Mr. Speaker, I am glad you allow me this new opportunity to talk about Bill C-17.
Ever since the finance committee formed a sub-committee to study Bill C-17, a measure implementing the largest reform of the unemployment insurance program ever undertaken by a federal government and freezing the salary of public servants, among other things, I have closely followed this matter, as a member of the committee and as an opposition member provided with limited means. I have tried to do a little more than my Liberal friends, I have tried to make democracy speak.
You know that, despite the fact that this bill is the largest reform ever done of social programs in general and unemployment insurance in particular, the Liberal government had planned on only two days of hearings, including one with senior officials who were to explain to sub-committee members the provisions and technical interpretations of Bill C-17. Without the intervention of the Bloc Quebecois which demanded that we make a more thorough study of such a fundamental piece of legislation for social programs and for the future of many communities in Quebec and Canada, we would not have had, like we did, the equivalent of a week and a half to hear witnesses.
I can understand why, this morning, when the secretary to the minister of industry, trade and commerce rose to speak on Bill C-17, he did not dare speak about it, because he was ashamed of that bill. Selling Bill C-17 is an impossible task.
That is why he naively spoke about his recent trip to China. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that they are proposing a $5.5 billion cut in the UI system over the next three years. It is all about the despair of the many individuals who must endure the evils of unemployment, the plague of unemployment, in Quebec and in Canada, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry would rather tell us about his trip to China.
I was outraged when I heard him. I controlled myself, since control is still the best attitude, but I want to say now to my Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, that the way he is dealing with this bill is outrageous.
You were here this morning, Mr. Speaker, so you heard as well this same member, and others around him from the Liberal Party of Canada, shouting down duly elected members of the Bloc quebecois and tarnishing their reputation. Not only according to Quebecers who elected us, but also to Canadians in general, on basic issues such as the future of social programs, the economic policy, the disgraceful benefits enjoyed by the richest Canadians-family trusts-the Bloc Quebecois is the real Official Opposition.
Without us, many more objectionable measures like the ones implemented since the February 23 budget and measures that are unpopular and harmful to ordinary citizens, to taxpayers, would have been adopted by the government since it took power.
When a bill or government measure is indefensible, it is normal that members opposite resort rapidly to insults since it is the only weapon they have to sell a plan that is rotten from the start as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, did this morning, I would like to point out that close to 60 per cent of the planned cuts in unemployment insurance for 1995-96 will hit two regions: first, the Atlantic, and second, Quebec. It is 60 per cent even though these two regions have only one third of Canada's population.
Indeed, in 1995-96, the Atlantic provinces, with only 8.5 per cent of the population, will lose $630 million, bearing 26 per cent of the cuts for that year. The same thing will happen in Quebec, where the federal government will cut $735 million in unemployment insurance benefits, or 33 per cent of the total for
that year, when the province has only 24 per cent of the Canadian population.
From the beginning, there was an East-West split in the decision to dip into the UI fund. In 1990, in Quebec, we had the report titled Deux Québec dans un . Some of my colleagues remember very well that that report identified two Quebecs: one that was participating in and benefitings from economic development, and the other, rural Quebec, that was excluded.
The measure proposed by the federal government also identifies two regions where unemployment and underemployment are most widespread. There is more widespread unemployment and underemployment in these regions than any measure contained in the red book can ever solve, despite the fact that those people have shouted themselves hoarse, some to the point of losing their voices, waving the red book and claiming that jobs were the priority of the Liberal governement. In spite of all this, no concrete, meaningful, structural measures have been put into place in order to create sustainable employment. Instead, the government chose to take it out on two regions which do not deserve that, precisely because they are regions where underemployment and poverty are the most striking.
The measure to increase from 10 to 12 the number of weeks of insurable employment required to be eligible for unemployment benefits, which are themselves reduced in terms of percentage and of the number of weeks covered, has plunged several rural communities into utter confusion. These communities have already suffered, in the case of the Maritime Provinces, from the reduction of the fishing activity, from the reduction of the farming activity because of low prices and of the international crisis and from the reduction of forestry activity, all of which are seasonal.
The measure to increase from 10 to 12 the number of weeks of insurable employment required to be eligible for unemployment benefits directly affects the Maritime Provinces and part of Quebec, in particular the Lower St. Lawrence and the Matapédia-Matane areas and, in general, the Gaspé Peninsula. In these regions, where the activities are concentrated in one industry or are seasonal, many already had difficulty gathering the 10 weeks of insurable employment previously required.
I was flabbergasted when I realized that 60 per cent of unemployment insurance cutbacks would be made in the Maritimes and Quebec, particularly because the Maritimes were really hit in a horrible way. I was shocked when I thought that the current Prime Minister was once the member for Beauséjour and that, while he knew about the social and economic realities of that riding, he had accepted, as leader of the government, that such disastrous measures for rural communities be put in place.
I was even more flabbergasted when I heard the Prime Minister allude recently to the people of Beauséjour and said that the unemployed were beer drinkers. I understood then that our Prime Minister, when treating the unemployed this way, the most disadvantaged people of our society, when saying things like that, was not a head of state because a head of state has to show respect for the people who elected him and allowed him to be the member for that riding for four years and to come back into politics. I found that to be really shocking, coming from a Prime Minister.
