Debates of Oct. 30th, 1996

Committees Of The House

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, and pursuant to the order of reference made under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the government to table a complete response to this report.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Susan Whelan, Liberal, Essex—Windsor, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions submitted to me by 3,600 residents of Windsor and Essex county. They are objecting to the mandatory 25 per cent tax being withheld by the United States on their U.S. social

security benefits. These petitioners call upon the Canadian government to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to stop this inequity.

I know the government is working on a solution to this situation. However I urge the government to do it very soon.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House two petitions signed by the residents of York North.

The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Liberated) Act attempts to impose American domestic policy on other sovereign countries and therefore violates international law.

The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that Canadian interests, rights and businesses must be defended with strength and vigour. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue all avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are protected.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition draws to the attention of the House the important role that small business plays in our economy.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to create a healthy environment for small businesses and ensure they have access to the financing they need, and to help them explore and capitalize on new opportunities.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 969 constituents from the region of Durham.

This petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition asking for the abolition of the Senate.

Over 30,000 petitioners, including 6,300 from the riding of Frontenac, support this measure to save more than $50 million in taxpayers' money. It goes without saying that I fully support this petition, which has been appropriately certified by the Clerk of Petitions.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois and those whom I represent have questioned the raison d'être of the Senate. Its inefficiency and its unproductivity have been demonstrated time and again.

I submit a petition signed by 1,786 Quebecers from my riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. They insist that the Canadian government use the salaries paid to members of the other place for reasons others than the enrichment of people who bring nothing to the evolution of the Quebec and Canadian societies.

Consequently, we ask that the Senate be abolished.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition from my constituents. The 567 signatures on this petition are in addition to the 30,000 ones from other ridings.

The petitioners ask for the abolition of the non-elected Senate and state that this spending of $40 million is unjustifiable, given the cuts affecting UI benefits, the lack of an employment policy and the cuts to seniors' benefits.

People in my riding say no to the Senate, because it costs too much.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition with 74 names from the Vancouver area. This petition is sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of Andre Castet and it includes names from my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.

These petitioners unequivocally reject Bill C-37. They call upon the government to enact legislation to address the public demand for substantial revision of the Young Offenders Act and substantial reform of the justice system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you back in the Chair after an extended absence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present today. The first comes from Wetaskiwin, Alberta.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Labrador City, Newfoundland.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

Questions On The Order Paper

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business Of The House

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That all recorded divisions demanded today on Private Members' Business motion M-221 be deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 1996, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(Motion agreed to.)

Point Of Order

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to two questions on the Order Paper.

The first is Question No. 9 of which notice was given on February 28, 1996 with a request that a response be made within 45 days. This same question was initially tabled in the House in September 1995. The previous parliamentary secretary to the government House leader assured me and the House that an answer was forthcoming. Apparently a couple of departments were not able to supply all of the information quickly. Following prorogation of the House, the successive parliamentary secretary assured me that an answer was forthcoming very soon.

We are now in October and a considerable time has elapsed since February, over half a year. I still do not have an answer to Question No. 9.

As well there is Question No. 60, for which notice was given on June 13. Again, much more than 45 days has elapsed and the question has not been answered. I would like to know why.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister under notice and will see that the message is delivered to the parliamentary secretary, being quite sensitive of course from his perspective of the length of time it has taken to get the answers.

On the other hand, quite often that simply reflects the complexity of the question. We will take all those things into consideration and get back to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Canada Labour Code

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of Labour]

moved that Bill C-35, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (minimum wage), be read the third time and passed.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the Minister of Labour for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-35.

This is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to automatically align the federal minimum wage to the levels applied in the provinces and territories.

When I first realized that the federal minimum wage had not been raised in 10 years, I was totally amazed. A lot of things have changed in our country since 1986, both economically and socially.

All these years, the four dollar an hour federal minimum wage has not increased, and in principle is still at the same level as it was in 1986.

In the meantime, every single province and territory has upgraded its minimum wage and in some cases more than once. This means that all workers under federal jurisdiction who have been paid at the $4 an hour rate will immediately receive an increase.

