Debates of March 12th, 1996

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph-Wellington.

I want to first thank the opposition for an opportunity to talk about something I consider a very important issue. That is, of course, the reality and honesty of making laws and going forward with decisions that affect a lot of people.

It is a pretty curious scenario we find ourselves in. The Bloc members say that they are sovereignists. They talk about how everything needs to change and how the status quo in Canada is a failure. At the same time, there is a motion before us that argues, in most cases, for the status quo. They do not have a proposal but they want the government to withdraw the bill. They do not want to put proposals on the table because they would just like us to listen to the people who will come before the committee.

As a member of the committee, we are certainly going to be listening to the witnesses. However, we are also asking the people across the way to give us some ideas and proposals of their own. The minister said that he looks forward to members of Parliament doing their jobs and putting forward proposals.

I find it quite curious that the Bloc wants to break up Canada because it does not work, but, on the other hand, does not seem to have any ideas about UI reform.

We have seen all sorts of polls and results from the department and people who have gone across the country asking Canadians about the proposals and what they reflect. The consultations, of course, do reflect a consensus in the country.

I am not a big fan of polls, as one might imagine, because they are just a snapshot of what people are thinking. However, these polls are so overwhelming that I thought I had better lay them out for the House this afternoon. For some reason, members across the way seem to suggest that 90 per cent of Canadians are opposed to UI reforms, when in fact some 77 per cent are in favour of UI reforms and in favour of major changes.

I have mentioned in the House many times that I come from rural northern Ontario where there is a very high unemployment rate. It is as high as that of some places in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada. We have not had any of the demonstrations that the people across the way talk about.

I asked myself why that was. There are as many seasonal workers in Ontario as there are in Atlantic Canada. As a matter of fact, there are more. We have to ask if the people of Atlantic Canada are different from those in Ontario. Are they different in Quebec than in Ontario? Are they different in B.C.? Quite frankly the answer to that is probably, yes. We are all different because we have different needs, objectives and different economies.

I can understand why the minister would bring up one of my old friends, Bob White, who is a unionist. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am a unionist and have been one for many years. I worked in the railway industry and I had a lot of friends in the union.

The problem with the Bob Whites of the world and one of the reasons I get very distressed about the role of labour in Canada is the fact that people like Bob White have moved the union movement into a corner from which it cannot escape.

People have stopped listening to some of the union leaders because they are now involved heavily in political parties. There are groups in Quebec which are supposed to be representing workers but are more interested in representing the separatist movement and its cause than about whether individuals have jobs.

There are unionists who spend half of their time at NDP conventions and less time negotiating with government and business in trying to help solve some of the problems.

No wonder people such as myself and the Minister of Human Resources Development become frustrated with the union movement.

Of course, now Bob White and his friends have organized a demonstration which suggests this bill is not good, that we should scrap it and start all over. That is the furthest from the truth. There are some improvements which need to be made. However, when we asked the majority of Canadians: Do you think we need to make these changes, their answer was overwhelmingly, yes.

The issue that concerns people the most is increasing the qualifying period for new entrants. Youth are a major concern. Hopefully the committee will receive proposals, not only from the folks across the way but also from government members, on how that issue might be dealt with.

Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians agree with reducing benefits for frequent users. Seventy per cent of Canadians believe it would be a good thing to move from weeks to hours. Seventy-four per cent of Canadians believe that part time workers should be allowed to qualify.

Then there is the question of implementing job transition funds. The suggestion was made this morning that it was not a big issue and that we were just trying to buy people's silence by putting forward a transition fund. Try telling that to the 80 per cent of Canadians who believe that a job transition fund is a a very good idea.

With respect to low income Canadians, 82 per cent of people say that assisting low income families should be a priority. That is reflected in the bill.

I am having a difficult time, not only with what the Bloc is suggesting, but also with the lack of ideas from the Reform Party. The only Reform suggestion so far was that it should be a true insurance program. In the survey results we have received from the majority of Canadians, that is not what they want. They want a progressive package which helps Canadians get back to work in one fashion or another.

