House of Commons Hansard #271 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments.

Like everyone speaking today, I am honoured to address this motion. I clearly do not support the motion because referencing only Quebec narrows its scope. When the intent behind the motion is applied more appropriately to all provinces then of course I would support such an action.

At the end of my speech I will amend the motion so that it refers to the powers of all the provinces. Given they should all be treated equally, we must ensure motions such as these reflect that.

The motion proposed by my hon. colleague allows us to address some of the points made in the recent so-called employment insurance reforms. We believe the government intends to prorogue the House but in doing so may try to manipulate House procedure to ensure this legislation does not die on the Order Paper. Tabling the bill so close to Christmas break demonstrates that the government either does not expect to give it second reading until next February or that it hopes the bill will die on the Order Paper. Either way, tabling the bill as it has amounts to nothing more than irresponsible governance.

I will first address some of the amendments to employment insurance and then will focus on the government's failure to transfer powers to the provinces for labour market training. In its throne speech on January 18, 1994, the government stated that Canada's social security system must be responsive to the economic and social realities of the 1990s. This was a noble sentiment and we agree with it. However, the government also said in the throne speech that it would announce an action plan for major reform of the social security system to be completed within two years.

The minister's announcement is not major reform of the social security system and it barely qualifies as reform of the unemployment insurance system. I say this because the minister's tinkering will not create a single sustainable job.

Let us take a closer look at some of the changes. This is cosmetic change, not the kind of real governmental changes that Canadians are demanding. It is a name change; unemployment insurance is now employment insurance. Do we think that Canada's unemployed care about what the program is called? Unemployment by any other name is unemployment. It is this kind of rhetorical grandstanding of which Canadians have grown weary. Changing the name of UI to EI will not create a single sustainable job in Canada.

There is a rollback of payroll taxes of five cents for every $100. This is a tax rollback of one-twentieth of one per cent. This amounts to a savings akin to a wooden nickel. It is hard to imagine this so-called tax cut will create a single sustainable job in Canada.

The minister wants Canadians to think he has rolled taxes back but let us look at what is really going on. Part time workers will now have to pay the UI payroll tax which includes employer and employee shares totalling a 7 per cent tax hike. When eligibility is changed from weeks to hours, the government is imposing a tax grab on part time workers, a tax grab of over $1 billion.

This means youth in Canada and working moms, many of them single parents, will have to foot the bill. Youth and working mothers will have to work many hours to be eligible for benefits. While they are accumulating benefits the minister will be sure to tax their paycheques. The big problem with this is the lengthy period of eligibility. It is often the case, as it is with the nature of part time work, that the contributors will move from job to job with short periods of unemployment in between. This means youth and working moms will pay benefits and seldom will be able to collect. This amounts to a substantial tax grab on a segment of society which can least afford it.

The government has no estimates of how many jobs will be lost because of it. It does not know how many jobs will be lost because it has failed to do a thorough analysis of this aspect of the bill.

According to statistics ending in October of this year, youth unemployment in Canada stands at 15.6 per cent. We needed to hear yesterday and today some ideas on how to get our youth into meaningful work situations. Instead of positive change we have learned that today's proposals will cause employers to hire fewer part time workers because a tax is effectively imposed on the hiring of part time employees.

Let me restate this point. Part time workers now represent a massive tax hike on employers. This will not create a single sustainable job. In fact this change may choke off part time work altogether. This is especially disturbing when one considers that a growing percentage of the labour force is employed part time.

The minister announced an $800 million job training program. The auditor general's recent report indicated that these expensive and wasteful schemes do not create jobs. He criticized the Western Economic Diversification Program, ACOA in the Atlantic provinces and FORD-Q in Quebec. We all know what a colossal failure

the TAGS program has been. The government itself admits that the $6 billion infrastructure program only created a few thousand short term jobs.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about this announcement and more specifically related to the motion we are debating today relates to labour market training. It is clear from the government's package that the Prime Minister broke faith with Canadians when he announced he was giving labour market training to the provinces.

The minister is trying to sneak through the back door a new made in Ottawa social program scheme which will intrude on provincial jurisdiction. He has created two mega programs and for all these new programs all the provinces must reach agreement with the federal government. The Liberal government needs to give power and resources to the provinces with no strings attached. If not, then the gesture is meaningless. The government simply does not understand what decentralization means.

Let us move on now to decentralization, an issue that has garnered significant attention of late, especially given that the EI changes break the Prime Minister's Verdun commitment which he reiterated on Tuesday last week.

It is ironic that we debate the government's broken promise of decentralizing manpower training today. Today at committee we will hear the bureaucrats explain to us how Bill C-96 also fails to decentralize powers. In fact, the bill may even create new powers for the federal government. Even if this new power never manifests itself, the bill at a minimum entrenches the status quo of federal intervention into provincial areas of social policy jurisdiction, areas I am sad to say for which the new EI bill fails to relinquish power.

I find it quixotic, though I suppose not entirely uncharacteristic, that the government would try to enact legislation which engenders and champions the notion of centralization and the status quo. To do so amidst the decentralization forces pressuring the country to change is profoundly absurd.

Recent events have shown to all that fundamental change is required of our federation. There is almost universal agreement that the federal government needs to rethink its current role as provider of services and programs. In areas of social policy we cannot continue to support a system which separates the revenue raising capacity from the expenditure function. In other areas too there is strong evidence to support devolution to the most logical level of government.

In October the Reform Party released its vision for a new confederation. Reform believes that decentralization will permit future governments to respond more effectively to the needs of ordinary Canadians. It also addresses many of the historic concerns of individuals from all provinces.

Reform's plan includes giving provinces exclusive control over natural resources, job training, municipal affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation. It gives the provinces control over setting their own interprovincial standards for health, welfare and education, replacing federal cash transfers with tax points, and allowing provinces to raise their own taxes to finance social programs.

This decentralization will lead to a more balanced federation, one in which Ottawa will play a co-operative role rather than a dominating role. The proposals outlined in the new confederation speak to the long term. They furnish Canada with a vision. They put flesh on the conceptual bones of a new federalism. This is the kind of leadership that has been conspicuously absent from the current government benches.

How can one govern without a coherent direction? It is incomprehensible. I am not talking about prescience here, but about the courage to say: "These are my ideas; this is my vision". We have seen none of that from the government.

The traditional response to fiscal crisis has been centralization, consolidation and concentration. This instinct increasingly leads to failure. Centralized control and consolidated agencies create more waste, not less. There are many reasons that Reform speaks for this vision of decentralization and they will be outlined.

Decentralization will engender greater flexibility allowing institutions to respond more quickly to changing circumstances and client needs. Decentralization will create more effective program and service delivery, as the deliverers and providers of government assistance are closer to those they serve.

Decentralization will reduce waste, overlap and duplication created by concurrent jurisdictions and poorly co-ordinated government programs and services. Decentralization will engender greater fiscal responsibility, for a government that spends the money it raises will inherently be more accountable than one that spends the money someone else collects.

Decentralization in regard to the tax system is most compatible with the tenets of federalism. The efforts of a federal form of government is local autonomy. In its designated spheres, each unit is free to exercise its policy discretion unencumbered.

It is important to remember in this debate on labour market training that decentralization is neither a celebrated buzzword nor a passing political fad. It is a policy movement that has been vigorously championed in Canada since the 1960s. It represents reconfiguring the locus of attention in the federation.

Former B.C. Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson writes in his new book: "Canadians ultimately want less control by Ottawa and more local management of their affairs. The basic concept here is government closer to home. Now home is where the heart is in our private lives perhaps, but in government terms, home is where the folks have the knowledge and resources to do the job. That single thought takes us a long way".

Adhering to the rule of thumb that the responsibility for addressing problems should lie with the lowest level of government possible does not require that we disavow the notion of federal leadership. A federal government with fewer employees, fewer departments and smaller budgets can still have a steering role in Canadian society. There would still be a policy framework setting function in certain areas even if no services were delivered.

These would include: policy areas that transcend the capacities of state and local governments such as international trade, macroeconomic policy and much environmental and regulatory policy; social insurance programs like employment compensation where paying equal benefits to all citizens requires that rich and poor share differentiated burdens; and investments that are so costly that they require tax increases which might discourage business from locating or staying in a city or province. These are fundamental to leadership and to federalism at the central government level.

