Debates of March 12th, 1996

Supply

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief; I see others wanting to speak. I am itching to respond to the hon. colleague across the way. I think he is still a bit blinded by the aftermath of the October 30 referendum debate.

The referendum is settled. That is not the issue today. I have two little questions for the hon. colleague across the way. In his speech he mentioned that the new bill would entitle seasonal workers to up to three weeks additional benefits. I would like to see him do a demonstration of A plus B equals C for this, because that is not what people have understood the reform to mean.

A second little question of arithmetic. He says that young people would be better off with this new reform, because now they will have deductions taken off from the very first hour they work. They had to work fifteen hours in the past before deductions started, but 910 hours divided by 15 makes about 60 weeks. First of all, when will they be eligible to apply for unemployment insurance? Second, students are deemed not to be available for work. If young

people study full time in the winter and work only on weekends, will they have enough time for entitlement?

Did they state in this unemployment insurance reform that it will allow students to collect unemployment insurance while still at school? I think that the hon. member was talking through his hat. He was perhaps just a bit too blinded by the political option I am defending, but I would remind him that what we wanted to discuss today was unemployment.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to reply to my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

I am not influenced by the results of the referendum but I am influenced by many Quebec friends and many Quebec colleagues. Great Canadians. Great Quebecers.

When the SSR review toured the country, in 35 days we had hearings in 27 cities, ten provinces, two territories, the eastern Arctic, and many locales in Quebec. People asked for the same thing and Quebecers were no different. They are Canadians who want an opportunity to work and make a contribution to this country.

I would gladly ask the member to read out the list of people in his province who do not want the same opportunity as what they have here.

The second question concerned students and the 15 hour system. Many students I know personally work at two part time jobs. I believe that after this legislation is passed the "Mc" companies will offer more than 15 hours to these students. I am sure many of these students will have the opportunity to work 30 hours a week. We will find that this legislation will be of great benefit to all Canadians including Quebecers.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition for giving us an opportunity to give more explanations regarding important issues, by presenting motions which always surprise us, as they surprise others, by their incisive and unexpected nature.

I thank the opposition for giving me the opportunity to speak about youth, the generation which is next in line and which literally represents the future of our country. The future is of concern to all of us but there is no question that it is of even greater concern to young people.

It was the case for us when we were young, but it probably is much more so for young people today. They feel more bound by the choices made by their elders and they have a greater interest in the decisions taken in the present legislative process. This is why there is great interest among young people for the debates we are holding and the positions we take.

I find it unfortunate that the opposition, with all due respect to my hon. colleagues, is taking advantage of young people's uncertainty about the future, which is quite understandable, to heighten that uncertainty, increase their nervousness and to arouse passions. They want to give to the most vulnerable groups in our society the impression that the major reforms proposed by the government are aimed at them.

If there is one group which will benefit from the major reforms launched by the Government, it is the young people. If one group should one day be grateful to us for having taken the necessary steps to control the deficit, it is the young generation. And if there is one group in our society for which employment insurance will be beneficial, it is, once again, the young people.

Young people will benefit like our own generation has from the major social security programs the generation before us established 30, 40 and 50 years ago. Many of those programs in their original form no longer meet today's needs and that is certainly the case when it comes to unemployment insurance.

More than 80 per cent of Canadians agree that the present system is flawed and must be redesigned.

One thing is sure, if we do nothing, we are guaranteed of leaving our children a house mortgaged to the hilt, as Jean Paré wrote last year in L'Actualité on the very subject of social program reform.

Employment insurance offers an affordable system that continue on into the future. We have already explained why, under the bill, the eligibility requirements are increased for those newly arrived on the labour market. It would appear that young people tend to leave school earlier if they have relatively easy access to UI benefits.

If young people do not have an adequate education they often embark on a cycle of dependence on unemployment insurance or even welfare. We want to encourage young people to work rather than to depend on UI. We want to encourage personal responsibility, training and development. With these goals in mind it is not in our interest to have a system that does not encourage young people to get a good education.