I can understand why the Reform Party is so low in the polls. It is far away from the reality of what people really want. Every time the Reform Party brings a suggestion to the House it is basically refuted by Canadians who argue that it does not make any sense.

For the first time 500,000 part time workers will be insured. Is that a bad thing?

The Bloc leader suggested today that first hour coverage, which would be for part time workers, is a bad thing. I am quite surprised. The unionists are trying to protect part time workers. Society is revolving around part time workers more and more every year. I am surprised that they would be opposed to that. I wonder who they are representing: their union bosses or the people who are going to be stuck in the situation of working part time.

Two hundred and seventy thousand workers will receive, on average, three extra weeks of benefits. The Bloc does not care about that. Bill C-12 will create up to 150,000 new jobs because of behavioural changes within the bill. Again the Bloc does not seem to be concerned about the unemployed whether they are in St. John's, Vancouver or Rimouski.

Bill C-12 reduces premiums by $1.3 billion this year alone, money that can be used to create jobs. The Bloc does not seem to care about that either. Bill C-12 allows women who have left the workforce to raise families to access employment benefits for the first time. The Bloc does not seem to care about these women either.

Quite frankly, I am amazed at how little Bloc members seem to care about the important aspects of this bill. Bill C-12 will refund premiums for $1.3 million low income workers, including 920,000 who pay premiums today. The Bloc does not care about increasing their take home pay either.

In the few minutes I had, I wanted to mention these issues. The minister has said publicly to all members of the House that there are areas of concern with the intensity rule, with the gap, with low income Canadians, with the divisor rule. All those issues have been targeted as something to which the government is prepared to find better solutions or answers if people can come up with some proposals.

I ask the members opposite this. Instead of playing political games for the sake of trying to break up Canada for their own political gain they should come up with some proposals that can be looked at in committee and will hopefully improve the bill even further than it goes already.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are five minutes for questions and comments. I would like to get both members on the record so-

Therefore, I would like the questions to be as precise as possible in order to give every member an opportunity to ask a question or to make a comment.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following the speech just made by my colleague from the government, I will say that, in the riding of Charlevoix as in the rest of Quebec, people do want a reform of the unemployment insurance program, but not at the expense of the most disadvantaged. The minister is confirming what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying, namely that the government intends to reduce its deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged.

Members will recall that, last year, the unemployment insurance fund had a $5.5 billion surplus and that, this year, the government anticipates a surplus in the order of $5.3 billion. It is not true that there is less unemployment; in fact, there is more. The problem, and the reason why there is more and more money in the unemployment insurance fund, is the increasingly difficult access to the program. With the new reform, seasonal workers who work, for example, 15 hours a week will have to work 45 to 50 weeks in order to be eligible for UI benefits. In other words, these workers will no longer have access to the program.

People find it increasingly difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance and are forced to go on welfare.

Also, with this unemployment insurance reform, the benefit period for people who are eligible is reduced. Therefore, over a 52-week period, with a qualifying period, a person often has to rely on welfare before he or she goes back to work. And not everybody is eligible for welfare. Often times, people have to sell assets that they have accumulated over many years.

Does my colleague recognize the fact that the unemployment insurance fund is entirely paid by workers and employers and that the government cannot appropriate that money since it is there to help people in case they lose their jobs? Does the member recognize that the UI fund is an insurance for workers and that, if the government uses it to reduce its deficit, it is taking something that does not belong to it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer quickly so my friend from the Reform can ask his question.

The Bloc continues to perpetuate a myth. First, we all know that the UI fund is not general revenue. It does not go into the general revenues of the government. In fact last year it was in a deficit. When the Tories were defeated, the fund was in pretty rough shape and was in deficit by some $3 billion or more. This year finally that deficit has been turned into a surplus. It is projected there will be a fairly large surplus this year.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall because you were here-I am sure some of these members that were not here would not have read the Hansard as closely as they should have-that premiums had to be increased significantly during the last recession because there was no surplus in the EI account. It is our intention not to let that happen this time.