We know that wage increases are much more important for those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. For them, as for most people, every penny counts. We each have to stretch them to the maximum to make ends meet.

As former minister of labour for Prince Edward Island, I can assure members that the government has made the right choice by aligning the federal minimum wage to the rate applied in each province and territory.

The provinces clearly have the lead on this issue, as they govern 98 per cent of all minimum wage earners in Canada. It is a fact that industries under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, telecommunications, banks and some crown corporations have very few workers at minimum wage.

Indeed, recent estimates show that less than one-tenth of one per cent of the Canadian labour force falls into this category. The federal government could have followed the traditional approach and introduced a flat increase to set the minimum wage in the middle of the range of provincial and territorial rates and the government could have taken the path as it has done in the past.

Indeed, the government could have just done what past governments have done. But then, by the time the new rate would have been in effect, a number of provinces could have increased their own rates. A number of the provinces, including my own province of Prince Edward Island, have raised their minimum wage rates since this bill was introduced in the House last May.

The status quo was not a viable option either because the federal minimum wage was falling far out of line with overall social and economic conditions. This is very important because our government is committed to helping those who are most in need. We mean this.

This is why the Minister of Labour has seriously analysed the situation and has chosen a method setting the federal minimum wage that fulfils three important objectives: to ensure its continuing relevancy; to promote fairness by ensuring that workers, whether subject to federal or provincial labour laws, are entitled to the same minimum wage within the same labour market; to provide more incentive for people to seek work while balancing and limiting the negative impact of job creation.

We recognize that the economic realities and the labour market conditions are very often different from one region to the other. We also know that these factors are clearly reflected in the way different provinces set their minimum wage.

Adopting provincial territorial minimum wage rates maintains this balance across regions without punishing or rewarding anyone. Let us look at the figures.

Today the provincial and territorial minimum wage rates vary from $5 an hour in Newfoundland and Alberta to $7 an hour in British Columbia. This is a huge difference. But then, who would argue that the cost of living is not different in these regions of the country? This is a perfect example of why aligning the federal rate to the provincial rate is the best way to go.

I would like to address the issue of the efficiency of this bill.

I believe all members of this House want to make legislative and parliamentary procedures still more flexible and efficient. Each week we meet people in our riding offices with complaints about the current system. They feel it is too slow and a source of confusion, with too much duplication and overlap. I know this, because far too many such cases are brought to my attention.

Here is an opportunity for all of us to do something concrete and positive to streamline government activities. From now on there will be no need to amend the federal minimum wage regulations in order to adjust the federal minimum wage to the reality. It will be automatically updated on a regular basis in line with territorial and provincial increases.

I was also happy to hear the minister note that the new rates will apply equally to adults and to young workers. I must admit that I have great difficulty in accepting that a person should be paid less just because of his or her age. I also believe that such a practice may likely be discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I therefore strongly support section 178(2) of the bill which states that where provinces have set rates according to occupation, age or work experience the general rate will apply. If there are different rates based on age, the highest minimum wage rate will apply to those in federally regulated industries.

I would also like to say a few words about the process the government followed with this bill. We had serious consultations will all of the stakeholders before choosing this formula. Every-

body has had the chance to express their view before the final decision was made, and the general reaction is very positive.

Sometimes employers become very apprehensive when they hear talk about raising the minimum wage. They are often afraid that these costs will hurt their competitiveness. Not in this case. The federally regulated employers, transportation, communication as well as the Canadian Bankers' Association have indicated they do not oppose the government's initiative. Indeed, business leaders recognize that it makes a lot of practical sense to harmonize federal and provincial rates since federal employers have done so in practice for some time.

Labour organizations welcome the move as a small increase long overdue. They would like to see a bigger raise in the minimum wage and of course so would everyone. But in this field we all have to move according to a pay set by the economic strengths and weaknesses of a specific labour market. In this specific case we have not met any significant opposition for the simple reason that Bill C-35 brings into force what has by and large already been practised across the country.