In many respects, the young will benefit from the new system. With eligibility calculated according to accumulated hours of work, the insurance plan will be extended to 500,000 workers who

are not currently covered: those working part time, those in two or more small jobs and those whose job profile changes frequently.

In the job market at the moment, many of our young people find themselves in one of these categories. Of the 1.3 million low income workers who will have their contributions returned, nearly half are young people under 25. For the young, the new rules mean, in the end, a program cut of 8 per cent compared with 11 per cent for workers as a whole.

Young people constitute a priority for the government, made clear in the speech from the throne and in the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance.

As the minister said, our young people are, along with technology and trade, one of the three areas in which the government is going to invest more, because these areas are of crucial importance for improving employment and increasing the number of jobs now and in the future.

These initiatives are designed to create a leverage effect in the private sector and in our communities. The government is thus going to increase from $60 million to $120 million its contribution towards summer job creation for students. Furthermore, in the speech from the throne, the government called upon business and upon political and community leaders to join the efforts of the federal government to find new ways of helping our young people to find jobs.

It is in the interests of all Canadians to see to it that young people have every possible opportunity to participate in and contribute to the national economy.

Our young people must regain their confidence in the future. To that end, we must create new opportunities, and create jobs for all the workers in Canada. It is not up to the government to create jobs, but it is among its immediate responsibilities to generate a favourable climate for job creation. The best way to do it is to, first, stop the government from getting deeper in debt and control the deficit, as I said before. The budget that the government just presented shows that there is reason to hope, on this front.

At present, interest rates are low, the inflation rate is barely at 2 per cent and the overall unemployment rate is under 10 per cent. These are certainly favourable conditions for economic recovery and job creation.

As the Prime Minister said, it is now up to the private sector to do its part. It is in this way that the country's economy will move ahead.

This is how we will regain control. This is how we will manage to put our house in order so that our young people can regain confidence in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, we must be living in two totally different countries. Go walk in the streets and talk to young people who have just graduated. Today's unemployment rate among young people is the direct result of our current system. It ranges from 15, 16, 18, 20 to 25 per cent, depending on the region.

Does this proposed reform carry a message of hope to our young people? Will asking them to work 920 hours the first year in order to qualify for unemployment insurance be a message of hope for them? Do they see that as an incentive to start a family? For someone graduating with a degree in land use planning or working in wildlife conservation, for all those working in recreation and tourism, who are seasonal workers by definition, is there in this reform a message to the effect that they have a future, that we trust them and that they will go places?

As for the refund, does the member realize that only young people earning less than $2,000 a year will receive a refund? Two thousand dollars, that means 10 weeks at $200 a week. Therefore, most of those who work during the summer will not receive a refund because they will have earned more than $2,000 during the year. They will contribute to a plan but will never receive any benefits in return.

I agree with the member on one point, when he says that one solution is the reduction of the deficit. It is true, it is very true, provided we cut where we should really cut. If we say we reduce the deficit by having a surplus of $5 billion in the unemployment insurance fund, we end up with the opposite of what we wanted.

In conclusion, I ask why does the government not set a goal for the reduction of unemployment as it did for the deficit? Why did it not say: "We are going to try to be, in two years time, at 6 per cent, or 8 per cent or 4 per cent, depending on what we consider to be full employment; this will be our primary objective as a government, and we will make sure that unemployment is decreased to that level". Then, the employment insurance system would have deserved its name. Given this, would the hon. member have arguments that could convince me to change my point of view, to see the situation differently, when the message which seems to be given to our young people is: "If you get good training, you will

have a good chance to find a job but, unfortunately, if you cannot enter the system correctly you will be condemned to rely, year after year, on social assistance?"

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions. The first answer is yes, there are very concrete measures in the government bill. The first, most concrete measure is that premiums for businesses will be reduced, which will help to create jobs. It is estimated that 150,000 new jobs will be created under this new system.