There is no interest or legal capability of the government to take that money and pay off its deficit. It is used as a benchmark for how the EI account is doing, whether it is in a deficit or a surplus position.

For the Bloc to continue to say that the government is paying off the deficit on the backs of the poor is completely false and erroneous.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this member has made some statements that are totally false.

For two years I was the critic and dealt a lot with the unemployment insurance fund. When he says that we do not make sugges-

tions I would like to refer him to Hansard and have him read Hansard . He says that the Bloc is not reading it; neither has he read Hansard .

If he would go back to 1994 and 1995 he would see the speeches I delivered in the House. There were 14 to 17 points in some of those speeches that provided the government with suggestions of what it could do to reform the unemployment insurance fund. To my knowledge very little of that advice was ever taken. If it had been taken the unemployment rate would be 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent lower that it is today. Those were excellent suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears. The government should take heed.

Has the unemployment fund not become a slush fund for some other government projects that have very little to do with insurance? We Reformers have a problem with this. The government was taking funds from EI and using them for things other than insurance. I do not think it can be denied that is the case.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny it. Quite frankly I welcome it. Any worker who understands a global economy, any worker or any parliamentarian who has spent time looking at our major competition in the world, will know that every labour adjustment program in the world is funded by its workers and its employers; every major labour adjustment program in the world is very progressive, not passive, not a straight insurance program where somebody is just given a cheque to stay home.

They are given a helping hand to try to retrain, to prove themselves and get back into the workforce. If the member calls that some kind of slush fund for friends of the Liberals, he should talk to the people about how they feel about that part of it.

I know Reform members have made a couple of suggestions. I heard them today: straight insurance program, nothing else to it; take it out of the hands of the government, give it back to the employers and the employees; government should have nothing to do with it. As a unionist I can say that I would be scared to death if it was taken out of the hands of the government and given to the private sector because there would be no insurance program if that was ever done.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Roberval. While I am pleased to have this opportunity to share with the member and the House the accomplishments of the Liberal government, I am disappointed that once again the opposition's only effort is to ignore the positive and focus on the negative.

I would hope that prior to introducing this motion for debate the hon. member and his colleagues had discussed the proposed changes to unemployment insurance with their constituents. I have worked closely with the people of Guelph-Wellington in offering constructive proposals for genuine change in unemployment insurance.

I am particularly grateful to Jerry Wilson of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Joseph Maloney of the Building and Construction Trade Department who have worked with me in this regard. Their suggestions, proposals and guidance have been of great assistance to me and I thank them for their work on behalf of workers across Guelph-Wellington and all of Canada.

I would suggest that any member in the House take the time to meet with some of these people. They have lot that they can help and share with each of us.

Let me remind the hon. member that it was a Liberal government that first introduced unemployment insurance in Canada. In July 1940 the Minister of Labour, the Hon. N. A. McLarty, guided the bill through Parliament. It was established to provide insurance against unemployment and to form an employment service.

The bill was introduced during a time of war following the great depression. It responded to the changing times of the 1940s and it gave protection to workers and their families that never existed before.

It is this Liberal government, with the work of Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Human Resources Development that wishes to afford better protection and we have offered concrete proposals which respond to the same difficult and changing times which faced the government of Mackenzie King.

I find it ironic, however, that the opposition parties criticize the government for its work on behalf of young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants. Let us examine their record on behalf of these Canadians they seek to protect in this motion. Let us look closely.

We know that introducing employment insurance eligibility based on hours worked will help Canadians working in the building and trades industry, students and young people who rely on part time work for their employment.

Most important, we have made concrete proposals to assist young people in all of Canada, every province. Guelph-Wellington is the home of the University of Guelph. Many of our young people stay in our community to study and we attract hundreds of students from across Canada. This government is offering them more flexibility in repayment to make post-secondary education more accessible. We have introduced job focused internship programs and Youth Service Canada in co-operation with the private sector which has provided much needed assistance in the transition from the school to work.

