic cuts.

Seeing that I have a couple of minutes remaining, I will say this. The government probably did not think about the depressing effect these measures would have on the economy. It is important for every citizen to bear in mind that when governments reallocate money taken out of our pockets to unemployed persons, this money is immediately pumped back into the economy. It is not used for speculation purposes or to buy luxury items which are generally imported. It is pumped directly back into the economy. It is used to pay rent which would otherwise be more difficult to collect, assuming that someone needs to collect rent. It makes life easier for small businesses which derive their livelihood from it and, of course, it makes life easier for families which depend on these provisions.

Some will argue that there may be people who will use or abuse the system in the sense that they will apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance. Let me say that any one of these people who apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance would gladly trade places with someone who has been paying UI premiums for 25 years and always held a good, decent job.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Laurentides that I represent, the unemployment rate is 18 per cent, which is significantly higher than the national rate. One would have to be a little naive to believe the Liberal government's recent actions can lower this unemployment rate.

All you have done since October 25, all your decisions and actions are only a drop in the ocean. With your false optimism and pompous speeches, you try to mislead the population by telling them that your plan is working and producing results. In fact, you throw a few crumbs here and there. You aim for the precarious and the very short-term. In Quebec and in my riding, the pre-election period brings its usual jobs.

The provincial and federal Liberal ministers announce here and there that financial assistance will be provided under the infrastructure program, thus creating or preserving some temporary, short-term jobs. The government opposite is satisfied and delighted with its miraculous action.

But where is the true vision, Mr. Speaker? Where are the longer-term plans that would bring us a more stable economy, one that would create more jobs? Instead of seriously tackling the problem and looking for solutions, the ministers opposite go from place to place and see themselves as the bearers of good news.

The people opposite practice day-to-day management while waiting to see what will happen tomorrow. The unemployed people of Laurentides know full well that nothing has changed. There are no more jobs available for them since you moved over to the government side.

What they know however is that after unemployment insurance comes welfare. That is the Liberals' real contribution to the economy. That is what is really happening in our ridings.

The federal government has shifted its responsibilities to the provinces. This transfer, this shameful process shows the laxity and inertia of the Liberals. Welfare, UI cuts, dead-end jobs, increased taxes for the middle class and empty rhetoric, of course, are the only results achieved by the red book government.

The finance minister's Bill C-17, a real post-budget grab bag, introduces amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We find several changes completely unacceptable. The amendment of my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup concerning the change to the premium rate would make this rate change earlier.

We want to end as soon as possible a measure that hurts employment. Instead of waiting for January 1, 1995 to bring the rate back to $3 per $100, we want to bring it back to 3 per cent on June 1, 1994. The Liberals have not been very honest on this rate issue, since they themselves increased it from $3 to $3.07 on January 1, 1994.

Now they are acting like real comedians when they tell the public that they are correcting this rate which is too high, when they themselves just increased it. The process is not honest and the Liberals are making it worse by pretending that they will create 40,000 jobs by correcting this rate.

For one thing, if the government is so confident about the positive impact of a lower rate, why did it raise it on January 1, 1994, and why is it delaying the decrease until January 1, 1995?

Furthermore, this projection of 40,000 jobs is illusory or hypothetical, as it is based on the old schedule which would have seen the rate rise to $3.30 on January 1, 1995. This lower rate simply eliminates a deterrent to job creation and, according to the minister's very debatable figures, reduces job losses.

As far as I know, reducing job losses is not the same as creating jobs. Maintaining jobs or stopping job losses keeps the unemployment rate from rising, while creating jobs lowers the unemployment rate, but for the Liberals, it is the same thing.

Their recipe for employment, which is in very poor taste, combines all the ingredients blindly, without measuring them and without discernment. Then they give the people their product and hope that they will just swallow it all.

Well, wake up. The people know very well what is going on every day. My constituents want real action and tangible results. The people of Laurentides want jobs. They are ready to train, retrain and upgrade themselves to acquire the skills needed to meet the needs of the labour markets.

The 30 per cent of my constituents who are unemployed, I repeat, 30 per cent, want to see the light at the end of the tunnel. They ask the government to put forward programs that will help them go back to work. Long-term employment that will give them some security. Not more small jobs lasting just a few weeks and created through programs designed only to ensure the required number of weeks to be eligible for UI benefits.

We are not getting anywhere with this system. The government only supports a vicious circle which workers cannot escape. It must change its approach to get better and more profitable results, both for workers and employers.