On the member's second proposal concerning unemployment insurance surplus, I want to tell him that in 1990 the unemployment insurance fund had a surplus of $2 billion and with the recession that followed it became a deficit of $6 billion. We do not want to have to deal with the same problems that we faced in 1993 and 1994. So, what the government is doing now is taking preventive measures. We are trying to prevent problems in the future.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and I will not telling you anything new by saying that I sincerely believe the government has no choice but to withdraw Bill C-12, the so-called employment insurance bill that I would rather call destitution insurance bill.

It has no choice, if for no other reason than the one that people do not want this bill. So the government, simply to respect democracy and the people who elected it, must go back to the drawing board, as is suggested in the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague from Roberval.

People do not want this bill and this reform. I am not talking only about people who are directly affected, that is, the current beneficiaries. I am talking about people in general. I am talking about editorial writers, unionists and workers. Lise Bissonnette and Jean-Robert Sansfaçon of Le Devoir , the FTQ, the CSN, the CEQ, the CSD, the Bishop of Bathurst, the Canadian Labour Congress, mayors of Acadian villages, labour councils in Edmundston and the regions all agree that the government's proposals are simply unacceptable.

Provincial politicians have also condemned this reform. Why? Because it will increase the number of welfare recipients for whom the provinces are directly responsible. They are simply impoverishing the provinces by transferring these cases to them. This is called shovelling into the provinces' backyards.

There will be less money for the unemployed. For example, after Phase I of the reform, the Quebec government reported last May an additional 10,000 welfare claims for April alone. Again, it is precisely in April that the provision reducing the eligibility period came into effect. In Quebec, this means an additional 10,000 welfare claims.

This is no coincidence. Those people deprived of their UI benefits went straight to welfare. Why? Because they could not find jobs. In fact, a document from the Department of Human Resources Development foresaw exactly the direct impact of the new program, stating that total benefits would be cut by $735 million in Quebec and that it could cost provincial welfare programs between $65 million and $135 million. This is clearly stated in the document itself.

To fend off the sharp criticism that would surely be directed at the federal government, the document went right on to say that, to counterbalance these measures, other job creation initiatives were being implemented: the infrastructure program, the youth service corps, the young trainees program and strategic initiatives related to social security.

What does this mean? It means duplication and overlap. I must point out that the document also stated that these measures, along with the $800 million invested in strategic initiatives, would act as a countermeasure to the budget proposals. In short, they expected all hell to break loose, so to speak. They knew full well that it would not go down easy this time around, that the public was not going to swallow this new bitter remedy. Once again, the government ignored provincial jurisdictions, and particularly what the Quebec government and many other social stakeholders in Quebec are asking for, that is to say, that full financial control be restored to Quebec so that we can have a real job creation policy.

As window dressing, new programs were established in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. How wasteful. What a waste of time and energy, energy wasted in particular on giving once again false hopes.

We know that half of the 808,000 welfare recipients in Quebec are in fact chronically unemployed. Instead of creating employment, the government is turning out welfare recipients. How encouraging for the future. That is why the public does not want anything to do with Bill C-12, and that is not an understatement. As evidence of that, you need only recall the many protests that have been covered by television and the newspapers since December.

When my colleague from Mercier said the reform was pure nonsense, I remember that government members told her that she did not understand the so-called reform. So, considering all the protests that have been held since December, or since the government revealed another aspect of its so-called reform, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets. They demonstrated not only in Quebec, but also in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, and elsewhere. Are there any members in the House who have not been informed by their constituents of their objections to this awful system that I would call the employment insurance light?

In fact, the newspapers gave extensive coverage of the trials and tribulations of a Liberal parliamentary secretary from Acadia, who was bluntly reminded that he should look after his voters' interests. As the 400 protesters chanted in Montreal, on February 26: "That reform will not go through". This is what they were saying.

The Wednesdays of shame will continue until the government finally understands the message that people, in their wisdom, have been trying to convey for two years. The poor, the young, as well as women and the unemployed have given enough. They should not have to pay for the deficit. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with them. The time has come to set up a true job creation program, instead of trying to catch those who cheat, instead of, as Angéla Vautour put it, "making bad people out of good people", instead of saying that protestors are separatists disguised as unemployed workers. The time has come for people to understand what really motivates this government, other than the reduction of the deficit, of course.