Even in these cases, Reform believes that programs can be designed to allow for significant flexibility at the provincial or municipal level. The federal government can and must work with provincial governments to define jointly the mission and the outcome, but in doing so it must free lower governments to achieve those outcomes as they see fit.

Today we see that British Columbia is going to be penalized to the tune of $47 million for trying to do just that. What has been the Liberal response to decentralization?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal York North, ON

Breaking the law.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Decentralization is not about breaking the law with all due respect to my hon. colleague on the other side of the House. The government has resisted the natural ebb and flow of this federation by operating completely oblivious to its surroundings.

We saw this in the recent referendum. The government grossly miscalculated by adhering to a status quo position. Only when it became obvious that its policy was a complete failure did it move to make insincere promises of change. Now where is this change? Where is this vision for a new federation, a new federalism? Where is the blueprint for a renewed Canada? Where is the leadership to bring forward such a plan, given this government's previous attempts at major change? I would suggest that we will be waiting a long time before we see substantive and meaningful change.

Let me give one example of how this government is failing to deliver on its promises to reform and decentralize social programs. Consider the current welfare issue in British Columbia. I wanted to come back to that in my text because it is extremely significant today. When the province made changes to its own program by stipulating a residency requirement for welfare qualification, the federal government stepped in, and it has indeed stepped in, in a punitive fashion today, and threatened the province. Yesterday the artificial deadline passed in B.C. and we now see the results of what has happened.

There is no question that the B.C. government should be permitted to administer its affairs without federal interference. The minister, rather than taking such punitive action against the province should back off and leave it free to run its own programs. It is absurd for the minister, who has radically reduced transfers to the provinces, to turn around and intervene in provincial jurisdictions.

The minister continues to refuse to meet with the provinces over the Canada health and social transfer. Now when the provinces try to move forward, he stands in their way. Go figure. It would seem this is the Liberal position on co-operative federalism. How terribly predictable. How truly unfortunate. How really "made in Ottawa" it is.

During our briefings on Bills C-111 and C-112 we were provided with a briefing package on the changes these bills provide. At every twist and turn and at every reference to labour market training it is very clear that the provinces must negotiate with the government. They must seek to enter into a formal agreement with the federal government on how employment insurance benefits will work and how they will be delivered. Instead of giving complete power and adequate resources to the provinces, these amendments give a de facto veto to the federal government over the management and control of manpower training programs.

Ironically, the Liberal government is holding on for dear life to programs it has proven it is absolutely incapable of managing properly.

Just two weeks ago the auditor general stated in his report that there are grounds for concern that a lack of training in key areas may be producing a braking effect on jobs for the unemployed when the economy is expanding. Clearly, Canada's auditor general believes that the Liberal government is failing in its attempt to create those long term sustainable jobs, jobs, jobs we keep hearing about from the other side of the House. In fact, one may conclude from his comments that the government is actually hindering job creation, not helping it.

The minister's changes amount to mere tinkering, not a sweeping and comprehensive reform. What we need are systemic reforms that address the needs of the chronically unemployed, which was what UI in 1940 was intended to do. It was to provide a bridge for short term unemployment, not the massive social safety net we now see.

I would like to share briefly with the House three options for change the minister did not address. Two of the options involve decentralizing power for training programs to the lowest level of government: directly to the individual. Our options for relinquishing control to individuals are motivated by the desire for individuals to care for themselves when they are capable of doing so. That is absolutely fundamental to the Reform ideology of individuals accepting responsibility to take care of themselves when they are able to do so. That is not too difficult to understand.

However, the government wants to maintain control over training because it is a traditional political activity to maintain visibility in the area of employment and job creation. After all, the election is only two years down the road, and we want to be visible out there. Boy, we went out there and created those jobs, jobs, jobs. Are we not good?

The first option to be considered is that employment insurance could be returned to a true insurance plan, as it was originally intended to be when it was created in the 1940s. This would mean doing away with regional inequities in the program and ensuring that only those who truly need benefits receive them.

The system has become an income supplement. Income supplement does not, in my definition, translate to insurance. We believe there is a need and place for income supplements, but they should not be in UI or EI or whatever it is called. UI was meant to provide workers with temporary assistance for brief periods of time when they were between jobs.

The second option would be for individuals to change how they contribute to unemployment insurance. They could contribute to registered employment savings trusts, or REST accounts. These accounts would be mandatory and would be used at the discretion of the individual. As many people never use UI, it is only a tax with no benefit. With a REST account, similar to RRSPs, if the funds are not used the money could be directed into their super-RRSP accounts. This idea is not without its problems; I acknowledge that. The period of transition would be difficult and youth and the intermittently employed may find the plan difficult to manage.

A third option for the government is to drastically slim down EI, return it to a true insurance plan, and at the same time have individuals contribute to REST accounts. These things would happen together. This plan would ensure that the chronically unemployed are cared for and that those people who are seldom unemployed would be able to administer their own employment insurance program. They would not be taxed.

These are three options we are developing. We hope that in the new year we will be able to finalize our research and bring our plan forward to Reform's general assembly in June, where the membership, the people, can debate and come to a final decision on this important policy plank.

Having proposed options for decentralizing training, and after having demonstrated yet again how badly the Liberal government has broken its promise to transfer labour market training, I move:

That all the words after "prevents" be deleted and replaced with the words "the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true labour market training policy of their own".

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

On the proposed amendment to the official opposition motion moved by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, I will take it under advisement and the Chair will respond to this matter in the shortest time possible and get back to the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform Party, the human resources development critic. At a time of constant change in our society, we welcome the meeting of minds and any exchanges that can take place between legislators and other individuals who are willing to propose new ideas. Although I may not agree with the concept prescribed by the hon. member, I certainly congratulate her on making at least the effort to come up with a new employment insurance plan.

I have some fundamental questions in relation to a couple of points. One deals with the issue of federal-provincial relations, which is preoccupying the minds of the Reform Party members and of course the Bloc Quebecois as well. Other questions relate to the employment insurance package as it relates to small business.

On the issue of decentralization of federal-provincial relations, members of Parliament who have followed this file attentively would probably find that the federal government has made many efforts with all the provincial governments to come up with a plan of action that speaks to the reality of the various provinces. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources Development has met with many of his counterparts. Part and parcel of this employment insurance legislation speaks to the fact that when we are talking about the tools, namely the self-employment assistance, the skills and loan grants, the top-ups in earnings, the federal government is co-operating with the provinces.

Second, on the definition of decentralization, local empowerment, and the redefinition of the relationship among the individual, the community, and government, it is clear to me that if we are to give vouchers or give the opportunity to an individual to make up his or her choice, that is the ultimate form of decentralization. May I add, it speaks to the confidence the federal government has in the people of Canada.

We believe the people of Canada can make the best choices for their own lives. They understand that in a changing economy they need to upgrade their skills, they need training opportunities, they need the types of vehicles that will ease their transition from the unemployment rolls onto the payrolls of our country.

Talking about payrolls, the issue of job creation is extremely important for the people of Canada. As a result of the measures taken in this bill, 100,000 to 150,000 jobs will be created. Who will create them? Small business, which is responsible for the creation of 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all new jobs in this country.

What have we done to enhance the opportunities for small business? We have lowered the premiums. The hon. member from the Reform Party says it is only a nickel. The reality is that if the hon. member were to calculate the reduction that occurs, not only to premium rates, and include the fact that maximum insurable earnings have gone down from $43,000 to $39,000, business also incurs that saving.

Equally important in this discussion is that it is not only business that gets the tax break, it is also individual Canadians who pay into the fund. That is a very important point to underline.

Another issue is that we believe in building a strong entrepreneurial spirit in this country. I think our actions speak to that. One of the five tools we have outlined in the human resources investment fund is the self-employment assistance program. Since we formed the government, 34,000 people have participated in this program, creating 60,000 jobs. That speaks to job creation and it also speaks to empowering people and giving people the opportunity that is required.