What have the opposition parties offered? The Bloc tells young people that their future lies in the uncertainty created by a divided country. The Reform tells young people that their future will be

better by destroying the social programs that make Canada great and some day our future will be brighter.

Young people in Guelph-Wellington realize and they tell me that they have hope in a united Canada and in bettering social programs, not destroying them.

What have the Liberals done for women? Our proposals will provide greater assistance to low income families. Two-thirds of the claimants who will receive the family income support are women. Our record includes a new pension system that will mean that nine out of ten low income senior women will be better protected. Changes to student loans will allow expanded relief for women in doctoral studies.

What do the opposition parties have to offer for women? The Bloc offers uncertainty and discourages investment which can help women find employment and the Reform's discussion on women's issues in 1990 concluded that there are no women's issues. That is what the Reform's report found. The women in Guelph-Wellington will disagree.

In my work with representatives of the building and trades unions I brought forward their support for an employment insurance program based on hours worked. They wanted this proposal and the Liberals have responded. This is a positive step forward for workers who generally did not benefit from the previous UI system. With the changes announced by the government 45,000 more seasonal workers will be eligible for assistance.

The minister listened to the building trades. They have concerns which need to be addressed further and I acknowledge that. We will continue to work positively with them. This is a positive first step and it is concrete. You can see it and you know what is being proposed.

What do the opposition parties have to offer seasonal workers? Is the Bloc offering a first step, or a step into the uncertainty created by the breakup of Canada? Reform offers $15 billion of further cuts to social services, services which would benefit seasonal workers and their families.

Finally, the Bloc has expressed concern regarding the results of our proposals on immigrants. I welcome its concern for new Canadians and those who come to Canada to seek a better life.

Our proposals, along with the measures announced in the budget, and the emphasis on jobs and growth will give Canadians, whether they have been here for hours or generations, hope for their future.

The Bloc tells new immigrants that it wants to break up the country. Reformers believe that immigration should be based on economics alone. Reformers do not like policies based on compassion or need.

I recognize that our efforts to improve the unemployment insurance system will not eliminate unemployment in Canada. I recognize that but it is a good first step.

Guelph-Wellington, as part of the country's technology triangle, offers the best workforce in this country. We are known for quality, dedication and hard work. A national unemployment rate of 9 per cent is unacceptable to Liberals. While we have created over 600,000 jobs, we recognize that there is more that can be done and more that needs to be done.

The employment insurance reforms are made in the interest of protecting the very groups that this motion claims we are hurting. The simple fact is that young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants, for that matter all Canadians, are better protected by the Liberal Party.

The Bloc offers only uncertainty and discourages investment that is needed to keep Canada strong. It discourages foreign markets. It makes everybody uncertain. It somehow believes that economies are built on policies that destroy rather than on commitments which build.

Reformers believe that if social programs are cut now in order to reduce the deficit, more could be spent on social programs in the future. That is like suggesting we burn down the house in order to make room for the furniture. If Reformers get their way there will be no social programs and no medicare.

This motion deserves to be defeated. It shall be defeated by the encouragement of the people of Guelph-Wellington who support our efforts to build programs that offer hope, protection and opportunity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With all the interest shown in the speech by the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington, I will recognize one Bloc member, the hon. member for Longueuil, and one member of the Reform Party.

I will ask you to take two minutes each, and then the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington will be asked to respond.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the hon. member that a consensus was reached some years ago now in Quebec. The unions and the bosses, the Liberals and the present Parti Quebecois government, all have reached the consensus that manpower training is primarily a provincial matter and one that ought to be handled by Quebec, by the Quebec Department of Education.

What is being noticed now about the unemployment insurance program is that several billion dollars are being taken from unemployment insurance contributions, and no one yet knows where that money is going to end up. We see this as a new method of taxation, a tax in disguise. Employees are taxed, employers are

taxed, for unemployment insurance, but we are not yet clear what you are planning to do with that surplus money.