As the Minister of Labour was saying earlier, we are bringing the legislation in line with reality. There is also good support for this initiative because everyone recognizes that by harmonizing the federal rate with the provincial and territorial ones we will end the stagnation we have seen over the last 10 years.

Of course, some will say that the federal government ought not to transfer such responsibilities to the provinces and territories, because it would run the risk of ending up weaker as a result. We are not, however, giving up our authority, for we are retaining the legislative power to establish a different rate, if this decision were taken.

Should a province or a territory decide to bring down its minimum wage or set it to a level we estimate would be too low, the federal rate will stay at the higher level. We are not passing our responsibilities to the next jurisdiction.

What we are doing is working hand in hand with the provinces and territories to find the best and most efficient way to keep the federal minimum wage in line with reality in each and every province and territory of our country.

This initiative has been taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of all provincial and territorial governments which know that this bill will improve the system and better reflect the realities of our current marketplace. The bill has gone through the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and is coming back to us without a single amendment.

This shows clearly that the formula is the right one and that the consultation process was absolutely appropriate to develop a large and a strong consensus.

Given the Government's creative strategy with respect to the federal minimum wage, I feel that the future looks most encouraging.

In his speech at second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour told us about his plan to overhaul the Canada Labour Code in order to make it a more useful tool to move and adjust to the new realities of the workplace.

I am very confident that the minister will be successful. He will succeed because he is dedicated to dialogue and consultation. He will succeed because he is facing the problems head on in search of a practical, efficient and permanent solution. Bill C-35 is an excellent example.

Amending the Canada Labour Code is an important task because it sets the basic rules for the workplace for thousands of Canadians.

Today we are taking a small step to improve the working conditions for some Canadian workers who are under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. They are the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder. They work hard for their pay. They are proud workers. They participate in society and they contribute to society.

That is why I support Bill C-35. I am confident that every member of the House of Commons will also show their support.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak for up to a maximum of 40 minutes, and I will try to stay within those limits. You know how unpredictable this is, but before discussing the minimum wage, I shall, if I may, be out of order and offer my congratulations to a friend who works with us at the leader's office and has now become a father-talk about a positive element. David MacDonald, who is well known here on the Hill, is now the proud father of a baby girl.

That being said, my congratulations duly extended, we are now talking about a very serious matter. Our listeners know that when, as parliamentarians, we discuss the issue of minimum wage rates, we refer to three major factors. These are people who are less well off in society. There are people who often have no collective agreement, who lack this often elementary protection that puts it all down in writing. In that case they have to rely on legislation like the bill before the House today to amend the Canada Labour Code.

These are people who work part-time and who in many cases have difficult working conditions and hold down several jobs. For their sake it is certainly very important to try to impose a certain number of rules which according to the legislator set the absolute strict minimum.

As we have said on several occasions, we believe that Bill C-35 is a rather positive bill. It is positive, since it has six major characteristics. The first one is that to all intents and purposes, and I say this very carefully, the bill before the House today says that in every province where there are federally-regulated companies, the minimum wage rate will be aligned with the rate in effect in that particular province. The federal minimum wage was $4 and has not been increased since 1986.

Of course the federal government, and that is one of its prerogatives, retains the right to establish an hourly rate for companies under its jurisdiction, should there be no minimum wage rate in effect in the province, but to all intents and purposes, the bill will put an end to this aberration which we have condemned many times in the past, which meant that two groups of workers within the same territory and doing the same job could not be getting the same hourly rate, which made no sense at all.

Let me give you the broad parameters of Bill C-35. As I said before, and to make quite clear to listeners who have just tuned in, I repeat that the federal minimum wage is set at the hourly rate established by the employee's province or territory of employment.

Having said that, I think that, for the sake of clarity, we must bear in mind that the reality in terms of the Canadian labour market and the current minimum wage is a rather fragmented, uneven reality, since we are not in a situation where minimum wage rates are harmonized. Think that there are provinces where the minimum wage rate is barely above $4, while it is as high as $7 in generous British Columbia. But for this reality to be reasonably meaningful to our fellow citizens, I will nevertheless list the various hourly rates in effect in each province.