How else is small business being helped? The five tools will enhance the human resources potential of our country, which means we are going to have a better skilled workforce. A better skilled workforce means we can set as a goal high-paying, highly skilled jobs that produce high value added products. That is extremely important to underline as we modernize our economy.

When we talk about modernization, what about the new labour market information system that is going to connect business and people from coast to coast to coast so we may match people and also reduce the time people spend on the unemployment rolls of our country?

These are extremely positive measures, not to mention what we have learned from the past government's error in reference to reserves. By building up a higher reserve we are going to make sure that the next time there is a recession, hopefully not for a long time, or the next time there is a downturn in the Canadian economy, we will not be taxing small business and employees at a time when they need tax relief. This reserve will make that transition from economic downturns to better economic times a lot easier.

This will create stability in the premium rates. It will create jobs. It will create confidence. It will generate the type of confidence that is required so employment opportunities can be increased.

I would ask a simple question to the hon. member. In the employment insurance package the Reform Party introduced to the media a few months ago there are some fundamental flaws. One flaw is that it excludes more people than it includes, unlike our package, which brings in 500,000 people, including 44,500 seasonal workers who were excluded by the old unemployment insurance package. Why does the Reform Party, whether it is on the pension reform package or the employment insurance package, continue to practise the politics of exclusion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I concur that this is a welcome meeting of the minds. We can have reasoned debate. We can come to the House of Commons and feel secure in knowing that at least our ideas will be received and debated in an atmosphere of collegiality, understanding that we come to this place with differing ideologies.

The simplest answer to the hon. member's question when it comes to differing ideologies and how we understand and view the unemployment insurance system is that there is no doubt in the minds of the Reform Party that the unemployment insurance system is a fundamental labour market institution as it was developed in the 1940s. When it was developed in the 1940s it was for a specific reason: temporary assistance as an individual moved between jobs. It was not as it has now become, and I am quoting: "a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net".

If we look at it in those terms it is coming at the question from two very different points of view. On the one hand we would like to see it as part of and included in the labour market as a tool. On the other hand it has become part and parcel of the fabric of social support in Canada. Quite frankly, I do not quite know where a meeting of the minds would find agreement. We could see where each of us is going, based on our belief systems, on what we believe to be right.

Another comment with respect to the question of differing ideologies is from something which appeared on page 20 of the briefing notes we were given the other day. It comes back to the question he asked. I question the political motivation behind the part of the proposal dealing with employment benefits and services.

The federal government is now committing to work in concert with each province. The alarm bells start to sound when we start thinking about each province. The hon. member talked about inclusion and the same kinds of support across the country. Yet in my mind it will obviously be different because each province is invited to enter into agreements.

For the decentralization the hon. member has described, it tells me there will probably be a different set of circumstances for each province given its particular debt, deficit and unemployment situation. This will include the agreements. That is why I say there could be quite a difference when we are talking about federal-provincial alignment.

The design of the employment benefits and measures, how they will be implemented and a framework for evaluating the results tell me there will be consistency across the country. It just opens a social safety net to all kinds of expectations that perhaps the government has not thought about.

With respect to the member's comment about growth and small business in the country, there is no question that small business generates lots of jobs.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I ask the member to summarize in the next minute or two, if she could, so that we could resume the debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have one more point with respect to building up the reserve. I will move away from the small business comments I wanted to make.

Regarding the surplus in UI, I maintain the finance minister will probably do some very creative accounting with that surplus. He will reach his 3 per cent of GDP in the next budget and it will be on the backs of taxpayers in a UI surplus. Our growth rate right now, as was just reported, has moved from 4.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent. No one can tell me our economy is going anywhere. We have not created a single sustainable job since the government came to power.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Before we resume debate I will return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast in her intervention about another member on the government side referring to a member of the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, not being present in her seat. I told the hon. member at that time that I would review the blues.

I have the blues before me and a reference was made by a government member that first of all she leaves. The member for Calgary Southeast was entirely right that it occurred. Second and most important it goes against the convention of the House to make any reference to the absence of any member at any one time from the Chamber.

I know other members such as the member for Lévis, and I believe someone on the government side, wished to rise on the point. I will consider the matter closed now that it has been raised correctly by the member for Calgary Southeast. I thank her for her intervention and the matter is closed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion by the hon. member for Mercier.

Before going on, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Southeast for her vigilance, her attention and especially for having raised the matter. I appreciate the intention, because the member for Mercier indeed participates a lot in our work, she is very much present in the House. I think the remarks in question were inappropriate.

The debate is on a motion which reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the Government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

I listened to the arguments by the member for Calgary Southeast on the amendment she is proposing. I shall reserve my comments on it for the moment, but I would like to thank her for her attention. Her remarks indicate that other provinces would like to take charge of manpower training.

However, after touring the country with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development last year, I felt that some provinces, such as the Atlantic provinces, were less keen, were not necessarily fuelled by the same desire. They wanted the federal government to remain very visible in this area, because they felt that their province was perhaps experiencing economic difficulties in this regard.

I simply want to say that the amendment proposed by the member for Calgary Southeast would not be easy to apply, because there does not appear to be a consensus, unlike in Quebec. This has been shown very clearly. I say this to the member for Calgary Southeast, I will discuss it in my speech, I will recall the historical background of this claim by Quebec and the reason it is so important to us.

To us, manpower training means education. Under Canada's Constitution, education is a provincial matter. This is particularly

important to Quebec, because education is also a cultural concept, very close to our culture. It is a treasure to the people of Quebec.

All those involved in this area agree. I would point out that yesterday the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to again remind the federal government of its position. When I speak of the Quebec National Assembly, I am not talking just about the members of the Parti Quebecois, but also the members of the Quebec Liberal Party.

Yesterday's motion was passed with a vote of 96 in favour, none against and no abstentions. It was therefore passed unanimously.

What does this resolution say? It says:

"That Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec; "Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services to customers, Quebec must take over the control and management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such responsibilities;

"The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives".

Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people.

I stress that this motion was adopted unanimously.

A while ago, as I was shaking my head at something he said, the minister introduced a historical dimension to the debate. I had mentioned 1941 a bit earlier when answering a colleague's question. I must make a correction, I was wrong by one year. The constitutional amendment which enabled the federal government to set up and run the unemployment insurance program was passed on July 10, 1940. It was the British Parliament-as you know we had to ask its permission-which amended section 91 of the British North America Act, making it possible for the federal government to set up the unemployment insurance program.

It would be useful at this point to summarize Quebec's claims. Stakeholders in the labour market have recognized unanimously the need to patriate to Quebec all responsibilities and federal funding in the area of manpower training. The Liberal Party and the Parti quebecois are in agreement on this.

It is also worth recalling that, in 1991, the former minister in charge of manpower, income security and manpower training claimed, in a policy statement from the Government of Quebec about manpower development: "For many years, Quebec has claimed control over policy instruments affecting the work market. In other words, the Government of Quebec and its economic partners want laws, budgets, institutions, programs and services concerning manpower or the operation of the work market to be under one authority. Partners on the Quebec work market are almost unanimous in recognizing that manpower policies must be prepared by authorities as close as possible to the various work markets".

This request for devolution of manpower training goes back a long way. In 1989, the job forum was a critical step in the advancement of this cause. This is when the job market partners, that is unions, employers and government, agreed to asl that Ottawa hand over full responsibility for manpower training.

With such a consensus, the Government of Quebec officially requested, in December 1990, that any federal moneys for manpower programs be handed over to Quebec, including money from the unemployment insurance fund used for that purpose. In December 1990, the Liberal Party was in office, not the Parti Quebecois, and Robert Bourassa was premier. The Liberal Party of Quebec claimed exclusive jurisdiction not only over manpower training, but also over other aspects of manpower development, such as placement, employment assistance, job creation support, etc.

To back up this demand, the Quebec government created the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, or SQDM, which was to serve as a link between all labour market stakeholders and manage all manpower development programs in Quebec.

The Quebec Liberal Party went even further, asking for an administrative agreement allowing Quebec to manage the unemployment insurance program within the province. It was asking for a return to the pre-1840 situation. Quebec wanted to be given jurisdiction in this area.