Not too long ago, the President of the Treasury Board made a slip of the tongue that was reported by journalist Michel Vastel. The formula is very simple. Here is what the President of the Treasury Board had to say: "First, we will reduce federal transfers to the provinces by $7 billion. This will force the provinces to make cuts in their social programs. We will wait for Mr. Bouchard's government to make its cuts. Those cuts are going to hurt, and the provincial governments are the ones that will pay. Then we table a seemingly nice budget, the recent budget, which does not appear to impose new constraints on taxpayers. We come out looking like a good father sparing his poor children." That is what the President of the Treasury Board said.

"Finally, after the provinces have juggled with the new constraints we have imposed on them, after they have given the bad news to their citizens, our government will launch a massive publicity campaign to explain to taxpayers that we are the only government capable of protecting them, of defending them and of guaranteeing them a minimum of adequate services and benefits. QED."

They will wait for the Quebec government to table its budget in order to demonstrate that the federal government, like a good father, will provide small grants, bypassing the provinces, to community networks and to individuals, while Quebec is dealt a $7 billion cut through the Canadian social transfer and while the unemployment insurance program is also cut by $640 million. It was cut last year, and it will be cut a further $650 million.

This is impossible. They forgot one thing: the people will not be fooled. They forgot the people's wisdom. They forgot the wave of revolt that is sweeping the country.

I hope that the government will listen and will not be content with implementing minor reforms in this bill, but will withdraw it and recognize the validity of the motion put forward by our colleague, the hon. member for Roberval, who asked that this bill be withdrawn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my colleague, and I was deeply touched. I think that she got to the bottom of the problem.

The opposition motion says in part that the minister should go back to the drawing board, since this reform hits young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.

Could the hon. member elaborate a bit more on the situation women have to face when they enter the workforce for the first time or when they return to the labour market after raising their family? What is the situation going to be if this reform is carried out? Will they be able to get benefits or, like the motions says, are they going to be hit the hardest by this reform?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question asked by my colleague, because it deals with an issue I did not have time to address during my speech. Yes, women will be penalized. Why? Because 70 per cent of all part-time jobs are held by women.

We know full well that, under this unemployment insurance reform, part-time workers are penalized. Anyone who works fewer than 15 hours a week-and this is often the case for many women who have to spend many hours at home, because they have two roles to play and have to take care of their children-does not qualify for UI benefits, even though that person has paid his or her premiums. To qualify, that person would have to work 60 weeks a year. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are only 52 weeks in a year, unless the government has done something about that in this bill.

So, I think that women will be penalized and that young women will have a hard time finding a first job. With the job insecurity we hear so much about, it will be tough for them to qualify if they have to work 910 hours a year to do so.

Again, what they would need are more stable and longer-term jobs. Given its lack of vision, what is the government offering in terms of job creation? In its first budget, there was the infrastructure program, but in its second budget, there was nothing. At least, it had included a so-called job creation strategy in its first budget.

I deplore the fact that there is no job creation proposal especially for women, who make up 52 per cent of the population. So, we think that this reform will penalize women, because it is targeting workers who claim UI benefits too often. Since women are affected

by job insecurity and hold part-time jobs, I think this reformis unfair and will be carried out again at the expense of the underprivileged.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as several of my colleagues have said again and again today, the purpose of this debate is to ask for the withdrawal of the new Bill C-12, the old Bill C-111.

Why do we ask for this bill to be withdrawn? First, because we feel it penalizes the very victims of the job shortage, that is the unemployed. As described here and as we saw when Bill C-111 was introduced, these measures are a direct attack on the very victims of the lack of jobs.

Since every Canadian did not follow our debates all day long, I will try to summarize these measures in three points. First, there is the eligibility rule invented by the former Minister of Human Resources Development, that is, a total of 910 hours or 26 weeks of work.

