Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time I rise in this House to speak on cuts to the unemployment insurance program. The first time was immediately following the budget speech. Then I spoke again at second reading and at report stage and finally, today, at third reading.
By my count, Bloc Quebecois members have made 60 speeches on UI cuts in this House, that is to say over half of all speeches made on the subject. How come?
On the government side, efforts were made to wrap up these UI cuts in an omnibus bill, a catchall bill which contains interesting measures on the whole, but hides these cuts that signal further cuts to social programs affecting the less fortunate.
As the hon. member for Mercier said this morning, this is a very sad day indeed, because the less fortunate segment of the population is being attacked. But what did we just hear during Question Period? Answers that were, for the most part, disturbing. The government, which has saved $1.3 billion in unemployment insurance, did not dare attack, in this budget, family trusts which benefit the wealthiest members of our society.
This means that people who already enjoy the best lifestyle in this country will continue to do so while, in an effort to reduce the deficit, the government will ask the less affluent to make a $1.3 billion sacrifice. I would like to point out that $1.3 billion is $300 million over the projected cost of the infrastructure program which was announced by this government, is under way and involves the three levels of government.
If the Bloc Quebecois members, the official opposition members, have spoken on this issue as often as they have, it was to show they had tried everything. Today is the last day. By moving amendments and having as many of our members as possible speak to this bill, we tried to make the government realize a change of attitude concerning the less affluent was in order. We have also recalled at every opportunity the positions government members had held when in opposition.
Just last year, the former Conservative government introduced two bills respecting unemployment insurance. The first one was Bill C-105, and you will remember that there was so much controversy about this bill tabled by the then minister of employment that he had to table an all new one, namely Bill C-113, in which the number of instances where the benefit of the doubt was given to the unemployed instead of the commission was reduced. It also provided for a reduction in unemployment insurance rates.
I will read, as it is worthwhile remembering, some of the statements that were made at the time by members of the current Liberal government, in particular the hon. member for York South who, coincidentally, is Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development. He had this to say about Bill C-113: "Reaction has been so strong because the changes to the unemployment insurance program contained in Bill C-113 threaten every Canadian who has a job. By reducing the benefit rate from 60 per cent to 57 per cent of insurable earnings, the government is going to be taking money out of the pockets of some families. It may only be $80 a month, but for some households, that represents the hydro and phone bills or a weekly order of groceries".
For the vast majority of Canadians who live pay cheque to pay cheque, losing an extra $80 a month can be a major set-back. What about today? There is another 2 per cent reduction, which amounts to some $50 a month. We can now repeat the arguments that the parliamentary secretary put forward at the time and ask how come he cannot influence the minister he is so close to. What happened in the past year that caused the parliamentary secretary to do such an about-face on the benefit rate reduction? We wonder.
He read a letter-I am certain that the situation has not changed-that had been sent to one of his colleagues. The letter was addressed to the Minister of Employment with a copy to his colleague. It was from an expectant mother who was distressed to learn that UI benefits she would receive during maternity leave were going to be reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent.
And I could go on for several more pages because the Parliamentary Secretary to the current Minister of Human Resources Development has been, I must admit, one of the most prolific in this regard, especially when young people are concerned. He waxed indignant against the previous government's attempts to cut unemployment insurance, saying, among other things, that young people and women were perhaps the two social groups that were the most threatened by UI cuts because their jobs, as everyone knows, are the most precarious. Thirty per cent of precarious jobs are held by young people and even more, nearly 50 per cent, by women.
I find it hard to understand. I am asking people whom I know have social convictions, who are now on the government side, why, now that they are in office, they continue to support a bill now at the last stage of the adoption process which will take, let me remind you, $1.3 billion out of the pockets of unemployed Canadians.
I will now read an excerpt from a speech delivered on March 24, 1993 by the current Chairman of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development when he was a member of the opposition. He said: "Once again the Tories have chosen to ask those that are the main victims of the recession, the unemployed, to bear the burden of expenditure restraint, while at the same time, they enact other measures that allow the wealthy to continue to escape paying their fair share of taxation and contributing to deficit reduction".
Today our leader asked a question about family trusts. Why did you not stop them? Why did you not do something so that people who hold considerable fortunes in family trusts pay more tax? Despite a negative answer, the bill that will be passed in a few hours talks about cuts to unemployment insurance. Not just anyone is saying that; it comes from the current chairman of the human resources development committee, of which I am a member.
What could have happened in a year to make this member, who was then in opposition, do an about-face, turn around 180 degrees and agree to have his government pass a bill that will again cut payments to the poorest people.