Otherwise, the federal government would have to maintain a rather cumbersome administrative structure in Quebec. To make UI benefits and related services accessible to the Quebec people, a whole network would have to be maintained with all the inconveniences of this kind of duplication.

In concrete terms, this agreement would have resulted in the UI program running the SQDM.

This happened under the liberal government led by Robert Bourassa, a true blue federalist. Now, you will ask, what sort of problems is this situation creating in Quebec? At the same time, one must recognize that there is a problem with vocational training in Canada. In 1993, Canada was ranked 22nd out of 22 developed countries for on-the-job training.

According to available statistics, the federal network runs 27 training programs-the minister said earlier 38-and the Quebec network 5. The federal government-which has started cutting down-operates close to 100 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec, while Quebec set up the SQDM to replace the former Commission de formation professionnelle.

The original mandate of the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre was to work towards the creation of true single windows in every Quebec region. Today, it acts more as a mere manager of federal funds, without much of a say.

I would like to point out that in 1993-1994, transfer payments accounted for 56 per cent of the SQDM budget, or $150.7 million out of a total of $269.5 million, a true description, if ever there was one, of Ottawa's control over manpower. The lack of co-ordination between the two networks results in the unemployed being ill served by the various manpower training programs.

An internal memo of the federal government did reveal that in the spring of 1993-this is a federal memo, remember-nearly 25,000 unemployed people referred to a training program could not register for lack of sufficient available places.

The policy statement of minister Bourbeau described how two different manpower training networks could cause problems. It said: "We understand how hard it can be for an uninitiated person or business to find its way among the multiple service centres like the Canada Employment Centres, the offices of the Commission de formation professionelle de la main-d'oeuvre, Travail Québec centres, school boards, colleges, universities and the Department of Manpower, Income Security and Skills Development."

Minister Bourbeau, a liberal federalist, estimated at $275 million the cost of these overlaps and duplications in manpower training programs. The minister who said that was not a PQ member, not a BQ member, not a sovereignist, but a federalist.

Both governments agree that manpower training programs must change. The Minister of Human Resources Development said, in his discussion paper on improving social security in Canada: "Unfortunately, existing programs don't do this well enough. Too many people end up in programs that have little to do with their needs, aptitudes or opportunities. Many get training for jobs that don't exist locally. Many are shunted from one program to another. There are too many mismatched programs, with inconsistent rules and too much red tape. Programs offered by different levels of government are often not coordinated."

According to him, the system had to change. The federal government is not alone in adding to the mess of manpower training programs. We must recognize that, at the time, there were too many manpower training programs. The present minister has merged a number of programs, but she is having problems because the federal is ever present and nothing leads us to believe that it will willingly leave the field, since it is actually introducing new measures. Yes, it says that it is offering them to the provinces, but it intends to keep imposing guidelines. It intends to keep control.

The minister said a while ago, in his presentation, that we cannot do away with controls because certain provinces-not Quebec but others- had used the program's money to build public buildings. He feels this is enough to justify a permanent control by the federal government.

Basically, what he wants to do, what he would like to see is the provinces, Quebec included, manage the programs listed in his bill. He would like the provinces to do what he wants them to do. He is treating the provinces has mere pawns. For us in Quebec, this flies totally in the face of the established consensus.

I will quote someone else. The president of the Business Council on National Issues, Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, added his voice to the voices of those who recommend that the federal government hand over manpower training to the provinces as fast as possible. On October 28, 1994, Mr. d'Aquino said: "There is no doubt in my mind that decentralization in this area would be beneficial for the Canadian economy. The sooner the politicians come to an agreement on this question, the better".

Last year, members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development travelled throughout Canada. When the minister suggests that he is implementing recommendations that the committee heard, let me say that I disagree with that. I travelled to all the provinces of this country and to all the large cities of Canada while travelling with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development-the parliamentary secretary knows that, he had to suffer the consequences. On some occasions, I had to admire his courage in facing those who opposed his reform. But when he tells us later that this is what Canadians want and wish, after what I have seen and heard, when I know that 75 to 80 per cent of briefs were against what the minister is now proposing, that is, cuts of some $2 billion in unemployment insurance, I know that is not what Canadians wished for.

People who came to testify before this committee said that what is missing today is work, job opportunities. They wished that the government would follow the policy outlined in its red book. The Liberal slogan during the last election campaign was even "Jobs, jobs, jobs". But we see that, in fact, there are not more jobs today. But worse still, the proposed changes will create two kinds of unemployed.

As critic for training and youth, I see that a young person will now have to work 910 hours over 52 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. That represents 17.5 hours of work per week in one year, every single week, in order to qualify. Otherwise, he will not be eligible. He must reach this minimum number of hours. So, it is now twice as hard for newcomers on the labour market to qualify for unemployment insurance.

And what do they do to unemployment insurance? They create a fund and make it available to the provinces, and tell them: "You can help yourselves to some of it, but only under certain conditions because we want to keep control over it, or else we are going to take it away".

But this fund the minister mentioned is made up of money contributed by employers and employees. Why is the federal government messing with this fund when, as everybody knows, it has not contributed a single penny to unemployment insurance since 1991? It is not this government who did that, but the Conservative government. But now it is a profit nowadays with unemployment insurance and is using part of this profit to provide manpower training in a field which comes under provincial jurisdiction.

This is what we are against and what we are condemning. There is a small opening here. We saw that the Quebec National Assembly, while establishing some parameters, is continuing to emphasize the Quebec consensus on the need to repatriate all the money spent by the federal government in manpower training, even UI funds, because the federal government would use that money to continue to multiply programs and to maintain duplication.

To conclude, I ask the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development to be on the lookout, to listen more carefully to what Quebecers want. He will see that Quebecers, not only the sovereignists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti quebecois, but all Quebecers want the Quebec government to be in charge, to be responsible for its policy concerning manpower, training and all related services. I will conclude on that and I thank you for your attention.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Sheila Finestone LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made not only by the hon. member but also by the critic who preceded him.

What struck me is the lack of sensitivity to individual Quebecers, whether they live in Montreal, in my riding of Mount Royal, in Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean, or anywhere else in Quebec, because people who used to pay UI premiums now have a need and a right to receive some money to help them when they are jobless.

What stands out from all their arguments and remarks is that they want the power to make decisions with Canada's money. As usual, they forget to tell the truth. In fact, for every dollar invested in Quebec by an individual in the labour force, this individual receives $1.33 when unemployed. They want to deprive every unemployed person of this 33 cents, which over time adds up to millions and millions of dollars. What a great policy.

They then completely overlook the fact that this change addresses realities in Quebec. Like other Canadians, Quebecers must adapt their skills, attitudes and abilities to the new society. They have completely forgotten this, and they want to set aside a rather significant amount of money. We have injected over $4.2 billion into this program, but they have forgotten this and are unwilling to tell their constituents. I find this very interesting. You do not want to tell-

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I would ask the hon. secretary of state to please always address her comments to the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question: does he not want to spread the news that the Government of Canada is pumping $4.2 billion into the system instead of $4 billion, including more than $500,000 in measures for the unemployed?

Also, of the $800 million $240 million would go to Quebec, for a total of $747 million in extra money, and he wants to take what away. Does he really want to deprive his constituents of that? My constituents want jobs, they want retraining, they want training, they want decent working conditions, they want wage subsidies and remuneration supplements.

Regarding women, does my hon. colleague want benefits for women or does he want to take away benefits that help ensure the financial independence of women? We are talking about individual insurable earnings and basic employment insurance benefits calculated on these earnings that go to the women and not to government, for governance, but to each working woman.

In addition, women who are currently holding more than one job or working part time at different places will immediately qualify, but the hon. member does not approve of this change. He does not want them to be recognized as part of this change or those in need of assistance, like low income families with children, many of which are headed by women, to be afforded protection by the reform. There will be family income supplements, but he does not want to recognize the fact that this may mean an increase of up to about 80 per cent in the basic amount for low income families. He does not want to recognize that fact.