The new changes to the UI program make it harder to be eligible for benefits. In my riding, these changes will adversely affect a large number of workers who are simply not able to work the 12 weeks required, because of a regional economy based on tourism. This is their ticket to welfare. Nice job by the Liberal

government. It never occurred to the decision makers opposite that some workers have all the trouble in the world to find work for the required weeks of insurable employment.

The Liberals go even farther. They say: You work more but we give you less. Fewer weeks of benefits and those benefits are reduced. This translates into less money to spend and a declining purchasing power which, in turns, means that other workers are laid off, no jobs created, and the spiral continues.

The Liberals make cuts in the UI program without offering alternatives to workers. They do things the wrong way round. Their logic has nothing to do with common sense. This is worrisome and depressing for my constituents. It clearly shows that the Liberals are more interested in figures than in people.

Consequently, I ask the Liberals to support our amendment regarding the premium rate. If the Liberals are so sure of the positive effects of that drop, they have to support our position. However, it remains to be seen whether they have the courage and the will to do so. I have strong doubts about that.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-17, in particular those clauses relating to unemployment insurance.

Canadians have quite rightly been proud of the unemployment insurance benefits in this country. During the so-called free trade debate one of the grave concerns expressed by the New Democratic Party was the attempts that would follow the agreements to Americanize our unemployment insurance scheme among other issues such as health care.

What we see in the bill is not a true reform of legislation, not a true measure to build a system in Canada which really addresses the needs of the unemployed but rather regressive steps to attack the unemployed rather than to address the very serious question of unemployment.

During the discussions in the last session of Parliament on Bill C-21 brought in by the former Conservative government and Bill C-113, the Liberal opposition at that time was vehement in its opposition to the regressive measures in those two pieces of legislation. The clauses on unemployment insurance in Bill C-17 far exceed the regressive measures in those previous pieces of legislation which were decried loudly by members opposite when they were in opposition and now are being implemented with a vengeance in the bill.

Just to give one example, in 1989, 90 per cent of unemployed people were covered by unemployment insurance in this country. Just four short years later, after the Conservative government trashed the unemployment insurance scheme, only 65 per cent of unemployed workers are covered by unemployment insurance.

Let us be clear what we are talking about here. This is an insurance scheme. Under the previous regime, the government withdrew its funding and financial obligation for unemployment insurance. It is an insurance scheme by employers and employees. Insurance means you pay into a scheme and you are entitled to a benefit from that scheme.

I am truly shocked that the current Liberal government has chosen to bring forward a piece of legislation even worse than that brought in by the Conservative government. I am sure there is not a Canadian in this country who expected this government to be worse than the previous government. It is going some to say that it could actually accomplish that in the bill. That is exactly what it has done.

I want to give a few specific examples. First, Bill C-17 will introduce a means test to determine the level of rates. What is really concerning about the bill is that it hurts those in areas of high unemployment even more than those in areas with less unemployment. I cannot believe the provinces and territories are not screaming from one end of this country to the other because what this bill does as it has done in the past is simply transfer responsibility for supporting unemployed workers while they are looking for a job to the provinces and territories. Once again this is what the government is doing.

The duration of benefits has been slashed across the country just at the time that long term unemployment becomes a problem. In the past we saw that the duration of unemployment for Canadians was much shorter than it now is. What is even more shocking is that at present only 59 per cent of Canadians have full time jobs in the country.

A report released this week called "The Outsiders" reports levels of poverty and unemployment not seen since the Depression.

On the one hand we have in our country an economic system in crisis. For far too many people this is not a recessionary period, this is a depression. On the other hand we have a Liberal government that says it is going to take a new way but has taken an even worse way than the previous government in attacking the unemployed.

In the February budget 60 cents on every dollar in cuts was taken from the unemployed through job cuts and cuts to other social programs.

The second matter that is very concerning about this bill directly contrasts to the red book which we hear so much about. In the red book it was said: "The people are irritated with governments that do not consult or that disregard their views or try to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors. A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institution of government".

What has it done in this legislation? It is one of the biggest grabs of power by the government from Parliament that I have seen in the seven years I have been in this House of Commons. Under this legislation, particularly the pilot projects section, the power will rest solely with the government to determine the rules and the nature of those projects, not with Parliament.