Alberta has set its minimum wage rate at $5; British Columbia, whose financial situation is the healthiest, has an hourly rate of $7; Prince Edward Island, $5.40, as the minister, who was himself born and raised on this island no larger than Montreal, pointed out; Manitoba also has an hourly rate of $5.40; New Brunswick, $5.50; Nova Scotia, $5.50; Ontario, the very conservative province of Ontario, where a lot is happening these days, as you know from following the news, has an hourly rate of $6.85; Quebec, $6.70; Saskatchewan, $5.35; Newfoundland, $5.25; the Northwest Territories, $7; and the Yukon, $6.86.

So, it was wise on the part of the government, as the federal legislator, to decide to bring its rate in line with the provincial rates, and that is an initiative we have applauded on several occasions.

It should be pointed out that the bill calls for the general rate to apply, regardless of the profession, status, or work experience of the worker, which has not always been the case. In the past, exceptions were made possible because of characterizations like the ones I just mentioned.

Also, and it was wise to provide for this, when workers are paid under a different criterion-there are places for instance where earnings are calculated by the piece, that is another possibility-they must receive at least as much as the minimum wage equivalent for the work in question.

Fourth exception, where the wage rate set by the province is based on age, the highest rate applies, and we think this is normal and desirable.

Fifth, as I said, the federal government may set the minimum wage rate with respect to employment in a province.

Sixth, the federal government specifies the conditions under which and the occupations in which young people under the age of 17 may be employed, but there may be no specific rate for them.

As you can see, one of the changes introduced with this Bill C-35 is that exceptions on the basis of age will no longer be allowed, contrary to what had been the practice until just recently, for fear that it would not meet the test of the Charter in eventual court challenges, as the chairman of the human resources development committee can imagine, he who, as we know, is very concerned about these issues.

As much as we applaud this legislation and feel it should be supported, it still has some flaws. We still did our job as opposition, because the opposition must work on improving the government. Of course, it is a full time job. With all we have ahead of us, no one could work only part time on improving the government. If we want a better government, the opposition must work very hard and full time, and be able to introduce amendments.

We proposed an amendment which the Liberals rejected with some weak arguments. We do not fully understand what drove them to it; Their justifications were somewhat vague. But we did put forward an amendment aimed at-it is still possible. Even if only 10 per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code, this does not mean we should not be concerned with them. Ten per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Fifty per cent of this 10 per cent of workers are paid the minimum wage. This is another reality we must deal with. Since this is a federal jurisdiction, there are cases in which a worker may perform his duties in more than one province. There is the whole issue of trucking, of interprovincial transport.

We have concerns. We wondered what would happen when a worker does not have a fixed workplace and the employer himself can assign a workplace in Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta. Would the employer not be inclined to choose the workplace with the lowest hourly wage rate?

Because we are concerned with this social democratic aspect, we questioned the minister in subcommittee. I think the committee chairman will recall that some of our questions remained unanswered. That is why we felt it was our duty to move an amendment. So we put forward an amendment that was defeated by the Liberals.

In short, we still did our duty and I am convinced that we uncovered a flaw in this bill which was minor but nonetheless worth bringing to the government's attention.

But, to me, the most important issue in this fundamental debate is not so much the fact that the minister proposes a bill on minimum wage. It would have been interesting to put the issue of minimum wage in the context of impoverishment. This is the reality and we will keep repeating it as long as we sit in this House, because there are few people, with the notable exception of the official opposition, who are truly concerned about the plight of the poor. It must be understood that there have never been so many poor in Canada.

No one in this House, whether from the government, the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, can rise and say that, since the seventies, the Canadian and Quebec societies have become more affluent overall. It is not the case. Rather, there is an increasing number of poor, 4.8 million of them, in Canada.

I thank the Speaker for showing concern about my health. It is true that I was not feeling well the last few days. I had the flu. Had it not been for my robust health, I would not have recovered. But I am here to talk to you and to protect the interests of the poor.