As I said, I come from an area where seasonal work is everybody's fate. It is difficult to work for more than 10 or 12 weeks. By the way, I remind the House that it is biology which decides that lobster cannot be fished for more than 10 weeks. Any more than that would deplete the resource. Thus, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to be surprised that the minister has not addressed this rule yet and said that it must be objected to.

The second rule, which I called the penalty rule in my constituency, concerns the intensity. Anybody who receives unemployment insurance benefits for at least 20 weeks will see his or her benefits reduced by 1 per cent. Every time you receive benefits for 20 weeks, these benefits will be reduced by 1 per cent. This means that in about three years' time, seasonal workers will be denied 5 per cent.

The third point, which always needs to be explained, is the calculation method. The minister proposes to use a fixed basis. When the required number of hours is reached, it will immediately be divided-and this is the calculation method-by 14 weeks.

But it is by 14 weeks within a given period, once you have done your 420 hours. However, it is possible that people have been unable to work within this given period.

What about seasonal workers? If they work in early spring, in April and May in the case of fishing and again in the fall in another type of fishing, the entire summer period would not be included. That means that, once the 420 hours have been reached, the division to determine the value of benefits will have to be by the number of weeks the individual has not worked. This is unacceptable.

For this reason, we feel that this is unacceptable and we ask that this bill be withdrawn.

Why do we have difficulty meeting the objectives set out by the Minister in this area? I said earlier in this House that the premises are all wrong. For us, in our language, reforming the situation of the victims of job shortages means improving it. In this case, as I just said, coming from the new Minister for Human Resources Development, reform means cuts. And this is an indication, an order given to him by the Minister of Finance who, last year, said in his budget that the government wanted a cut of about 10 to 12 per cent-which means a cut of about $1.5 billion dollars which will be passed on to the recipients.

In the meantime, we realize there is a discrepancy as regards to the revenue generated by the UI fund, that is, premiums from workers and employers will generate a surplus of some $5 billion, for this year alone.

You will understand our surprise. Considering the equation I just did, it is clear that the problem is not about a lack of funds. They want to streamline. So to reduce or eliminate the problem, they want to hit those who happen to be the victims over the head.

I would have thought that alternative measures would have been proposed, precisely because UI benefits are dependent upon regional unemployment rates. I would have thought that measures to stimulate employment would have been devised.

The government cannot do here what it blames large companies for doing. In the throne speech, the Prime Minister, who thought he had delivered the goods, admonished big business, telling them: "Now that we are starting to meet our deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP, it is up to businesses to create jobs."

But what are big corporations doing? My colleague from Roberval also mentioned in his address in response to the throne speech that major banks cut around 3,000 jobs, even though they posted record profits of $5 billion. I do not have a detailed list, but it is in that order of magnitude. Bell Canada too made profits and cut workers.

I have nothing against profits, but I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the government, the Minister of Finance cannot put its fiscal house in order as does a corporation, whose sole purpose in life is to generate profits. Here we are dealing with real people who depend on our decisions. The minister must absolutely take this into consideration. We are asking him what will the people deprived of unemployment insurance get in exchange? Nothing.

It is the same in the fisheries sector, and I cannot wait to meet the new Minister of Fisheries. What can the people excluded from this program expect? We are going to ask some people to define what is the core of the fishing sector, that is to say to define who is going to be excluded, who is going to be declared surplus. But what can the excluded people expect? Nothing. The government seems to be reneging on all its social responsibilities, but there is one that it must assume.

On the same point, the minister often tells us that he intends to act in a certain way or is forced to act that way, because of "public opinion in the rest of Canada". The minister comes from Acadia and I come from the Gaspé and he tells me: "Public opinion in the rest of Canada wants me to streamline and cut in these areas". I am sorry, but I think that what most Canadians, like most Quebecers, want is action.

People will not be fooled. They know full well that, with the UI reform which is going on, the minister might, at some point, reduce their UI premiums in a fit of generosity, but that, meanwhile, social assistance budgets will have to be increased and the provinces are the ones that have to pay.

