Mr. Speaker, what counts for Canadians is jobs, and that is what counts for the government as well. This is also the fundamental objective of the bill on employment insurance, which the opposition motion is so wrongly criticizing.
The bill does more than protect the incomes of the unemployed. It is based on the principle that we must more actively help people find work. And it is based on the requirements of a modern economy. Another question, however, is central to the debate. The employment insurance bill announces a completely new way to view the role of the provinces in the labour market. This is one indication of this government's flexibility in past matters and its continued flexibility in federal-provincial matters.
The issues on creating and maintaining jobs had to be gone at in greater depth. A serious look had to be taken at ways of combining our efforts with those of the provinces. This means understanding jurisdictional problems and finding solutions.
We take into account the fact that the provinces are responsible for education and job training. We accept the point of view held by many in Quebec and elsewhere that the federal government should not get involved in job training. We acknowledge that the federal government should not get involved in activities that risk changing provincial priorities in the area of job training.
Last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development restated that commitment. He went further. He outlined how the new employment benefits under employment insurance would assist in getting Canadians back to work. Needless to say, they will be much more respectful of provincial responsibilities in this area.
Quebec provides an excellent example of this sort of active approach: collective organizations and partnerships such as the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre.
The employment insurance bill provides for a new balance to federalism. This is what we see in employment benefits. It is based on an answer to a very important question: Would a new set of roles and arrangements between the federal and provincial governments do a better job of getting Canadians back to work and would it do that more efficiently?
The answer to this question is yes. And now is the time to say yes. Quebec is the very place this answer has to be given. We will no longer be buying training courses from public or private institutions. We will withdraw from apprenticeship, work-study and training programs at the workplace. These measures are in keeping with the consensus in Quebec.
However, while the federal government no longer intends to play a role in manpower training, it does intend to continue its role in helping the unemployed return to work. The new employment benefits will represent an investment in people. We want to spend this money so effectively that our clients will never need us again. We want to spend this money on, devote it to activities that will ensure the best results.
Wage subsidies, for example, will help employment insurance clients find work, and we are talking here primarily about people such as those with a disability, who have a harder time of it.
Income supplements will help employment insurance clients find work; most of these people may need short term financial assistance.
Job creation partnerships will help create new jobs for employment insurance clients.
The five measures we have just mentioned are not programs; rather, they outline the types of needs on which we have decided to focus our efforts.
We are reaching out to Quebec and we are ready to work with its employment development programs and tools.
Through the strategic initiatives program, the federal government already supports two Quebec programs that should allow all of Canada to learn important lessons on the labour market. Federal support for PWA will help over 25,000 families throughout Quebec benefit from this important program every year.
As my hon. colleagues may know, PWA provides wage assistance to low income families. Parents benefit, of course, but so do tens of thousands of children, who can then grow up in families who are proud of their work.
The results will be clients who are better off with a simple process. That is a basic reason why we are insisting our programs be harmonized with provincial ones.
By reinvesting insurance savings, we will spend more on helping these Canadians. Expenditures will rise from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion. This money will be spent on concrete measures that will make it possible for Quebecers and Canadians to find work.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to sum up these various arguments. Our government has said that it would withdraw from job training, and it is. We are going to focus our efforts on effective measures that have a tangible impact. We have made a commitment to harmonize efforts and to strike partnerships so that we can provide real benefits for our clients and for the future of employment insurance.
As part of this employment insurance proposal, we invite the provincial governments to collaborate with us in designing and distributing employment benefits.
I was therefore delighted to see that the Quebec government has taken an important step toward an agreement. When the Quebec National Assembly voted in favour of the Liberal amendment urging it to discuss with the federal government, it made a decision that gives us some hope. It took a step that should eventually improve the choices offered the unemployed throughout Quebec.
We are confident that our commitment to fully respect provincial jurisdiction over education and training is a step in this process. We feel that our commitment to harmonize our activities with those of the provinces is another.
The government has always been committed to flexible federalism and to flexible approaches on federal-provincial issues such as working together to help the unemployed.
Everyone will benefit from this type of collaboration.