What we in Quebec are hoping-and Quebecers are unanimous in this, whether unionists, employers, the previous Liberal government or the present government-what we have been demanding for years is that this surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, made up of employee and employer contributions, be ploughed back into manpower training, and that such training be delivered and administered by the Quebec Department of Education, which is best placed to provide training tailored to the needs of our businesses and our unemployed workers.

Now, one more question. How can it be that both employers and employees are asking, since they are the contributors, why they are not the ones to administer unemployment insurance and manpower training funds? I would like to know what the minister's thoughts are on this.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to several labour union people and government people in Quebec and I would not concur at all that everyone agrees that Quebec should have exclusive jurisdiction over these surpluses.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member that many provinces across Canada are being governed by many different people. I find more and more people across Canada, and especially in Quebec, who are saying: "We need the federal government. We are worried by some of our current leaders today in all provinces. We know that each time a government changes there are different philosophies, there are tides and waves to the right and left". However, there are many people in the trenches who are really anxious for the federal government to have a very strong presence in Canada and which will assure Canadians that certain programs and safeguards such as medicare will stay in place.

That is why the Liberals and the federal government pledge to do their very best for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested to hear the hon. member for Guelph-Wellington contend that the Liberal Party is the only defender of social programs in Canada. I suppose it is not too surprising that I disagree.

I find it most amusing, contradictory in fact that the member would hold Reform Party members up as those who would not defend social programs.

I would like to take the member back to 1993. In our literature, we suggested that with regard to old age security, family income should be taken into consideration. At that time we used the figure of $54,000 for a household income.

How would the hon. member explain how the Liberals can possibly be the great defenders of social programs for the elderly and those who have trouble fending for themselves when they criticized our policies at that time. Now they have reduced social programs on a household basis down to a ceiling of $45,000, some $9,000 less than the Reform Party advocated in 1993.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to explain a lot of these things. We have seen right wing governments and their legacies in several provinces in Canada. The Reform Party wishes to use a figure of $54,000, but it does not talk about the fact that it would look at user fees for everything. It does not talk about the fact that it would use a two-tiered health care system. That $9,000 would soon be eaten up and there would be nothing left for those people

In the last budget we protected seniors. We promised new programs so that social services will be available.

With due respect to the hon. member, I have to tell him that right wing governments will absolutely choke Canadians if we allow them to progress.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the debate on Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance, which the government is trying to rename employment insurance. I think, if the name is going to be changed, it should be "deficit insurance" in order to reflect the real change.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary admit, in response to a question by a Reform member, that indeed it could eventually be used for the deficit. I think some information has to be provided on this point. Up to now, there has been an accumulated deficit. The unemployment insurance fund had an accumulated deficit of $11 billion.

Perhaps we need to understand the background of this accumulated deficit of $11 billion. Where did it come from? It dates from the time of the Conservatives. We cannot attribute it to the Liberals opposite, because it predates 1993. It dates from fiscal 1991-92. That is the very year that followed the government's withdrawal, when Mr. Valcourt was Minister of Employment. It withdrew and decided not to put a penny more into the UI fund.

Subsequently, surprise, surprise, there was a deficit in the fund, which grew to $11 billion. The Conservatives proposed a bill in the House, a reform, an initial reduction. I do not have enough time this afternoon to go back over all the speeches of the former members of the opposition, who are now across from me in the House.

The present Minister of Human Resources Development called it a scandal when Mr. Valcourt announced the cuts. However, what did this government do when it came to power? It passed Bill C-17, which led to a cut in eligibility. We must remember that it reduced unemployment insurance from 60 per cent to 55 per cent of insurable salary. It shortened the periods. This made it possible, in two and a half years, to recover the $11 billion deficit in the fund. In December, a few months ago, officials of the Department of Human Resources Development confirmed there was no longer a deficit in the fund.

It would have been possible to go on with Bill C-17, and it was to be expected that we would have a surplus similar to what the Minister of Finance had estimated last year, some $4 billion. The following year, the surplus would have been more than enough. But what is the Liberal government doing instead?