The government has appropriated $20 billion of taxpayers' money. It has said that it will not be all of the parties elected to Parliament that will help to decide how it develops this program. It is us, it is the government. That is exactly what makes people cynical about the majority kind of government we have and exactly contrary to the red book.

These regressive measures regarding unemployment insurance completely undermine any faith that might exist in the social policy review undertaken by the minister of human resources. The minister and the government on the one hand are saying they are really going to look at changes to the system. We in the New Democratic Party agree. We know the system does not function, that younger families are falling even faster into poverty and that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. We agree with looking at this.

However, what has the government done? It said on the one hand that it is going to consult everybody. In the secret document leaked this week it said it is going to spend over a million dollars not to do but to promote social policy review. At the same time in a piece of omnibus legislation hidden away we see that this government is setting the very parameters of new social policy.

The minister of human resources must answer to Canadians. Where is the review when the ministry of finance under this bill has set the policy?

We have here a very hypocritical piece of legislation at least in terms of meeting the kind of rhetoric we heard both when the Liberals were in opposition and now with their commitment to consult Canadians.

All Canadians are concerned about the social service network and how we should deal with that, none more so than the New Democratic Party. Let me mention several things that could achieve some of the same objectives.

The government did not come in with a full employment policy.

I hope it will support my private member's bill on full employment which will be up for discussion next month. If it had through a real plan reduced unemployment to about 9.5 per cent, the $2.4 billion cutback that we saw in this year's budget could have been avoided.

If the government were to truly focus on a full employment program we would not need nor would we even be talking about changes to the unemployment insurance system. We have to get away from the myth that unemployment is free and that we can deal with unemployment if we just hit the unemployed a little harder.

The New Democratic Party is totally opposed to the measures that the government has brought in regarding unemployment insurance. They do not address the serious problems in our society. In fact they make them worse.

I do not believe that Canadians elected this government to make the lives of millions of Canadians worse. That is exactly what is being done in the bill. I hope that the provinces and territories will stand and counter as well the measures that are in the bill.

Unfortunately, the objective of slash and trash has become much more the watchword as we see reflected in the bill than real reform and a real concern for Canadians. The social and financial costs of unemployment are huge. We know that but we will not address those costs by making it more difficult or by trying to transfer the problem.

I have received thousands of letters, petitions and cards opposing these unemployment insurance changes. I agree with them because they do not deal with the substantive issue in society.

In conclusion I hope the government will re-read its own speeches on Bill C-21 and Bill C-113 where it opposed even less drastic measures than the ones it is now taking. Shame on you is what I have to say to the Liberal Party.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the proposed amendments to the clause on unemployment insurance in Bill C-17. I would like to start by making it clear to Quebecers and Canadians that from the very beginning of the sub-committee's consideration of Bill C-17, during which I was the critic for the official opposition, the government tried to sneak through one of the major, if not the major reform of our social programs.

The proposals in the last budget, the first and last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, provide for slashing $5.5 billion from the unemployment insurance fund during the next three years. More than 50 per cent of these cuts will be felt by two particular regions, mainly the Maritimes, an area that is

not known for its booming economy, and especially in recent years with the crisis in the fisheries, and another region that has been hit very hard, my country, Quebec, which will also absorb a major share of the cuts the federal government proposes to make in the unemployment insurance fund through the Liberal budget.

Next year alone, although the Maritimes represent 8.5 per cent of the population, they will be hit by 26 per cent of the cuts totalling $21.4 billion which the federal government will make in the unemployment insurance fund. The government is going to take $630 million out of the pockets of the unemployed in the Maritimes.

As for Quebec, next year, the impact of these cuts will represent $535 million or 31 per cent of the total for that year. Again, this government, and I see a few of its eminent representatives, will make these cuts at the expense of the unemployed, of the neediest in our society.

That is how this government treats the unemployed. That is how this government says it will create jobs. That is how this government treats people who do not deserve to be treated this way, since they already have to cope with the unemployment and under-employment that is widespread in Quebec, in the Maritimes and more or less across Canada. Should we be surprised that this is happening?

When, not so long ago, I heard the Prime Minister refer to the unemployed as people who were always drinking beer and say they should stop drinking beer and go out and look for a job, I said to myself: Now that is statesman like. That is a man with vision. And that from someone who on so many occasions waved the red book, saying: We are concerned about jobs. Now that is a kind of cynicism we have never seen before in Quebec or Canada: cynicism at the expense of the unemployed.