If the provinces are forced to increase their share of taxation, to tax the same people who said they are tired of paying for the unemployed, we are going in circles. Nobody addresses the real issue. We could say that following this policy is like burying one's head in the sand. At some point, we must face the problem et roll up our sleeves.

I took a lot of notes today and I noticed another small point. It seems that the government wants to ram Bill C-12 through. I must remind the House that the former Minister of Human Resources Development has been talking about a reform for more than two years, but it was only before Christmas, just after the referendum, that we began to get an idea on the kind of reform he was considering. The victims, the people directly concerned by this, did not wait long before expressing their opposition.

What is the rush when the minister has taken two years to think about how and where to cut? How is it that everything has to be done between now, in early March, and July 1? Does the minister realize that the unemployed do not have secretaries to defend their position? I believe he is going at this a little too fast.

The minister also talked about sensitivity. I just said that it will be the same people who will be affected if we reduce unemployment insurance premiums, if we reduce deductions which will levied on this, it will the same people who will have to contribute more to their province for social assistance.

I would like, through the House and with your help, to address the people who are fortunate enough to be working today, the directors and owners of businesses. They are fortunate to be working, and I am happy for them. I am asking them to put pressure on the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development so that the government uses part of the savings obtained at the expense of the unemployed to stimulate the economy and, above all, to put into practice what it preached after October 30, that is decentralization.

The problems in the Gaspe Peninsula are not quite the same as in Toronto or Montreal. I believe the time has come, in this matter, for the government to start thinking about decentralizing standards or things that will help workers by stimulating their local economy, in the Gaspe or in Acadia. I believe they have to use the right words to say it and the right means to do it.

At present, we do not see that kind of sensitivity. For all these reasons, I support my colleague from Roberval, and I hope that the government will withdraw this bill if it really wants to improve the situation of the unemployed.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Gaspé a question as it relates to the gap. That is a very important issue. He has many fishermen in his riding who work different portions of a season and therefore have a gap.

The minister has made it very clear there is some concern in various regions based on that issue. He has signalled to all members of Parliament, especially to one member who spent a lot of time on this issue, the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury. We call it the Scott proposal because it was made by one of our members.

The proposal is basically structured like this. Instead of allowing those gaps to exist, people on UI would be allowed to go back 26 weeks. In any one of those 26 weeks they would find 12, 14 or 16 weeks in order to qualify for UI.

This proposal has been bounced around by some members as a solution to the gap. So far we have not found anyone except for that member who has done that amount of work on the gap.

I ask the member for Gaspé if he has any proposals or if he thinks the Scott proposal would deal with that problem in regions like his, particularly in industries like the fishing industry where there are significant gaps.

What we are saying is if you needed 12 or 14 weeks to qualify you could go back 26 weeks to find those weeks and it would not matter if there was a gap of 2 weeks in between, and then you found another 4 or 5 weeks.

The interest I have in this is that the minister has signalled that we are looking for solutions to this. I want to make it quite clear to the opposition and the public that there is no intention of throwing the bill out and starting from scratch.

A significant amount of work has been done on this bill. There are a lot of good parts to this bill. There are a few problems we are trying to deal with. One is the gap.

I want to know from the member for Gaspé whether he agrees with the Scott proposal or whether he has one of his own that could help with that problem, which he suggests is one of the reasons we should scrap this legislation presently in front of the House.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my words have made the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resource Development aware of the existence of the riding of Gaspé.

To give more information to the hon. member, I will say that, in the riding of Gaspé, which covers the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, the unemployment rate is about 18.9 per cent, and 43 per cent of the labour force is ready and willing to work. That means that even if we are told-and I do not know exactly what "gap" means, but I will read the translation later on. For the moment, areas like mine must be considered disaster areas because of the lack of jobs.

Then if we compare the definition of "disaster area" with that of "developing area" I think that the necessary emergency measures must be taken.