Poverty is not disappearing. It is not diminishing. I am pleased to see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, because I want to remind him that, while poverty is measurable, while it is a statistical data, it is also a human reality. Behind every graph, chart, figure and fraction, there are destinies, hopes, dramas and families.

We are told there are 4.8 million poor in Canada, and it is agreed that a Canadian is considered to be poor when 56 per cent of his or her income is spent on the three basics, namely clothing, housing and food. As you know, poverty, like unemployment, is not a genetic trait.

The labour, international trade and human resources ministers keep telling us about market globalization and interdependency, but the fact is that we have an unemployment rate which is chronically much higher than the average for OECD countries.

And while the average rate of unemployment in OECD countries stands at 7.8 per cent, the Canadian average is 12 per cent, and in certain parts of large cities, 13, 14, 15, 16 and even 22 per cent.

One day we would like an explanation as to why certain countries that are not on Mars but right here on Earth have achieved full employment, when it is still eluding us here in Canada.

For the official opposition, one thing is certain and that is that there is no getting around the fact that two governments get in each other's way, and that when you are without a job, when things have taken a turn for the worse and you have lost your job because of a disability, or have just been laid off, there is no one place you can go for help. There are a certain number of programs you may turn to if you receive income security benefits, but not if you are on unemployment insurance.

The only truly integrated labour market policy is one in which all related activities would be handled by a single authority, which can only be the provinces.

I would like to come back to the issue of poverty. It is not a question of genes. The parliamentary secretary, who generally has little to say when we mention figures, but manages to find his tongue in committee, will agree with me that poverty is not something you are born to. It is not as though some people are destined to be poor, while others are destined to be rich. However, it must be admitted that certain decisions drive people into poverty. I would like to give you a recent example. This is not an example from 50 years ago, but is something quite contemporary and immediate, and has resulted in a cloud of shame descending on this Parliament, particularly to your right, when the employment insurance legislation was passed.

The employment insurance reform is bad for two reasons. First, because it limits the accessibility of workers and of employees to the protection of unemployment insurance that they have paid for. It will be remembered, first of all, that the Canadian government has not, since 1992, contributed one red cent to the unemployment insurance fund, and it would be impossible to find comparisons within the OECD, to find any example of a country which has decided to disengage in such an irresponsible way from the unemployment insurance field.

The fact is, that with unemployment insurance reform, benefits, coverage and duration are being reduced. What does this mean? It makes it clear that there is a link between the constitutional framework and Quebec's sovereignist project. What did Louise Harel, the Quebec minister of employment and MLA for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have to say in the last referendum? "We are investing $10 billion yearly for the Quebec labour market". This is not a trifle, $10 billion yearly. It is even far higher than the average amount invested in the OECD countries. Despite the fact that we are investing more in work force policies within Quebec, including

income security and unemployment insurance, we are faced with an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average.

What does this mean? It means that the continued unemployment is not a result of lack of money, or of resources. If there is this much unemployment, it is because programs have been poorly designed, because there is no possibility for a single decision-making centre to have an integrated labour market policy.

Think how wonderful it would be if, once a person was out of the work force, for all manner of reasons, more often than not reasons beyond his control, there were only one single centre of authority for that person, where he could be offered a broad range of programs and measures, where a true path back to work would be available to him. In other words, a given individual would be followed from the very beginning of his loss of employment, throughout the system, and right up until he obtained a new job, without any concern for federal-provincial overlaps, for this is where the damage is done.

We have two decision-making centres which are not co-ordinated, which do not speak the same language, which do not take the same steps, which discourage people, and which make it impossible for Quebec to have a proper integrated labour force strategy.

Still more serious is the fact that the policy proposed by the Minister of Human Resource Development is a one which contributes to destabilizing Quebec's public finances. I believe we must speak of this reality. Those listening to us have a need to know. With the restrictions that have been made within unemployment insurance reform, making it into employment insurance, 30,000 new households have been unable to qualify for employment insurance and have therefore had to apply for income security, which is a last resort.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an eminent economist known to a number of us. His name is Pierre Fortin. He is an economist with the UQAM. He is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. He is not a member of the executive of my riding association. He has no sovereignist leanings. He is a brilliant intellectual and a respected member of the academic community.