Neither do Bloc members, in spite of the fact that they are taking steps for reasons of efficiency relating to their culture, want UI recipients to be able to supplement their income by earning $50 a week without seeing their benefits adversely affected. They do not want to recognize that maternity leave and parental leave allowances as well as sick benefits and temporary disability benefits are maintained and provide basic support to Canadian workers and

their families. They refuse to recognize the fact that the reform is actually helping women overcome barriers to employment as a result of reinvesting in targeted employment measures, daycare and income support.

I for one would like to know why the Bloc members, who were elected to this place to represent their constituents at the federal level, cannot and will not recognize that the proposals will have the effect of better protecting families, and women in particular, and why they are so intent on not giving the plain and simple facts to their constituents. Why do they not at least have the openness to say that, from now on, anyone who has received UI benefits or a maternity leave allowance in the last three years will have access to job search services? Why do they refuse to spread this good news? Could the hon. member give me an answer on that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment before replying to the secretary of state for the status of women. For reasons of time, I cannot answer all of her questions. However, I want to make an observation. Most of the hon. member's comments had to do with the UI project, while today's debate is on a motion dealing with manpower training.

Through the Chair-since we must always comply with parliamentary rules-I want to provide some information to the secretary of state for the status of women, who asked specific questions.

Why is it that we, Quebecers and Bloc Quebecois members, will not fulfil her wish to see Quebecers accept that the federal government bypass their provincial government in order to go directly to individuals? That is what she said, they want to reach individual Canadians. The hon. member said that we are really turning this into a power struggle. This is what she is suggesting: "You are turning this issue into a power struggle and, because of that, we, the federal government, have a problem adequately reaching individuals". Such a view truly reflects an attitude which still prevails and which has to do with reaching Quebecers, individually, in fields that come under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The hon. member sees this as a power struggle. Earlier, in my comments, I tried to show the adverse effects of maintaining such duplication on these same individuals who want to get proper training.

At one time, there were 25,000 people in Quebec seeking to get vocational training, but unable to get it, because sometimes one level of government would not have the required funds, while at other times it would be the other one. The funds allocated to a particular program had run out. There were some 30 federal programs, and approximately the same number of Quebec programs. Confused by all this overlap, the unfortunate individual was sometimes discouraged. Because they kept on trying others obtained the information they required, but it was often too late because the funds had run out.

For example, people registering in employability enhancement centres could be asked if they were UI recipients. If they said: "No, I am on welfare", they would be told they did not qualify and should turn to the Quebec government or to Quebec funded agencies. The reverse was also possible for welfare recipients. It is always like that.

I am quite familiar with current federal programs, because I have been studying the issue thoroughly for the past two years, and I can say that only 15 per cent of welfare recipients can benefit from federally developed or supervised activities. The same thing can be said about the province, and one must understand the reasons for that situation.

As Quebec must pay welfare benefits, even if 50 per cent of the funds come from the federal government, the province was well advised to create programs that helped people qualify for UI benefits, which is what they did. When they qualified for UI benefits the federal government decided to develop a program to retrain them.

I have been in the House two years now and I know that some of my constituents have registered in one program after another but are still unemployed because the system has not met their needs.

We are exposing that problem and we want it solved. According to the consensus reached in Quebec since the employment forum, only one government, the Quebec government, should have full responsibility for manpower training. That is what Quebec wants.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before debate is resumed, I see the hon. member for Calgary Southeast in her place.

The Chair has been asked to rule on the validity of the amendment made earlier today by the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. Her amendment reads:

That all the words be deleted after the word "prevents" and be replaced with the words "the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true labour market training policy of their own".

The motion of the official opposition reads:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

Under the circumstances the Chair must rule the proposed amendment is not valid within our rules. Briefly, the reasons are that the amendment would change the nature of the debate significantly in two respects. First, the official opposition's motion focuses on Quebec only, as it is entitled to do, whereas the amendment enlarges the debate to all of the provinces.

Second, the official opposition's motion refers to manpower development policy whereas the amendment proposed by the member for Calgary Southeast refers to labour market training policy.

On page 257 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 929 reads:

On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion. Journals , March 16, 1971, p. 416.

Accordingly, and with thanks to the member for Calgary Southeast for her submission, the Chair must rule the amendment is not receivable and not valid under our rules.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

York North Ontario

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When we debate in the House we often think about what the real people with real problems and real challenges are thinking as they see us exchange points of view. I wonder today what the unemployed Quebecer in Chicoutimi, Laval or Trois-Rivières would think about the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Mercier and the Bloc Quebecois.

What would the single mother think as she struggles to hold down two part time jobs, scared to death that her family will end up on the street? What would the older worker think who sees his job disappearing while all the new jobs required better skills? What would the small business owner think who wants to create jobs and hire new workers but cannot afford to compete with the UI economy? What would the young student think as she prepares to leave school and sees her older friends already collecting unemployment insurance for the third, fourth or fifth time at a very young age?

These people are looking for a decent chance at a good job with a good income. Instead the Bloc Quebecois has unfortunately resorted to this motion, a motion I believe has nothing to do with reality. It has nothing to do with the real challenges real people face in Quebec and outside of Quebec or with the real thrust of the employment insurance bill.

Instead, unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois wants to pick a fight. It wants to pick a fight where there is really nothing to fight about. Is the Bloc truly concerned about provincial jurisdiction over training? Perhaps it should listen to the Prime Minister, to the minister who wrote this bill. Bloc members must read the bill itself.

The federal government is saying loudly and clearly that we will do nothing in this area without the express consent of the provinces. We will get out of any activities that might be seen as interfering with provincial responsibilities.

Is the Bloc truly concerned about overlap and duplication? Then listen to what we are saying. We are saying loudly and clearly to the provinces: If you want to deliver the employment benefits under this new system, we can live with that. If you have your own programs that do the same thing, let us use your programs. If you want to find better ways to co-ordinate programs and get rid of overlap and duplication, then let us do it.

The minister has extended an open hand to Quebec, to all provinces by saying let us build a new and better partnership. Quebec was the very first province to respond and the response was yes, let us talk. The Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to enter into talks with the federal government on the very same day the legislation was tabled.

It is time that members of the Bloc Quebecois realized that time and reality have passed them by. Quite simply, the motion they have brought forward is out of date. It was made obsolete by the very bill they are trying to condemn. Let us stop. Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or outside Quebec, are tired of what really are imaginary battles.

What Canadians want us to do as responsible members of this Chamber is to get down and do the job that needs to be done. They want us to create a climate where people feel secure, a climate where jobs are created, where people are given opportunities and are empowered to make the best decisions possible for them, for their community and indeed for their nation.

As a federal member of Parliament, as a member of the Canadian government, I know we have made every effort possible to reach out to the provinces in the spirit of co-operation and goodwill. We have extended our hand to anyone who wants to sit down, to get together in a very meaningful partnership and implement the changes people are asking for.

I respect the hon. member for Lévis as a very hard working member of the human resources development committee. Of course, I do not share his point of view in reference to the issue of separation and many others. Now is not the time to throw up our arms; it is a time to roll up our sleeves.

There are people out there who depend on legislators to bring about positive change to their lives. It is for this reason that I get up in this House convinced that the employment insurance bill the government tabled is a very good bill. It is worth supporting and takes into consideration the very sensitivities that the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and Canadians in general have brought forward during the debate on social security review.

What are we trying to achieve with the employment insurance bill? The employment insurance bill recognizes two fundamental things. One is that people during time of unemployment require income security. It is provided in the bill. It also recognizes the fact that there is a different economy out there. Long term unemployment since 1976 has tripled which speaks to the structural changes of unemployment.

People are staying unemployed for a longer period of time. Why is that? Because they do not have the skills required to get the new jobs. We need to have an active measure introduced which is referred to as a human resources investment fund.

The $800 million human resources investment fund has five tools which include a target income supplement, wage top-ups, skills and loans grants. There are job partnerships and self-employment assistance which has been working extremely well. There have been 68,000 jobs already created. We have lowered premiums to generate job creation which benefits not only small business but also individual Canadians. We have reduced the maximum insurable earnings which again reduces the premiums.

We have taken all those steps because we believe that the system needs changing. We are doing this also with a great deal of fairness.