Where will the fishermen and even the construction workers find the missing work weeks? It would be very difficult to force people from the Gaspe Peninsula to expatriate themselves to Toronto or Montreal. Unemployment rates are already high and employment opportunities are few in those cities. I do not think that this is the solution.

People want things to be done locally, they want to energize their communities. That is what we are doing right now in the fishery. There has to be streamlining, and that will be done. Different things must be done, but there is no forum to allow people to make their views on this known, at the present time.

I remind the parliamentary secretary that the federal fisheries minister is still responsible for license management, a responsibility that Quebec had claimed. It worked very well before 1984. It could be a way of helping the economy of my region.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to inform the fisheries minister that it could be a good solution. What would we do with that? We have to think about changing the marketing system and, for that, we need to have control over licenses.

There are other types of industries that need some adjustment. People in the Gaspé Peninsula want decentralization. There are still areas in Canada, like forest and mine management, that need to be decentralized. There are areas from which the federal government must withdraw.

First, in the absence of a reduction in the unemployment rate, we ask that the present system be maintained and we ask, and here you will get the support of all people concerned, for constructive measures. We see no constructive measure in this Bill. What we see is that you are using insurance to reduce your deficit. But what about measures which will really revitalise this area? There are none and it is regrettable. I would be ready to work with you, whatever my allegiance. For the time being, we are still a part of Canada and my riding is among the most severely affected by that plan.

I don't know if this answers the questions of the parliamentary secretary, but welcome to the Gaspé. It could be a good area in which to launch something.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member asks is very similar to what I always ask when I stand up in the House. I come from a region very similar to his in a lot of respects. It is not part of the Torontos of the world or the Montreals; it is in the outlying regions.

The hon. member might not have had an opportunity to read the bill in its entirety. There are two areas I want to ask him about.

There is the $100 million investment program to create jobs at the local level. There is also the $300 million job fund for high unemployment areas such as his and mine. I think that will be very valuable in helping us create jobs or put together programs and policies of a local nature.

If he looks at the bill very closely he will also note there are five tools over which the local areas will have control, including the one he represents.

Another aspect of the bill is very important to the hon. member because he signalled that UI is a problem but social assistance is probably a bigger problem. In the new bill 45 per cent of the social assistance population will be eligible for re-employment initiatives. It never existed before that people on social assistance could qualify for measures which would help them to return to the workforce.

Does the member not think these are major improvements for his region, which has high unemployment and a large population on social assistance, similar to my region?

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the few measures contained in the program, referring to a $100 million project, are for all of Canada.

I would like to draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to the real impact of the cuts and of the implementation of the new employment insurance program, as they are calling it, in our region. According to the figures given to the people in the Gaspé employment centres, according to indications in the Minister of Finance's budget, the cuts will reach $17 million in my region alone, the Gaspé Peninsula and the Islands. This is for HRD, Human Resources Development, alone.

As for the fisheries, the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is maintaining the increases in fishery charges. This represents a tax bite of some $50 million for the minister across Canada.

The rule of thumb is that Quebec's share of fish landings is about 10 per cent. This will be another $5 million taken out of the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands region, given our share of fish landings in Canada. So we are losing $17 million from human resources development, and $5 million from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for a total of $22 million in the first year, starting onJuly 1st.

In return, what share will I get of the $100 million that he says will be spent throughout Canada? This is just one riding out of 295. It may well be the worst off of them all, but it still has to make a contribution. Could the parliamentary secretary ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to slow the pace? Could he ask this minister to withdraw the bill, because it is another hard blow for us?

I have no choice but to demand the withdrawal of the bill. The hon. member's arguments did not convince me. I understand there is pressure from financial circles, but they do have a social responsibility. They cannot behave like private enterprise that just has to keep making profits. We have human lives to protect, we must get them up and running again. It is unfortunate, indeed, but I still want it withdrawn. However, I shall again be interested in debating with you, once you have withdrawn it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the amendment by Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southwest) shall be deemed to have been put to the vote, and the division thereon demanded and deferred until tomorrow at 6.30 p.m. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.00 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.)