Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague cannot give me back my momentum.
The G-7 meeting in Halifax confirms our fear that the federal government intands to centralize further. The G-7, which includes the word's most industrialized nations, is concerned about education and job development. We understand this to be the current trend of centralized countries, and this is why we feel these votes must be controlled. The reason for our speaking out against the votes this afternoon is to say, in the only way this Parliament allows and on the budget, what we could not say during consideration of Bill C-76, which is that, as far as Quebec is concerned, at least, others may agree, the votes available should be transferred to Quebec as tax credits.
Why? For greater efficiency. The Conseil du patronat and the labour congresses are saying what they are saying, simply because Quebecers are a distinct people and Quebec is a distinct society with its own approach to its development. Its labour market is also distinct. And in the case of this measure, the only way to ensure efficient use of the rare public funds available for employment training, skills development and job development, the various job readiness programs is for them to be integrated. The key word is "integration".
The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development was concerned about integration for Canada as a whole. I think integration is what they are after and I can understand why, for the rest of Canada, it would be considered efficient to run it out of Ottawa. I respect this decision, because it is historically based. I submit, however, that differences in labour markets will mean integration will have to take these differences into account. In the case of Quebec, however, efficiency dictates the integration of all programs.
Last week's women's march evocatively known as the "bread and roses" march illustrated the need for integrated employment training policies. Why? The clientele of job development or job readiness program training are either welfare recipients or people who have never had benefits of any sort-women who have been at home and have to join the labour force, young people and people receiving UI benefits. The clientele is varied and, with the unresolved jurisdiction problem, we feel the only solution is for Quebec to have full control, even though elsewhere in Canada Ottawa has full control.
The only way to be effective and to ensure this integration, to provide these people with the services that they need, whether they are welfare recipients or unemployment insurance beneficiaries or whether they never received any benefit, is to have an integrated system. As things now stand, however, that is impossible. Who is paying for this? The hon. members opposite? Us? No, ordinary Canadians, the people who have some needs.
This is why we are saying that there is only one way, in this sector, to be efficient. As federalist Liberal ministers from Quebec have said, we must agree that the manpower development policy must be the responsibility of Quebec and that the necessary funds and tax points be transferred to Quebec.
We are again faced with the problem of people who are falling through the cracks in the system, as we saw with the Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi program. There were different types of clients, and the minister claimed that he had to put an end to the subsidy. This does not make any sense. Nor does it make any sense that we were not able to put forward an amendment to correct the situation, to have a debate and a vote on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever that we should constantly have to plead, that we should be unable to control all the government funds to better serve the public.
I must add that within this budget, money going to job stimulation and employability has been reduced. We can question the fact that the money that will help people to get back to work, if it is used as effectively as is claimed, has been reduced. We can question that.
Yet, we can question even more that the money once taken from the consolidated revenue fund is, increasingly, being replaced by money taken from the unemployment insurance account. It is unacceptable to use the unemployment insurance account as a cash cow. It is important to point out that not all workers pay unemployment insurance premiums, but only those whose maximum earnings are $40,000. I will check the figure. Anyone who works extra hours does not pay more that the maximum contribution limit. Therefore, it is in the employer's interest to hire people to work long hours.
Therefore, middle income and upper income workers are the ones who pay unemployment insurance premiums. Companies
with a lot of workers, those that have less equipment and use less technology than others and give work to more people also pay unemployment insurance premiums. Those companies that hire the most people pay the most in unemployment insurance premiums. So, it is the workers and the companies that pay for unemployment insurance.
Is it normal, and we mentioned that in the minority report we issued with the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, that workers and companies, through the unemployment insurance account, pay more for job stimulation, for employability? The government is drawing more and more on this account, and is withdrawing from contributions to the general fund. It means that workers and companies paying unemployment insurance premiums are doubly hit, doubly penalized.
The whole of society is desperately in need of such jobs-while taxes collected by governments are ever increasing-since a more healthy economy increases the general level of wealth. In addition, it is not the government nor the taxpayers as a whole, but the workers themselves who pay for that.
The minister who, a while ago, made the important point that appropriations do not provide for everything mentioned in the budget, should perhaps answer the following question: When will appropriations and governmental spending reflect the additional $700 million in cuts to unemployment insurance?
As a matter of fact, the government announced in the throne speech that an additional $700 million in cuts or 10 per cent of the total contributions, in cuts would be made to unemployment insurance as of July 1996, which means that the year after, additional cuts will amount to $1.5 billion. We fail to see where the $700 million will come from, in the appropriations. Highly arbitrary decisions will be made without due consideration. We are told that this is the way things are done, but this is not really the right way.
The minister said earlier that the government had to make tough choices. In the case of employment development, which should be a key concern for a government that was elected on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, we see that, on the contrary, the amounts from general funding have been reduced.
Yet, the new human resources investment fund, which is mentioned in the budget speech but does not appear in the estimates and which includes the appropriations I am referring to, has applications that come directly under provincial jurisdiction. According to a discussion paper distributed across Canada as part of the consultations on social program reform, the possibility of using the UI fund in a more flexible way in order to provide Canadians with better employment assistance will be considered.
In my opinion, the government's intention with respect to this human resources investment fund is to use UI reform to fulfil that mandate. What does it say? "Greater emphasis on employment development services". "Greater emphasis" requires more money. "For example, initial needs assessment, counselling services, literacy and basic skills training, on-the-job training and experience, child care services and income supplements". Most of these functions currently come under provincial jurisdiction. It goes on to say, "The Minister of Human Resources Development will define program parameters in the coming months". It is that simple. The minister has full discretion.
The intention reflected in this appropriation, the budget and government action is that, far from being prepared to give back to Quebec what belonged to it in the first place, namely control over job development and manpower as a whole, the central government has set out to dip into the unemployment insurance fund to invest more money directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In our view, this is unacceptable because it goes not only against the very essence of the distinctness, the uniqueness of Quebec as a people and a nation within Canada, but also against the most basic rules of efficiency, that the people of Quebec have been demanding in strong terms.
Let me remind you that those who need this money, these programs the most include, and there may be more, the 342,000 families on welfare and 320,000 jobless people in Quebec.
The sad truth is that, on the contrary, and I want to emphasize this as strongly as possible, this appropriation which, according to the minister, was reviewed on the basis of efficiency reflects a stubborn and deliberate failure to recognize the basic needs of ordinary people. Such an attitude tells many Quebecers that there is no time to lose, the situation has become so urgent that we can no longer afford to come and plead in this place, year after year, for those who are in the greatest need.