And when we consider that the present Prime Minister once represented the riding of Beauséjour in the Maritimes, and that normally if he did his job-which I sometimes doubt when I see him in his prime ministerial role-he ought to be aware of the economic situation in the Maritimes and the impact of the cuts he himself proposed as the leader of the government. He should know that these cuts will have a tremendous impact on all the Maritime communities already crushed by the demise of one of its most important industries, the fishing industry, and by other difficulties of industrial revival and redeployment or diversification.

Without the Bloc Quebecois, without our hard work, the subcommittee responsible for studying Bill C-17, and in particular the part relating to unemployment insurance, would have sat only two and a half days. One day to hear department officials explain the content of the report and a day and a half to hear witnesses. By being very persistent, we finally managed to obtain an extension of about two weeks. But even that was not enough, because this is the biggest reform of unemployment insurance since its creation. What I heard during those two weeks was, for example, the feeling of helplessness of the people from the Gaspe.

I was talking this morning with my colleague, the Bloc member for Gaspé, and he was telling me that in his riding the unemployment rate was at least 27 per cent. The increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for UI, from 10 to 12 weeks, will have an enormous impact on some people. My colleague was telling me that last month, only 42 per cent of the unemployed had been able to secure at least 10 weeks of work and were therefore eligible under the new rules introduced by this government. At 12 weeks even fewer people would have qualified. In these single-industry areas, where seasonal work is the norm, there are very few places where you can work more than 10 weeks.

And I would tell you that, during the two and a half weeks of hearings of the sub-committee on Bill C-17, people from the Maritimes came to see us saying that the measures proposed in that bill would destabilize whole communities, would make most of the seasonal workers, fishermen already affected by the fisheries crisis, go from unemployment insurance to welfare and that welfare benefits would come out of the already scarce provincial funds, as we well know.

When I saw how offhand my Liberal colleagues were with the people of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and everywhere else in the maritimes, and particularly the people of the Acadian Peninsula, I could not help but find it revolting. These people presented arguments to us and to the government, saying that with these measures, the government was attacking them directly without offering any compensation like economic development measures, diversification of the economic base or programs to help them get back into the labour force. The government was attacking them and cutting their means of subsistence and it was saying: "Come what may, it is a case of make or break for these people".

I even saw, and I must admit I am still troubled and moved by that, members of this government who threw out people who had driven hundreds of kilometres because they could not afford to fly. They came from the Acadian Peninsula and from Newfoundland to shout and cry their hopelessness. And the members of the government did not even have the courage to listen to all they had to say; they just threw them out.

One evening, there was one Bloc member, no Liberal member, no Reform member, and yet people had come all the way from Atlantic Canada to once again voice their grave concerns.

I was outraged by such a show of cynicism during the committee hearings. We can see this characteristic trait of the Liberals displayed in their attitude in general, and in the measures they are implementing. I can tell you that my constituents in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and the constituents of all my colleagues and probably of quite a few Liberal members opposite, have had just about enough of their cynicism, and their sarcasm regarding such fundamental things as human misery and suffering, which are considerable east of Manitoba.

I am particularly interested in one specific amendment aimed at deleting clause 28. The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the proposed table of required number of weeks of insurable employment, and to go back to the initial provisions. In areas which are heavily dependant on resource industries, people have no other choice than to hope for some better times, and now they see that to be eligible for UI, they need 12 weeks of insurable employment, instead of 10.

What I have heard in the past three weeks has convinced me more than ever that it is important to treat people with respect. For instance, we were given statistics for Labrador, showing that up to 65 per cent of the people there, whole communities in fact, were without work at one time or another during the year, and that, of course, they would be hit very hard by this bill.

All I ask is a bit of compassion for these people. Let Parliament adopt the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and let the government implement measures for the diversification or the strengthening of our industrial base, and to facilitate the re-entry of unemployed workers into the labour force. These people need hope.

[David Walker, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to these motions and respond to the critic of the Bloc Quebecois.

I am very pleased to see such a large audience here today. Sometimes we see the ironies of Canadian politics first hand. It gives us an opportunity to understand, and I do wish the member has the opportunity to listen to me here. Here is a man standing up right now who has been one of the great supporters of the UI program. What is the UI program?

The UI program is one of the greatest contributors to national unity we have ever had. It does not matter what part of the country you live in. We have made rules; we have made exceptions; and we have reached out to make sure that no matter what economy you are in or what part of the country you live in, you have an opportunity to participate in UI.