It is proposing a new reform, further cuts to UI benefits, limited eligibility, reduced benefits for a lot of groups-and I will show that it is so. But the government is going a step further.

Once the deficit has been made up, why does the government keep on cutting? It wants to pay down the country's deficit, the federal government's deficit. That is unacceptable, because the unemployed are not the ones who caused the federal government's deficit. There are various other factors. The unemployed should not be the only ones to pay.

We, in the opposition, are often accused of manipulating the figures. All these figures are in the last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, who announced a surplus of at least $4.3 billion for 1995-96. In 1996-97, the surplus will be over $5 billion. Adding that amount to the $4.3 billion, we get $9.3 billion in two years.

The following year, he deposits only the contributions, not the surplus. Since more people contribute to the fund, the contributions are going to generate record revenues of $19.5 billion. And if the trend continues, you are going to have in 1997-98, a surplus of about $6.3 billion. This is quite a lot of money.

These three amounts added together make an enormous surplus. We know this is correct: $4.3 billion plus $5 billion plus $6 billion come to a total of $15 billion. Is the government going to keep that surplus in the fund somewhere? No. It is going to use it, and it is clear that it intends to use it to repay Canada's debt.

People may sometimes feel unemployment insurance is for others. Some say: "The unemployment rate is about 10 or 12 per cent in Quebec". A lot of people are not affected. At present, the unemployment rate may be 10 per cent but last year, 14 per cent of workers in Canada received unemployment insurance benefits-14 per cent. That is 2,124,000 individuals.

We are not talking of some small isolated village in Charlevoix. We are not talking about a village in the minister's riding. Two million recipients is the equivalent of the whole population of Montreal. Efforts are being made to minimize the figure, but the number of unemployed individuals will be 2,124,000.

On average, this represents $540 per capita, even if we count those who were not able to collect benefits. But more important, 3.2 per cent of the total income of all Canadians comes from unemployment insurance. The government wants to cut benefits for families, claiming that it will stimulate the economy; and yet we know, for instance, that, according to my calculation, at the end of the day this would represent for MIL Davie workers, in my area, $1.4 million a year over 5 years for 435 claimants on average. This is money they will not have for groceries and the rent, and money that will not be available to those who want to do business in this area.

Sometimes, people who talk about unemployment insurance are called socialists. The money I am talking about is money business people in a given area will not have access to. People do not see that, but afterwards, they realize that it makes sense.

This is a problem created by cuts, because what we have here are cuts. The unemployment insurance fund surplus is the result of cuts. If 30 per cent of the cuts are going to affect Quebec we, in the Bloc Quebecois, find this outrageous. Thirty per cent. We only represent 24 and some per cent of the total population. And yet, 30 per cent of the cuts will affect Quebec. As early as this year, 1996-1997, Quebec will lose $400 million. This is an 8 per cent drop since last year.

We are told this is insignificant. These are not cuts. But an 8 per cent drop is a cut. I will give you some figures for last year; in Quebec, some 754,000 individuals-right now there are 435,000 claimants-but last year they were 754,000 who, at one time or another, were on UI. This is a lot of people.

I am only talking about Bill C-17, I said nothing of the impact of the next reform. Within two years, Bill C-17 has resulted in a 25,749 increase of the welfare roll in Quebec. This means shovelling the deficit into the province's backyard at a time when Quebec is already in a predicament because of previous cuts. It should be pointed out that exactly 25,749 individuals are on welfare in Quebec.

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

This is due to the referendum.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

The parliamentary secretary claims that the referendum had an impact on the unemployment rate in Quebec. So let us

see what happened in the other provinces. Did the referendum adversely affect Ontario also? Ontario will lose $400 million next year. This means 6 per cent less for Ontario.

Was British Columbia, which is far from Quebec, also affected by the referendum? There was no referendum in that province, but it will still lose $165 million next year, a decrease of 9 per cent.