Now the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce made a long speech on it. He said: "When more than a million Canadians are without work and struggling to feed their children, pay the rent and meet their families' basic needs, the government cuts their benefits from 60 to 57 per cent of their insurable earnings for two years, saying that it hopes to restore them to 60 per cent when the economy is better". Listen to this: "This measure is unacceptable and we will continue to fight it". He did not continue much longer. A year later, the same member is on the government side; his government is proposing not only to go back to the previous measure but to take off another 2 per cent for 85 per cent of those unemployed people.
What has happened to this member in a year? Nevertheless, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is very experienced and is surely used to the idea that an opposition member may one day quote what he said in Hansard . What has happened to make this member remain silent today?
If it were only backbenchers! Now here is a question from the present Minister of Human Resources Development. It is vaguer, but we still see which way he was going then. He said: "Yesterday, the Minister of Employment made what we could call an outrageous speech to the Empire Club in Toronto. Once again, he attacked the unemployed and unemployment insurance. He said that Canada's social programs were like a net to
catch fish. It is not a very flattering comparison for the thousands of Canadians who are without work".
This minister was a Liberal opposition member last year and I could quote many more who spoke out then against the Conservative government's desire to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seemed to be the apple of his eye. What has happened? What is going on? That was a year ago. As far as I know, there was no indication in the red book that the government would be cutting UI. On the contrary, I heard hon. members and now government ministers repeat dozens of times to anyone willing to listen that they certainly would not cut social programs.
And what are they doing now? Even before completing his consultation for a social program reform, as soon as the budget is passed, the minister will cut $1.3 billion from the UI. What happened to the minister during the year? He has some experience, having served as minister of employment in a previous Liberal government. He was familiar with the job. He cannot be blamed for improvising a position just like that.
If it were only one minister, I would keep quiet, but I made a brief search, and here is a question asked by the current Prime Minister. At the time, he said the following: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the Conservative Prime Minister thinks that the approach used by the minister, which is to call all opponents of the bill separatists, is unacceptable to the people in Canada. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout the country feel that some measures in that bill", referring to Bill C-113, "are totally unacceptable".
What happened a year later? The Prime Minister, who was then in opposition, now leads a government which, far from reversing the trend to cut UI, is reinforcing it. What happened? One has to wonder.
I could quote other MPs, but people sometimes say: "Ah, these Bloc Quebecois members and their opinions". So, instead I will quote the opinion of journalists published in La Presse , last April 15, in an article under the following headline: ``819,000 people will go on welfare and 44,000 will become ineligible for UI benefits following amendments proposed in Bill C-17''. The article referred to July 3. This is important, because people are not always aware of that date. Some are, because they were affected by measures which came into effect on April 3, but those who will only be affected on July 3 have not noticed the change, because that change is yet to come.
The article went on to say: "According to the February 22 budget, as of July 3, people will need 12 weeks of insurable employment, instead of ten, to be eligible for UI benefits. It is estimated that 44,000 recipients will not be able to meet this requirement in 1994-95".
The article then dealt with another measure, this one in effect since April 3. It stated: "The duration of benefits is reduced according to the regional unemployment rate. In some regions, it will only be 35 weeks". In the good old days, back in 1989, that period could last up to 52 weeks. This is a major change. The article continued: "Together, these changes will result in 19,000 new welfare cases across Canada", for a mere two extra weeks of insurable employment. In total, as I said earlier, 819,000 people will have to go on welfare. What does that mean?
It means that people will lose UI benefits sooner, but will still be without a job. This will result in additional costs to provincial governments. Even though the federal government finances half of the costs of social assistance, it is leaving the bill to provinces.
In the case of an amount of $1.3 billion, this transfer represents a sum estimated at $735 million per year by economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal. That is a lot of money. Seven hundred and thirty five million dollars per year. This means, of course, that the federal government is amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to save money, but more than half of those savings, 60 per cent to be precise, are made by transferring this expenditure to the provinces. I wonder how people would react if a person unable to pay off his debts simply changed address and left his neighbour stuck with the bills. Nobody would put up with that. Yet, when the provinces complain about that situation, what does the federal government tell them? It tells them that it is a whim of theirs.
But $735 million is a significant amount of money. In the end, there is only one taxpayer. The men and women who look into this situation must find this total lack of foresight from the government absolutely incredible.
If there were, at least, some jobs available, but unemployment is high. With 1,000,622 jobless people in April, and 467,000 Quebecers out of work, what we need is jobs.
But what do these people get as an answer? That there are no jobs available, because it is not true that the infrastructure program will create enough jobs to put all of these people back to work. In conclusion, I know we are an hour and a half away from the passing of this bill, but I would once again ask members of the previous Parliament to refer to their notes and recall what was their former position about cuts to unemployment insurance. I urge them to maintain their previous position, to come back to their old policy and to let the underprivileged benefit from the current situation until the government has the guts to deal with the issue of family trusts.