Low income families will be able to get up to 80 per cent of their average earnings. The 500,000 people who were excluded from unemployment insurance are brought into the system. UI exhaustees who were shut out of the past system are now brought in if they have had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the past three years. Anyone who was receiving parental benefits over the past five years will be able to access one of the re-employment tools which means they will be given opportunities for re-employment.

Above all, we are not only modernizing the employment insurance system, but the net result of these measures through the various measures including a $300 million transition job fund will be the creation of over 100,000 new jobs for Canadians. We are doing this for the people of Canada who throughout the hearings told us that they wanted a system that would help Canadians get jobs, keep their jobs, a system that would help the most vulnerable and do it in a sustainable fashion. They too understood that the program as it is today could not be sustained when in 10 years it has gone from $8 billion to $20 billion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the parliamentary secretary talked about "real Canadians", and then about "real problems".

We on this side also feel we are talking about "real problems", and we also happen to feel there exists such a thing as "real Quebecers", but they include not only Bloc members who are intent on paralysing the government. The parliamentary secretary himself read the resolution passed by the Quebec National Assembly. This resolution was supported and passed by all members. It was supported by the Parti Quebecois members on the government side, but also by members of the Liberal Party of Quebec.

Needless to say, the official opposition does not feel isolated on this side of the debate as he would have us believe by saying we are the only ones who do not want to co-operate and discuss solutions.

Let me put a few questions to the parliamentary secretary. Concerning the partnership he was talking about, what does the federal government intend to do about employability development organizations? I should point out that all of them have been advised that their mandate will be over on March 30th. What will happen to them after that? After all, they are funded by the federal government. Could he outline the alternatives for me?

Time permitting, could he also tell me what will happen with the program for independent students? Funds for this program ran out a long time ago in many ridings. It is all very fine to have programs, but what good are they when there are no funds? What does the government intend to do between now and March 30th for those people who want to go on training? This is an existing program. What is it that prevents the federal government from keeping those programs alive until an agreement is reached?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal York North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis for his question which deals with an interesting point. He is concerned about what is going to happen with training institutions and the independent studies.

The $800 million human resources investment fund that we have announced will target five areas. There will be agencies that will have to deliver this program. I also want to bring to the hon. member's attention, and I am sure it is good news he already knows about, the fact that it is not only $800 million. This will be added to a fund of $1.9 billion which means that we as the federal

government are investing approximately $2.7 billion on those five tools.

We are empowering individuals and local communities and provincial governments, if that may be the case. These programs will be delivered by organizations. Some of those organizations may be the organizations the hon. member correctly brought to the attention of the House.

We have to put this debate into its proper context. The federal government felt that the system which presently exists was not working, and the hon. member knows this because Canadians told us from coast to coast to coast. There were far too many jobs and skills mismatched, which thereby also increased unemployment.

What is positive about our program is that it is better targeted. It collapses 39 programs into five. They are five tools that we know actually work because over the past two years we have done experiments and pilot projects with these five programs.

If we look at the self-employment assistance, 34,000 people participated and 68,000 jobs were created. If we look at the wage top-ups and earning supplements, these have also increased the duration that people stay on the jobs plus their income, which is something we need to address as a federal government. We need to provide people with job opportunities and also good jobs that increase income levels.

Fundamentally I want to conclude my response by turning 360 degrees to the hon. member's question on my earlier comments. By that I mean, as we debate this in the House of Commons, Canadians are faced with the challenges of an ever changing economy. I spoke about the young people, the older workers, the multiple job holder and the part time employees who under the present unemployment insurance program are being marginalized and excluded. We will find that Canadians will respond well to this employment insurance bill. It brings people into the fold. It provides greater income security and opportunities. It recognizes that in an ever changing economy we need to do things better. We need to target things better.

From a fairness point of view there is the fact that low income Canadians with dependents will get a top up which will make them reach approximately 80 per cent of their average earnings. There is the fact that people who were excluded or were UI exhaustees in the past three years will have access to the programs. The only thing they have now is to go on social assistance.

People who were on parental benefits in the past five years will also receive the opportunity to access one of the five pools of the human resources investment fund. That may be a very important bridge to the workplace, to get them back to work.

Overall the reactions I have heard today have been balanced. The small business sector is applauding this move because it basically reduces its tax burden. Small businesses really believe they are benefiting because through the employment insurance active measures they are actually going to have better human resources available.

At the federal level we want to co-operate fully with our provincial counterparts to ensure we are doing this together, in partnership. In the final analysis, the employment insurance bill tabled last Friday is really about bringing positive change to people's lives and improving their quality of life.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As you know, we are getting into a rather important debate which concerns a very large majority of my constituents in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I feel very emotional because, as a member of Parliament, every day I am made aware of requests which are sent to me, to my office or to various offices providing services to our constituents. We try to find ways to create appropriate and durable jobs in my riding.

As for the motion the hon. member for Mercier put forward, we have the feeling that it was written before the minister introduced his bill here in the House.

I sense in this motion that they are not willing to really work with the Government of Canada, that to a certain extent they question the sincerity of the members on this side of the House, that they question how seriously the Canadian government wants to get Canadians and Quebecers back to work, especially people living in remote areas.

I want to tell you, mainly for the benefit of the population but also for the benefit of the hon. member for Mercier, who is the official opposition's critic for this department, that this piece of legislation is intended to limit and ultimately eliminate the well-known overlapping and duplication in the system.

Again, for the benefit of the members opposite and of the population, I want to say that the program has been designed in such a way as to harmonize the programs we have to develop and create jobs across Canada.

Besides, what are we trying to do? We are inviting the provinces, especially my province, Quebec, and its employment minister, Mrs. Harel, whom we have to call by her name today, to sit down with us in order to explore the opportunities provided to all Quebecers, businesses and the unemployed in particular, to create permanent and durable jobs, and to stimulate as well, of course, the economic recovery of our area.

Still, the minister spoke of five new conditions, that is five new programs, if you will, that from now on are provided for in the bill. We know very well that these five different kinds of benefits will surely help those truly in need.

I still go back to my region and I know full well that the people who work in the natural resources area, especially those who work part-time and in seasonal industries, are often penalized by the current system. The system we are proposing will right this wrong which has been going on for much too long.

I can give you some first-hand examples. In the Magdalen Islands, there are fisherman's helpers-this is just one example among many others-who people used to work and still work 10 weeks a year to qualify for 42 weeks of UI benefits. When the program was changed, they had to work 12 weeks to qualify for only 30 weeks of UI benefits. That meant 10 weeks without income for these fisherman's helpers who worked, might I add, not 35 hours a week, not 50 hours a week, but rather 70 hours a week on average. Such is the life of a fisherman's helper in the Magdalen Islands, in the Gaspé Peninsula and, of course, on the lower North Shore.

I can also give you similar examples of men and women who work long hours in the forest industry, throughout eastern Quebec and rural Quebec. Unfortunately, these people were penalized. The number of hours they worked was not taken into consideration. With the new system, we now know that 12 weeks of work equal 420 hours of work. But I can assure the House that these people, these fisherman's helpers in the Magdalen Islands, for example, work an average of 700 hours in 10 weeks.

These people will be able to qualify. The people will not go without benefits for 10 weeks, as we have seen these last two years. This is what the reform is all about. I think it is encouraging to see in this debate that both sides of the House recognize that seasonal workers do work hard and do put in countless hours of work.

Thus, companies will be better able to evaluate the efforts made by these workers in various areas. I can tell you of all kinds of examples, such as people who work in fish factories. I met with some of them in Pasbébiac, Gascons and other ridings surrounding Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who work close to 90 hours a week. That is substantial. Unfortunately, as we know, these people were not eligible because, depending on the species harvested in the summer, the fishing season is often restricted to 10 or 12 weeks.

So I believe we have corrected an iniquity that harmed the regions. Of course, the opposition is claiming that these cuts are unfair and wrong; they mostly benefit people who earn no more than $40,000. Very few of my constituents earn $40,000 or more in seasonal jobs. Most of them are low-wage workers who did not have a chance to become educated or to find long-term jobs. Life is not always easy and the first thing that we have to acknowledge here today is that we want to help those who really need it.