He was involved in drafting a report published under the title: "Pour un régime équitable axé sur l'emploi". This report, released not quite a year ago, was very critical of the employment insurance system. I would like to quote from the report.

It says: "In 1995, approximately 120,000 people were either unemployed and recently excluded from unemployment insurance or had dropped out of the labour market altogether as a result of these restrictions. Since it is usually estimated that 25 per cent of those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance end up on welfare, it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions-and I will repeat this in an attempt to get the attention of the former parliamentary secretary, I feel sorry for him, but it is not our decision-it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions have caused as many as 30,000 more households to go on welfare. The annual cost to the Quebec government would increase by about $240 million. The first estimates available indicate that the new changes in unemployment insurance announced for 1996 would add another 20,000 households to those already on welfare and would finally put the cumulative cost of these restrictions at approximately $400 million for Quebec".

Do you realize the tragedy behind all this? When you see the Minister of Finance with his grey hair and his unconscionable ego rising at the Liberal convention strutting like a peacock when he says that he made it, that he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives, there is something extremely troubling here which is almost dishonest, because the Minister of Finance did not tell us that, as he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives which were to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GNP, he did so with absolute contempt for the provinces, by offloading his problems and making the provinces poorer.

That is the reality, and when Pierre Fortin tells us that the reforms proposed by the Liberal government will add an additional $400 million to the cost of welfare payments, this is the most despicable, pernicious, unacceptable and irresponsible example of what Canadian federalism has to offer. That is why we are a sovereignist opposition and why we intend to achieve our sovereignty.

That being said, as long as we are in this House, as long as we are the official opposition, we will always be what the Reform Party and the government cannot be: the voice of those who are less well off in our society.

In the time I have left, I would like to draw a thumbnail sketch of poverty. I said earlier that poverty was a very specific reality affecting 4.8 million Canadians. But not all are affected equally. There are some classes of people in society whose social status makes them more vulnerable to poverty and financial setbacks.

For a very long time, seniors were seen as the poorest in our society. So much so that, when the Senate carried out a study on poverty in the 1970s, there was an old person on the front page of its report. I am not saying today that seniors are no longer poor or that there are no people who have trouble making ends meet, but the fact is that the face of poverty is changing. At this time, the poorest members of our society are young families headed by someone under 25. Canada's poverty rate is 17 per cent. If we had a sample of 100 people, 17 of them would fit the statistical definition

of poor, in that they must spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.

Well 44 per cent of young families headed by someone under 25 are poor, compared to 17 per cent of all Canadians. So, if you are a family head under 25, the more family obligations you have before the age of 25, the better your chances of fitting the definition of poor, since 50 per cent of young families are poor.

Even more so for single-parent families headed by a woman under the age of 65 who has a child under the age of 18. In that case, the poverty rate raises to 56 per cent.

Also, and this is a fairly new reality, the scope of which we are only starting to realize, fewer members of our society are getting married. The number of singles is on the rise. Not so much among Canadians, but still there is a growing number of single people, of people living alone. And people who live alone and are single have about a 40 per cent chance of living below the poverty line.

This profile should have been enough to convince the minister that it is not enough to table in this House a bill to bring the federal minimum wage rate in line with the rates in effect in the provinces and more should have been done.

You will recall what the Liberals promised. In the last election campaign, the Liberals were talking about establishing a national child care system in Canada. They talked about guaranteed minimum income. Their generous spirit during the campaign translated into extremely cheap and restrictive policies and decisions regarding those people who are the less fortunate, the most disadvantages.

I would like to address a number of myths concerning poverty.

In order to be clear, and since we can express them with numbers, let me say that, in 1994, poverty levels-these are the most recent ones established by the National Council of Welfare-in large urban areas were estimated at $16,511 for a single person and at $31,061 for a family of four.

So, in 1994, a person living in a large city with a total income of $16,511 was considered to be poor. Similarly, a family of four, that is two spouses with two children, living on $31,071 was also poor. This takes us back to the sad picture that I tried to paint earlier.