There is a party whose sole purpose is to come here and destroy our country, but what does it do? It ends up defending a program that benefits all Canadians. This is the hypocrisy which drives the government crazy. Yes, this is a very important program and, yes, people in Atlantic Canada deserve to be protected and deserve to be supported. These members have to realize that this is a national program which requires national participation. No program in the last 50 years has contributed more to the needy regions of our country than this legislation.

Part of the difficulty with the opposition is it repeats day by day misrepresentations of what happens in committees, which allows people to think what it says is really the truth.

Let me clarify the record of what happened in committee. When we began hearings there was not one particular group which had expressed an interest in talking on the bill. We had an agreement from this party that we would allow a week to see if groups came forward.

Suddenly, to use a colloquialism, to hot dog it for the press, they said: "we are cutting off the debate" when they had made an agreement that a week was sufficient. Suddenly the press shows up and the line changes in the cheapest of all forms of politics.

Second, several weeks were set aside for people to come forward. Not one group that asked to come forward has not been heard on the bill. There has not been one group that has not been spoken to and asked questions of.

The government has reached out to make sure that its program is understood and that when groups come forward, whether they are from the Gaspé or from Atlantic Canada or a group from downtown Toronto, which had really good ideas to reform and to improve on the system, they are responded to.

The government has been very proud of the way it approached a very complicated bill such as this and the way it set out hearings and gave an opportunity for everyone to speak who wished to speak on the bill.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the proposed unemployment insurance reform. I have already criticized certain aspects of the proposed reform and today, I would like to draw the House's attention to one particular measure which would reduce UI premiums to $3 as of January 1, 1995.

As everyone knows, the premium was increased to $3.07 on January 1, 1994. In its budget, the government party stated the following:

The UI measures proposed in the budget will enable the government to rollback the UI premium rate for 1995 to $3. By the end of 1996 there will be 40,000 more jobs in the economy than could be expected if premiums were allowed to rise.

What is the government saying? It is saying that unemployment insurance premiums increased on January 1, 1994, that is while the current Liberal government was in office, and that this increase resulted in the loss of 9,000 jobs in Canada. Yet, the government did nothing to stop the increase from taking effect.

The premium rate was slated to increase to $3.30 in 1996. The government is saying that if the rate increase were allowed, in view of the cost to employers, roughly 31,000 jobs would be lost. When we add 9,000 jobs and 31,000 jobs, we come up with a total of 40,000 jobs. And yet, in the budget, this is called creating 40,000 jobs.

I think this illustrates one typical way the current government has presented the facts in the last six months.

The government floats some figures as to what might have happened had it not acted in a certain way. People are left with the impression that jobs have been created. The figure of 40,000 jobs is almost equivalent to the number of jobs announced in the infrastructure program of which the government is boasting of late.

In the meantime, what is the government doing for the jobless person in a region such as my own, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region? It is a region in need of industrial development, a region, particularly my riding, where major industries, workers and the surrounding population once flourished. Large companies such as Alcan and Abitibi-Price paid their workers handsomely and brought obvious wealth to the region.

This glorious era is long gone. Large companies are converting their operations and rumours are flying in the region that employment levels will decline even further.

Alcan in Arvida and Abiti-Price in Kénogami have reduced the workforce at their plants by at least one third in recent years. Unemployment is high in my region. People are hoping that governments will take adequate steps to ensure that wealth is generated and employment picks up.

What do we find in this Liberal government budget? A hypothetical measure which, had it been implemented, would have caused a number of jobs to be lost but, since the government is dropping it, fewer jobs will be lost.

And that is presented as a job creation measure! I would say that in the regions, people are worried, particularly in resource areas like mine, in which traditionally, heavy industry has developed natural resources and produced primary products.

What Alcan produces is primary aluminium for use abroad in the manufacturing of industrial goods. What the Abitibi-Price plant in Kénogami produces is paper and paperboard for the export market. Our regions have come to depend on these industries and today jobs cuts have local residents concerned.

Some have lost their jobs while others live in fear of loosing theirs. So, what does the government have to suggest in its budget to ensure some kind of a future for these people? First, it announces cuts to the unemployment insurance plan at a time when people need it the most and, second, it proposes no concrete measures to create jobs.

Instead, you find hypothetical measures like the one I am denouncing now. There is also the infrastructure program, but these are all measures that take time to implement and even so, I have noticed that certain municipalities take advantage of the infrastructure program to get the federal and provincial governments to pay for work they would have done anyway.