I remarked to the hon. member for Mercier, the other day, that in her own constituency, there are female or male single parents with two or three children and an income of less than $26,000. They did not have certain opportunities. That is why we want to establish a program for the underprivileged who really need it.

There is no shame in saying to those who earn $55,000, $60,000 ou $70,000 in a few weeks, in the worst cases, or in a few months that they have to reimburse, in part or in full, the unemployment insurance benefits they received. That is fairness. That is justice. That is the principal purpose of federalism as we know it.

I heard some positive criticisms, but when I hear members of the Bloc Quebecois say: "We are not happy with the situation. We only want the federal government to transfer the whole amount directly to the province of Quebec and let it run the program altogether".

But no one on that side spoke about the difficulties encountered by the people, the problems they have in finding a job, in getting training. No one ever mentioned the 40 per cent dropout rate in Quebec.

As members of the Canadian government, we believe in this decentralization, and I want to tell you, especially my good friend, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, that the Canadian government, with the offices it already has, will now be able to work in co-operation with stakeholders, social and community leaders in all of the regions of Quebec and, of course, of Canada.

We are ready to design programs that accurately reflect the needs of our regions, of our employers, of our workers. That is what we want to do. We do not want, like the SQDM and its 12 service points, to establish programs in Quebec City, which will then be imposed upon my constituents. For our part, with our 90 service points and the others which will be developed very shortly in the province of Quebec, we will at last fill a real and urgent need, that is designing programs that will help create stable, durable and lucrative jobs. That is the main purpose of this bill, as set out by the federal government.

Unfortunately, my time has expired. There are surely a lot of questions. But I invite the opposition, and the people to review the information and to take advantage of the new programs, which are there to serve the people and not civil servants.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I was much interested in what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said about the relevance of changing the system based on a number of weeks to one based on a number of hours.

He gave us the example of people who will probably benefit from this. However, the problem with this reform does not necessarily lie in the fact that the number of hours is changed.

Saying that someone will have to work 910 hours to become entitled to UI benefits for the first time means that young people, those who return to the labour market, women who left it several years ago or who worked at home will now have to work for 26 weeks, 35 hours a week, to get UI benefits. The eligibility period has almost doubled.

There are aspects of the reform which are unacceptable and I hope the government will correct them. I will give another example which concerns the ridings of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I am talking about the fact that, under the new system, seasonal workers will lose part of their benefits. After three years, people who receive unemployment insurance every year, such as workers in the tourist or fishing industry, will see their benefits reduced from 55 per cent to 50 per cent of their weekly insurable earnings. They are going to be penalized because they work in seasonal industries.

Now that the reform has been tabled, could it not be possible for the government to bring forward amendments to correct these things which will have a devastating effect on regions such as eastern Quebec?

My question to the member is this: What does he think about the possibility of our young people leaving our regions because of the increase in the number of hours it takes to be eligible for unemployment insurance?

Will the requirement to work 910 hours, which is the equivalent of 26 weeks at 35 hours a week, result in our young people leaving the regions in greater numbers?

I have another question that I want to ask of the member, reminding him that, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec also endorsed the current position of the government of that province by a 96 to 0 vote. It was a unanimous decision.

I would like to ask him if he would be willing to table in the House a motion which would read as follows: "Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec". Would he be willing to table such a motion, which was adopted unanimously by the only parliament that represents Quebecers only, in order to settle the issue of manpower once and for all? Would he be prepared to ask the federal parliament to adopt such an attitude?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions I would like to answer.

First of all, we clearly show our confidence in Quebecers and in all other Canadians. I think that by giving each unemployed worker a certain amount of money, we give him or her the tools needed to create his or her own job by letting him or her decide which course answers his or her own needs. They can choose the courses that are adapted to the new economy that is emerging in each region.

Decentralization is going directly to these people, to Quebecers. That is decentralization, and that is what the unemployed want. That is what we mean by change: giving people the appropriate programs, according to their own personal needs.

I also want to answer my colleague's second question, about young people finishing high school, professional training, college or university, therefore for all young people. When I finished my studies-and that was not too long ago-my first priority was to find a job. I would rather use examples from my own region. When a young person graduates from school, he or she seeks a job to get experience, to show what he or she can do. This is why with the new programs like services Canada but particularly youth internship, we will tell the young person this: "Listen, you have this much money, go to your employer and tell him that, thanks to the support of the Canadian government, you can subsidize part of your salary, on the condition that he promises to keep you on staff for a certain period of time".

I think we are investing in Quebecers. For too long, we invested in the public service, in obsolete programs or in programs that were not adapted to the real needs of the population. We listen to the population and to the unemployed but, unfortunately, this is not the case of the opposition.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question.

The hon. member has spent a lot of time defending the government's unemployment scheme. I would submit there would not be any need for this debate if he would answer one simple question: Why does the government not return this program to its original mandate of being an insurance program, as it was in 1940 when it was started?

Liberal members defend this by saying that history says they are supposed to do all this and be involved in this area. That is not true. The original intent of this was to be a true insurance program. The government has strayed from this, which is why the Bloc is asking these questions. That is why the Bloc has these concerns. That is why many provinces have these concerns.

The member used the phrase "we are going to serve the needs of the people", and the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development in defending it said "we are going to reduce the risk".

The auditor general says this unemployment insurance program the way it is presently structured is increasing the risk. Why do the Liberals not do the proper thing and put it back to a true insurance program? They admit that by decreasing the premiums five cents they will create something like 20,000 jobs. I do not know how they know this, but that is what they say. If that is the case, why do they not put it back to a true insurance program and reduce the unemployment rate by 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent? That is hundreds of thousands of jobs.

It is totally inexcusable for the government to go off on all kinds of tangents and create more aspects for the program rather than do the right thing. I do not know how the hon. member could ever defend the fact that it is not becoming again a true insurance program.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, this government does not have any intention of going back to 1941. The basis of this reform is to ensure we answer the needs, the requests, and the demands of the new economy, which is completely different from the economy of 1941. In 1941 we were in the middle of a war. It was a completely different context. We did not have the new economic realities. We did not have computers and fax machines and the rise of a new economic class. We did not have the fundamental changes that have taken place in the last five years.

We are trying to invest not in the government programs per se, or the fonctionnaires, but in younger Canadians, in middle aged Canadians, and in older Canadians. We are trying to define what they need. Often what they need is also what the new economy demands. This is why we have to adapt our programs. This is why we should invest in the individual. It is up to the individual.

If I am not mistaken, the Reform Party has always upheld individual rights more than anything else. We are now investing in individuals. We have faith in Canadians to make the correct choice in order to find the course that is tailored to their needs and to that of the new economy. That is why I would ask the hon. member opposite to support the government in this courageous initiative.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition motion which demands:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

This opposition day follows on an historical event yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly, when all members present voted unanimously in favour of the following motion-96 in favour and no one against, a fairly rare occurrence in any parliament:

That the National Assembly reaffirm the consensus expressed in this House on December 13, 1990, on the occasion of the ministerial statement on manpower adjustment and occupational training, to the effect that:

Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec;

Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services to customers-

All Quebec MLAs, whether Parti Quebecois, Quebec Liberals, Action démocratique du Québec, everyone in the Quebec House unanimously adopted this motion, which continues:

-Quebec must take over the control and management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such responsibilities;

What they told the Quebec Legislative Assembly was not "Let the federal government give money to the unemployed in voucher form so they can take Quebec courses under an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments". No, what they said was "Turn all of the responsibility over to Quebec, and it will handle things". This statement was supported by both the sovereignist government party and the federalist opposition in Quebec.

They also stated:

The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.

To find an example of this one need look no further than clauses 61 and 59 of the bill which show that, where no agreement is in place between the federal and provincial governments, the province will be penalized because the unemployed will not receive vouchers to purchase courses in Quebec. If this is not invasion of our prerogatives, what is it? Is this not the kind of behaviour the federal government has been accused of for years?

The reform as presented is not what Quebec wants. The consensus against it, which we have voiced here on numerous occasions, took on a particular historical value with the National Assembly's motion of yesterday.

Continuing to quote the motion:

Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people.

What the MLAs who reached agreement on this, whether federalist or not, was not "We must accept the planned reform as presented by the federal government". They said it was necessary to "immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people".