The four maritime provinces together will lose $220 million. Newfoundland will lose $85 million. Was there a referendum in Newfoundland? Oh yes, there was one on the question of catholic or secular schools. Could that be the cause of unemployment in Newfoundland? There was a referendum so maybe the parliamentary secretary will want to repeat that the situation is due to the referendum. However, Quebec sovereignists have nothing to do with the Newfoundland referendum.

New Brunswick will receive $65 million less, an 11 per cent decrease. For Nova Scotia, it will be $55 million, 8 per cent less. Prince Edward Island, which is sparsely populated, will still lose $15 million because of the reform proposed by this liberal government.

I can hear the member saying: "The opposition members is using figures that he manipulates". These figures come directly from the deputy minister. He presented some impact studies to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, but only because we had requested them. So I am quoting figures from that document. I am not inventing these data. I do not even read figures in the newspaper. These figures come directly from the Department of Human Resources Development. These must be good figures. I hope so, otherwise we are wasting our time.

I just reviewed the figures from a geographic point of view. However, I also searched these same papers by sectors. Let us start with the projections in the forestry sector, which is of particular interest to my colleague for Charlevoix and other areas. This sector will receive 21 per cent less, not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, 21 per cent less. The mining sector will get 17 per cent less.

In the construction sector-there is actually a strike in Quebec-cuts in unemployment benefits for construction workers will amount to 16 per cent. In agriculture, 15 per cent less, and in transportation, 12 per cent less.

Because there are cuts almost everywhere, government services will not be exempt. In Ontario alone-and the figures I have predate the announcements of the Harris government, which means that it will be much worse-at the present time it is already 11 per cent less. For hotel workers, 9 per cent less. In finance, 8 per cent less. In commerce, 8 per cent less and in all the other sectors, that I regrouped, also 8 per cent less.

I looked for one sector which would benefit from the changes. I took the document and I studied all the sectors, one by one, and I did not find a single one which would benefit from the changes. Everybody loses. All sectors of economic activity are losers, whichever they are. And the government would like us to believe that it is a good reform, when everybody is losing. If one group was a loser and another one the winner, while others would remain unchanged it would be fine. But no, all the sectors, according to the government's own figures, are losing.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

This is unacceptable.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

As my colleague for Lotbinière just said, this is unacceptable.

That is why our leader this morning brought forward a motion asking that the Liberal government withdraw this bill. I could go on; I could go into this more thoroughly. As the official opposition critic for youth, my special concern is the fate of our young people.

Since the Liberal government took office, it launced a youth employment sttrategy. The speech from the throne waxed eloquent on youth employment. I notice that when the Liberal Party came to power, the unemployment rate for young people under 24 years of age was 17.5 per cent. What it the present rate? It is 17.2 per cent. There has been a 0.3 per cent improvement, and the government wants us to find that acceptable. The government tells us it will double the number of federal summer jobs.

I looked at the statistics; $60 million were spent and the government raised it to $120 million. It is doubling it. The Conservatives had provided about the same amount, that is $104 million the first year. But when the Liberals came to power, they cut it in half. So, they are raising it a little higher than the level it was at two years ago. I do not call that a visionary strategy, but something that goes up and down. The only expression I can think of is a yo-yo strategy. The government is reinstating things it had abandoned last year and is coming back to the same point. But to whom is it offering that money? To students. Students are not unemployed people, they go to school and find summer jobs. That is quite all right. I have nothing against that. But does the government think this will change the unemployment situation for our young people? No, Mr. Speaker.

What does the government do for young people? It says to them: for new unemployed people, the reform has now done this. In some areas, the qualifying period for UI benefits was 300 hours, that is 15 weeks at 20 hours per week. What is the situation now, or rather, what will it be after the UI reform is passed? It will be 910 hours. And that will be not only for young people, but also for women, immigrants, all newcomers on the labour market. They will need 52 weeks of work at 15 hours per week to qualify for unemployment insurance.

Yet, a change was brought in by the Reform Party. Before, those who worked less than 15 hours per week did not contribute to the

UI system. Now, they will contribute as of their first hour of work, but it is not sure that they will qualify.