One can seriously doubt the job creation potential of such programs because, after all, part of this work would have been done anyway. Creating jobs, and creating new infrastructure for that matter, does not ensure that we will have a stronger financial base in the future. All this does is to make the federal and provincial governments foot the bill for work that would have been done anyway.

I am therefore amazed that a party which ran on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, produced this kind of budget.

The unemployed and, in my region, small business owners, people looking to market new products, those who want to continue to build our region which celebrated its 150th birthday just two or three years ago, are disappointed.

Some of these people had expected a lot from this government. You will say that in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, the Bloc Quebecois candidates captured perhaps around 65, 66 or even 75 per cent of the vote like my leader, Mr. Bouchard, in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean.

You will say that a lot of people may not have believed in the illusions, in the nice promises of the Liberal Party, but there were still people who looked at the Liberal Party's platform and thought it contained a few measures that would have improved our economic situation.

These people may have voted for the party because of these promises and they now realize that nothing of the kind has been done after six months and a long development process. We are told that the Liberal government has been in office for only six months, except that the whole election platform development process had started a year or a year and a half earlier, so we can say that the Liberal Party platform has been around for a year and a half.

A year and a half later, the people of my region who need new development programs to kick-start their economy see nothing in the government program that can meet their needs.

I think it is important to reduce UI premiums. They obviously place a heavy strain on employers. But if it was so important and if we should be so proud of it, why does this reduction not take effect on June 1, as proposed by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup?

Why must we wait another year to give hope to the people, to create jobs? Because if, as we are told, this measure had caused 9,000 job losses as of January 1, by cancelling it now we could assume that 9,000 jobs would be created. What is the Liberal government waiting for when it could be creating 9,000 jobs? It is waiting for January, for people to be even more desperate, for a number of people now on UI to go on welfare. Is that what the government is waiting for?

We see that deep down the government did not have a firm policy and that it has pursued the policy established by the previous Conservative government because this premium increase which took effect on January 1 had been planned by the Conservative Party.

In closing, I must point out that this new economic wind, this new hope for workers and the unemployed that had been raised by the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election campaign did not materialize. I will be happy to support the amendment of my colleague who wants the proposed UI premium to come into effect on June 1 so that jobs can be created as soon as possible.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member had only 10 minutes within which to misrepresent the bill and mislead the Canadian public.

Earlier one of the speakers from his party used the phrase "my country, Quebec". I suggest if that is the case, he is in the wrong Chamber. If he wants to represent Quebec, Quebec is represented in the Senate. It is also represented by the premier of the province of Quebec. The hon. member only represents a riding in Quebec.

We are discussing Bill C-17. It deals with the unemployment insurance program which is a program for Canadians from coast to coast. We all contribute to this program to get the benefits.

Shortly after World War II, Winston Churchill was asked to make a distinction between communism and capitalism. He said: "If capitalism is the equal distribution of wealth, then communism is the equal distribution of misery".

If Canada is not good enough for some members of the Bloc, if Canada is not good enough for them to share in the prosperity of this country then no doubt their opposing the bill guarantees the people in Quebec the equal distribution of misery.

I ask my colleagues to support the bill because the bill is a job creation bill. In the last two months this government has created 115,000 jobs. This government is the only government to have 58 per cent popularity in Canada today. We have to continue with this progress until we get the maximum number of Canadians working again and bring the unemployment down, to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said that we did not necessarily represent Quebec or our ridings; I remind him that the mandate we received is to defend Quebec's interests, as was stated very clearly. That is why Quebecers chose the Bloc Quebecois, because the Liberal candidates did not represent the way of the future that they considered necessary.

Today, I rise to speak much more about the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in my riding who are looking for real straight-forward job creation measures. Rioux Fibreglass, for example, in Sainte-Françoise, MT Pressure Moulding, FF Soucy Prelco are small or medium-sized companies-in fact, the paper company is fairly large-that want simple programs. They want something so that they can contribute quickly to society by creating jobs.

The infrastructure program is a smoke screen. It is good politics, it is good for their image, it creates some jobs, we admit, but there are much clearer and simpler measures that unfortunately do not provide the political coverage which this government seeks and seems desperately to want.

My amendment is very simple: it would lower the employer's contribution to UI to 3 per cent right away, instead of playing the government's very Machiavellian game. They have created a new kind of job. Before, there were full-time, part-time and temporary jobs; now there are the jobs that they saved. They boast that they created 40,000 jobs because they saved them from disappearing.