This initiative by Quebec is therefore entirely legitimate. And if the present federal government is not listening, if it fails to change its reforms accordingly, it will be up against a wall. And as a result, it will again fail to deal with the problem.

Why is Quebec so keen on controlling this jurisdiction? Because as much as $500 million will be invested in five new employment measures. And by 2001 and 2002, it may be $750 million. These employment measures affect all of the areas over which Quebec has jurisdiction.

Canadian federalism is a very good example of inefficiency. Although Quebec is responsible for the Labour Code, occupational health and safety legislation and labour standards, the federal government will set up programs relating to wage subsidies and income supplements, a job creation fund, assistance for unemployed entrepreneurs, and a system of loans and bursaries. We will take a closer look at some of these to show the potential for conflict.

For instance, the job creation fund. If Quebec wants an active employment policy, it must be according to the federal government's development model. If the Quebec government feels that the federal model is not the one it wants, and if current reforms are supposed to promote manpower mobility and get people out of the resource regions when we in Quebec prefer to promote growth in our regions, we will be stuck with this model forever.

Another example is assistance for unemployed entrepreneurs, the program referred to as self-employment assistance. In Quebec the so-called Paillé plan was implemented. If Quebec wants to develop these measures, it will not be able to control them all, and we get a situation where people who receive self-employment assistance do not get the Paillé plan. If they are on the Paillé plan, they do not get self-employment assistance. This creates situations in which young business people wanting to start up have to knock on the doors of two governments. This reform will not resolve the situation.

My final example involves the loans and grants program. You may be sure that, in the medium term, the program, which is intended to provide grants to the unemployed looking for work will conflict with Quebec's loans and grants program for irregular students. We will start making comparisons, we will look at workers' behaviour to see whether they would not do better in a regular educational program than under the federal program. This will raise the level of the cacophony between the two governments.

This is why, I think, the wish of Quebecers expressed in the National Assembly may be readily understood.

Furthermore, after the consensus was reaffirmed, following the affirmation that Quebec must be solely responsible for manpower adjustment policy, the minister of employment was told to discuss matters with the federal minister. She did so right away yesterday. She wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell him she was ready to discuss matters within the context of the mandate given her by the National Assembly. The mandate is to promote the interests of the people of Quebec and ensure respect of the consensus that Quebec must take control in this area.

Why are we having such a hard time getting the federal government moving on this? When we toured Canada, last year, with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, we found in several circles that there was a willingness to take over, through decentralization, certain aspects such as manpower training. Why is it that the federal government has not yet moved in that direction?

The answer can be found in certain elements of the unemployment insurance reform. This reform adds to an already complex decision making process, thus assuring the bureaucrats running the national network that their empire will endure. The best way to perpetuate a bureaucracy is to make it more complex, thus justifying the existence of more assistants, more advisers, more this and more that, in the end making the product less accessible to the client they are supposed to serve.

If there is one thing the government can be blamed for, it is its inability to cut through this bureaucracy and do what the people really want. I think that the federal government was being called to order by the motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The National Assembly has put the federal government squarely in front of its responsibilities.

It must listen to the consensus conveyed by the Quebec National Assembly. I will stress that 96 voted for the motion, none voted against and none abstained. All the members present in the National Assembly supported this motion. I would ask the Quebec members on the government side this: Are you willing to move a similar motion giving Quebec sole responsibility for policies

pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders, and supporting the other proposals put forward? Are you listening to Quebecers as National Assembly members were?

Are you willing to take action in your caucus, in committee, so that this reform can provide any province with a real opportunity to opt out and set up its own program, to have a real employment development policy, and to opt out of existing manpower development programs. The array of federal and provincial labour development programs is the laughing stock of all public services, with their confusing names and objectives. These things have never been properly clarified.

The federal government claims it is making an effort, that we could agree on a set of rules. It is wondering why we on this side are not yet satisfied. It is because the federal government wants control over the guidelines. This means that, every time we want to change the way these programs are run, we must first negotiate a federal-provincial agreement, a kind of administrative agreement.

This is unacceptable, in my opinion. Before any administrative aspect is negotiated, there must be agreements on the substance of the issue, and the Quebec consensus on the need to transfer all federal budgets allocated to this sector and to repatriate control over and management of the various employment services must be recognized.

Quebec now faces a rather special situation. Because the federal government decided to maintain its network of employment centres, it is significantly reducing the number of points of service. This will result in fewer services being provided to unemployed individuals. These centres will serve a larger area than before. At the same time, another network set up by the Centre Travail Québec and the Société Québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre is also active in the field.

In the days before the referendum, this government told us: "Yes, we will take into account the fact that you are a distinct society. We will take into account the aspects that make Quebec different". However, after the referendum, we came back here and it was business as usual. It is always the same thing. The federal government claims to be able to do better than Quebec in the manpower sector. That view is not shared by anyone in Quebec, particularly in light of the results.

The auditor general once said that the federal government did not have adequate control over its employability support programs. These programs are not effective, as evidenced by the fact that one million Canadians are out of work. Yet, the government remains insensitive to this fact and cannot bring itself to giving Quebec exclusive jurisdiction over the manpower sector.

I am prepared to bet that, if the manpower sector was delegated to Quebec tomorrow, within about ten years there would be a significant change in attitude. Since the stakeholders would be closer to the field, Quebecers would benefit from a program better integrated with the education network. Ultimately, the existing gap between the number of available jobs and the number of available workers would be filled.

This is where our record is the worst; Canada has an international reputation with the OECD for performing very badly in this area, because we administer things at a distance, with no attention to local needs.

In closing, I would like to invite the federal government, particularly those members representing regions of Canada with economic and social objectives, and realities that are different from those of the ridings close to Ottawa, to make their points of view heard in caucus. This will ensure that regions so desiring may be given the necessary tools for development, and the attitude that there is one mandatory national standard can be scrapped.

It would be heaven on earth, if all we needed for automatic bottom-line results was to set standards. If that were the case, with all the standards we have in Canada all of our problems would be solved by now.

Essentially, the solution for Quebec lies in this consensus in the National Assembly, in which all of the parties agreed to the same thing: that Quebec be given control of the tools relating to manpower, even under the present federal arrangement. When we have this we will be able to get things done properly together. And we are asking our minister of employment-because she is answerable not only to her government but to all of the Parliament of Quebec in the National Assembly-to carry out formal discussions with the federal government aimed at ensuring that this consensus is respected and the interests of the people of Quebec promoted.

The government will be judged on whether it agrees to integrate this consensus into its reform. If it does so, it will have Quebecers' gratitude. If it does not, this will be proof once more that more than 50 per cent of Quebecers ought to have voted yes on October 30, so that we might finally escape from this unwieldy system which benefits neither Quebec nor Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, I sit back and listen to the debate in the House. I listen to what Bloc is telling us and what it is saying about the government's unemployment insurance program. I have a much more fundamental question that needs to be asked. Why is the Bloc not asking the government why it is not creating more jobs? We go on nattering

about why one province does not have more of this jurisdiction and we lose sight of the big picture.

It is totally unacceptable that we continue to debate these five points and we forget why the people in Canada in the last election tried to put in place a government they thought would create jobs.

For two years it has been going on and on and has not done a thing. Why is the Bloc not asking the government about some kind of job creation strategy. How many jobs are being created by this? How many jobs are being destroyed by the unemployment insurance program?

The auditor general has said the unemployment rate is one and a half per cent to three per cent higher than it should be because of what the government is doing. It does not make the changes. Why is the Bloc not targeting that problem?

Instead we go on about other things. We have some simple cosmetic changes that have been made like how many jobs does changing the name from unemployment to employment insurance create? Not one. In fact it destroys jobs because we now have to raise taxes. We have to do all these name changes on all the buildings, on all the letterhead and all this kind of thing. That extra tax will destroy more jobs.

We are not addressing the fundamental problem of why we have such a high unemployment rate. We are being taxed to death and the government is using the unemployment insurance system as simply another tax to run some of its favourite programs.

Those are the fundamental questions that should be asked. The Bloc should be asking those questions if it wants to claim to be official opposition in the House.