Let me tell you about a number of biases that prevail and that are, of course, promoted by the Reform Party, and sometimes, albeit to a lesser degree, by the government majority.

There is this thinking, behind the proposed employment insurance measures, that poverty is first a personal matter, that people choose to be poor, that it is a deliberate choice, as if people deliberately chose to lose their jobs, to become unemployed, or to be laid off.

I think there is something terribly hypocritical about the reform proposed by the government. It wants to impose penalties on people because they are unemployed, and asks them to find work, when we are not in a position to create enough jobs for all the people who want them. There is something profoundly unacceptable about imposing penalties on people who are looking for work.

There is also this whole idea that the poor do not pay taxes, that they are wards of the state and that they are not contributing their fair share. This is interesting, because the National Anti-Poverty Organization has reminded us that most people living in poverty work part time, and that over 60 per cent of heads of families living in poverty and over 70 per cent of single people living in poverty pay taxes. In Ontario alone, it is estimated that these people contribute $160 million in taxes. So much for that myth.

There is another myth that must also be dispelled, particularly now that the Canadian government has pulled out of the Canada assistance plan. Our viewers must know that under the Canada assistance plan, in existence since 1966, the Canadian government shared half the cost of funding provincial income security programs, and that terminating this program will not only destabilize budgets in the provinces concerned, but can only mean that there will be increasingly fewer funds available for those who have nowhere else to turn.

There is this idea that people on income security are receiving way too much money, enough to meet their needs and then some. What has to be said, in the context of social programs and a debate such as this one today in the House, is that all Canadians on welfare are living under the poverty line. The highest welfare benefits are still 20 per cent below the poverty line as defined by specialized organizations. This is another myth that must be dispelled.

Another point that must be mentioned is that, by adopting a bill like the one on employment insurance, the government is following a philosophy of auditing. The idea is that the unemployed, those receiving benefits, are cheats, and that this is a way to get money back, and thus a way to improve public finances, whereas studies have proven that, while not claiming there are no cases of fraud-for there are-they account for only about 3 per cent of all accounts.

How can anyone dream of establishing a policy for putting public finances back on their feet based on a philosophy of auditing, one as shameless as the one proposed to us by the Liberal government with employment insurance, while it knows full well

that barely 3 per cent of all claimants are involved in fraud, and knows equally well that the level for income tax fraud is 20 per cent?

How is it that the government has not had the same enthusiasm? How can it be that the government has not exercised the same diligence in trying to get tax money out of the well to do, in trying to go after the richest of taxpayers? We know that there is a 20 per cent fraud rate at Revenue Canada. This would offer an opportunity to make some savings and remedy shortfalls. The government has preferred to attack the most disadvantaged rather than shoulder its responsibilities, so much so that the last budget informed us there would be fewer and fewer audit staff at Revenue Canada.

The result of this is that prejudices continue, that we continue in a situation where wrong ideas are being entertained, and where there is no hesitation to go after the most disadvantaged, very likely the category of people who have contributed most to restoring public finances.

There is one extremely important statistic in this connection which we ought never to lose sight of, which we ought never to forget, when attempting to design social policies. It is a statistic reminding us that, in Canada, income, or in other words wealth, is very unevenly distributed. If we look at the total incomes of Canadians, we find that the wealthiest fifth of the population of Canada receives nearly half of all Canadian income.

The wealthiest 20 per cent of the population gets 50 per cent of this income, while the poorest 20 per cent gets only 3.4 per cent. In other words, the wealthiest fifth of the population gets 14 times as much money as the poorest fifth.

If we really want to be serious about what we do in Parliament, if we want to do something useful, this is where we should start. This is real injustice. We know the statistics, we know the most troubling facts about the distribution of wealth, but the government's complacency, in its refusal to deal with the problems and its habit of proposing measures that are less than satisfactory have meant that our society is becoming increasingly poorer, that wealth is unequally distributed and that the wealthiest continue to get wealthier and the poorest get poorer.

[An hon. member]

I agree with that.