Besides, what we heard from the Prime Minister and what I saw in the committee which examined Bill C-17 are very much similar to systematic cynicism. I also had to live for two weeks with sarcastic remarks from my Liberal colleagues. I am still calling them my colleagues even though I am deeply disappointed with the attitude of the Liberal members on the finance sub-committee.
We had witnesses, mainly from remote areas in Quebec, such as the Lower St. Lawrence, the riding of my colleague from Matapédia-Matane, and also from Gaspé. People came before the finance sub-committee from Newfoundland and Labrador where, at times, unemployment reaches 85 per cent. These people do not know where to turn to. They had pinned their hopes on this new government which talked about creating jobs, as well as restructuring and diversifying regional economies. They believed in the government. So, now that it has hit them with those measures, they do not know where to turn to anymore.
We had people from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and from both Acadian and anglophone communities in New Brunswick.
I will quote from a short newspaper article to illustrate the cynicism and the sarcasm shown by the Prime Minister who attended these sub-committee hearings. This article was entitled "New Brunswickers appearing before a sub-committee on unemployment insurance reform are kicked out after barely an hour". They kicked out people who came all the way from New Brunswick, even before their allotted time had expired.
If you allow me, I will quote Mrs. Mathilda Blanchard, who has been a union activist for the past 40 years. She said: "I have never been treated that way in my 40 years as a trade unionist". And you can read further that: "After coming to Ottawa, all the way from New Brunswick, to discuss the impact of unemployment insurance reform on her area, she and another group were cut short after only 30 minutes. The two other groups from New Brunswick that came after her were treated the same way".
In conclusion, the parliamentary committee which was reviewing Bill C-17 and certain budget provisions summoned to
Ottawa four Acadian groups but gave them only a total of 60 minutes to explain the consequences of the reform, when they were entitled to twice that time.
However, a number of business representatives, friends of the party who benefit from what we call tax loopholes and tax conventions, did voice their support for the government's measures. These individuals also receive preferential treatment from this government and contribute to the Liberal Party's coffers. This one group alone was allowed to testify for 47 minutes, whereas normally they would have been entitled to 30 minutes. However, because they were voicing their support for such hateful measures as cuts to unemployment insurance and because they spoke the same language as the government, viewing the jobless as lazy, they were allotted 50 per cent more time than they would normally have had.
I am flabbergasted to see that, in politics, there are people who behave this way toward Quebecers and Canadians, and dismiss offhand the lives of others, people who have no sense of fair play, the fair play which the members opposite claim to have, the same members who profess to be great Canadian democrats who listen to all Canadians. When we see things like this happen, we have some very serious doubts about the honesty of these individuals.
I would also point out that when the witnesses from the Maritimes testified, no Reform members were on hand because, despite what they say about being great Canadians from coast to coast, each time an issue arises which affects that part of the country east of Manitoba where they have no representation, then they become a little less Canadian. I find this rather sad.
Thursday evening, on the last day of hearings, there was one Bloc member on hand and no Liberal members, except for the chairman, and no Reform members. Perhaps they prefer to go out and dine in a good restaurant on Thursdays. In any case, the scheduled witnesses were from Newfoundland. When they showed up, they were astounded and scandalized. That evening, we were quite pleased when we were told that there was only one party in the House of Commons willing to defend Newfoundlanders and Maritimers, and that party was the Bloc Quebecois. How very cynical of this government. The other party is also blatantly guilty of not taking matters seriously.
In view of all this, of the cynicism displayed by this government in spite of its positive bias for employment, in view also of the proposed cuts to the UI program and the way the people who are the hardest hit by unemployment are being treated, I cannot help but compare their treatment to the coddling treatment of Canada's wealthiest families.
This morning and again this afternoon, family trusts were discussed. We were reminded that, year after year, the government deliberately forfeits between $350 million and $1 billion in revenue, owing to a policy put in place by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1972 and commonly known as family trusts. I cannot help but contrast the preferential treatment given to the wealthiest families in Canada against these cuts to the unemployment insurance program and their destabilizing effect on rural communities in Quebec and the Maritimes.
I cannot help either, since the two bills were debated one after the other, but think about the tax treaties in Bill S-2 and how major Canadian corporations have managed to dodge taxation and pocket hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I cannot help but notice that this government will cut $5 billion in social programs, and in the unemployment insurance program in particular, over the next three years, and in that it treats ordinary citizens the way I just described.
I would have liked to speak longer, but you are signalling that I have only one minute remaining. I will say this. I urge the government to reconsider its position on Bill C-17, in particular regarding the proposed cuts to unemployment insurance, because these measures will completely destabilize several communities in the Maritimes and in Quebec.
I would also request, with respect to another measure contained in this bill, namely wage freeze, to return to a better frame of mind. Twice in the matter of four years action had to be taken by the International Labour Office to remind the Canadian government it is required to abide by international conventions concerning free collective bargaining. When in opposition, the Liberals denounced the freezes imposed by the Conservative government, but they are now following their lead.
I am calling for a return to a better frame of mind because the government cannot go on like this, treating the people of Quebec and Canada with the kind of arrogance, sarcasm, cynicism and brutality they have demonstrated over the past few months. I hope for a return to a better frame of mind.