I think that the message we must give Canadians and Quebecers now is one of confidence and the way to do that is with positive actions which tell industrialists that it is time to invest and go ahead, not contrary actions that restrict their economic commitment and keep them from playing the role that they should in creating jobs to restore prosperity.

This government prefers to give very ambiguous messages. While the government claims to want to create jobs, it decided that, in a region such as the Gaspe Peninsula, which has an unemployment rate of 27 per cent, workers will need three additional weeks to be eligible to UI benefits and will get these benefits for a shorter period. What a way to build confidence! The same bill tells civil servants, whose salaries are rather good, that things are so bad that the government must freeze their

salaries and that they cannot be paid what they deserve. Another negative message.

It sounds very much like the old Conservative line. It sounds like what they used to say before Franklin Roosevelt became president of the United States, just after the Depression. Then, people were saying: "We have to cut spending. Let us cut as much as possible and, more importantly, let us not create jobs because this will happen by itself". The purpose of this amendment is to send a clear message to entrepreneurs, to give them some leeway as quickly as possible. This is particularly important in the case of an industry such as tourism.

There are many seasonal jobs in the summer. This is the time to send a message to put people back to work. With the savings they will make, employers can contribute more easily to the job creation effort.

This is not merely a question of money and maths. There is also a psychological effect involved. In that regard, the current Liberal government missed the boat and this is why its budget satisfied so few Canadians.

Consequently, I ask members opposite, particularly those who live in the Maritimes and in regions where there are many seasonal workers, to support our amendment.

Imagine if, tomorrow, we were to send employers a message to the effect that it has dawned on the government that the simplest way to create employment was to allow small businesses to act quickly, without red tape, without additional paper burden, and without having to get approval from three levels of government to build a sidewalk. This would allow small entrepreneurs to directly invest the money they would save by not having to spend it on bureaucratic formalities.

I do hope that government members will understand that. After all, they were elected by promising "jobs, jobs, jobs". They should understand that when such political commitments are made but not fulfilled, it greatly undermines the credibility of politicians.

Last fall, Canadians elected a new government because they wanted one which would put the emphasis on job creation through concrete and realistic measures. Today, you have the opportunity to adopt one such measure with this amendment and I hope that you will do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my riding is Cumberland-Colchester in that great province of Nova Scotia, which is classified as a maritime province, and since the hon. member has just referred to us on several occasions I believe it is important that I express some of the views that business in the maritime provinces has expressed to me on Bill C-17 and our budget.

In Nova Scotia we have some 90,000 small businesses employing fewer than 50 persons each. We have a population of just under 900,000. That is a one to nine ratio of small business to population. Those business people have said to me: "If we could only reduce payroll taxes, UI premiums, if we could only reduce worker's compensation and those things that impede taking on more employees, then we could take care of job creation". This is the message that small business has sent to me as a member of Parliament representing the maritime provinces.

I suggest that it is small business in the great province of Nova Scotia that will do more to create jobs. By doing our part by dealing with some of the payroll taxes we are doing the most to stimulate economic growth and jobs in the business sector.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-17. It is vitally important for me, as a Quebecer, not to keep quiet about the major changes the government wants to make to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

These changes will particularly affect Eastern Canada, the Maritimes and Quebec. The Liberals are trying to play down the losses Quebec will incur by talking about job creation. It would be day-dreaming to think that the public will be fooled by that, because no jobs will actually be created by these changes. That is what I will try to demonstrate here, today.

Like all of Eastern Canada, Quebec will be hard hit by the increase in the number of weeks of insurable employment included in Bill C-17. Indeed, as I said previously, only the regions in Canada with a high level of unemployment will be affected by the changes to the number of weeks of insurable employment. That means six out of thirteen regions in Quebec, and seven out of thirteen regions in the Maritimes. Also, 95.6 per cent of UI claimants in Quebec will be directly affected by the changes to the number of insurable weeks needed to become eligible for UI benefits.

The people of my riding will be directly affected by these new measures. We have received hundreds of letters asking me to intervene in order to prevent the unemployment insurance system from being changed that way. Those are protest letters coming from taxpayers who, as myself, cannot accept these major changes to unemployment insurance. It is on their behalf that I speak today and also that I oppose Bill C-17. It is for my constituents and also for all those of Quebec and Canada who will be targeted by the changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act that I oppose that bill today.