There is another shameful measure that the government has introduced. It has reduced the benefit ceiling, that is the insurable income, from $42,000 to $39,000. By doing this, the Liberals will save $900 million as soon as the measure is implemented. Now, as I just mentioned, the fact that people who work 15 hours per week or less must contribute to UI also allows the government to save $900 million. So, the government saves in one area in order not to reduce contributions to UI for those who made $39,000 and more, but at the same time, it makes people who work 15 hours per week and less pay more. There is a social choice here.

When I was listening to the throne speech, I heard: "We will give more help to those who are in need". What is the first bill that is being introduced in this session? We are doing just the opposite. We reduce the contribution of those who earn more than $39,000 and make those who work less than 15 hours a week contribute just as much. This is unacceptable. It is another reason why we, as the official opposition, want the government to withdraw this type of reform.

The parliamentary secretary said a little bit earlier today that the opposition was not suggesting anything. I am saying this: Why change things and make low income earners, women working part time, young Canadians who are hard hit by the unemployment, contribute? The government recognized that in the speech from the throne, but at the first opportunity, in its first initiative, it does exactly the opposite. The government members say one thing and do the opposite. Members will recall that when the Liberals were in the opposition, they condemned Mr. Valcourt, the previous Minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act and now that they form the government, they do the opposite, they continue on the same path.

It is sometimes difficult to ask people to stop and explain to us their frustrations in terms of what is happening. This government is a master of contradiction. It announces the opposite of what it intends to do. Other examples were given during the last few weeks, the GST, for instance. But as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, the present government condemned Mr. Valcourt' cuts, then continued on the same path. Even after succeeding in eliminating the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund, it still continues on the same path.

Meanwhile, employer contributions are being reduced. I would have supported this. We did not object to a cut in employer contributions. But why reduce employee premiums from $42,000 to $39,000? To sweeten the pill, because the benefit ceiling is also falling. That is why I see this as a lose-lose situation.

People previously entitled to the $448 maximum benefit will now receive only $413 a week. For someone with a family to support, this is not much. Workers at MIL Davie and those working in construction, industry and big business are all affected by this. They will all be affected by the new minimum.

If they are unfortunate enough to be working for a seasonal or cyclical business like construction, they will also be affected by the so-called repeat claimant rule, that is to say, instead of receiving 55 per cent, their benefits will be reduced by 1 per cent for every claim. For example, someone collecting $448 will see his benefits go down, first, to $413 a week and, after the fifth claim he has to file because he works for a cyclical business and must go back on unemployment, to $375 a week. They are trying to sweeten the pill by telling us that this is a good reform.

At a time when people earning $100,000 stop contributing and banks, with record profits of nearly $5 billion per year, cut back their staff and make massive layoffs while at the same time making record profits, we are expected to grant the government its wish to have job creation now rest with large business, is that it? That is outrageous.

We in the opposition will not stand for it and we will do all that we possibly can to have the government withdraw its bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and the parliamentary secretary can rest assured that I will spare no pains to propose corrections and amendments to make sure that the people of Quebec and Canada, the unemployed, the young, women, immigrants and everyone involved are not penalized. The 2.2 million people who received UI benefits last year can count on the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, to make sure it does not happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the speech made by the hon. member's leader, the comment he made was that the Bloc is opposed to the new system of every hour counting, what we call the hours based system.

The present system is based on weeks where one has to work so many weeks in order to qualify. With a system in which every hour that one works counts, some 270,000 workers will now qualify for an additional three weeks of benefits because they will now be given full credit for all the hours they work. About 45,000 workers in seasonal industries not eligible for UI will now qualify for EI. I would like the member to explain to the House why the Bloc is opposed to moving to an hourly system where every single hour counts.

In a region like mine and a region like yours, Mr. Speaker, this affects every single member. Members are trying to suggest that seasonal workers are fishermen and foresters. This country's biggest seasonal industry is construction and construction workers work long hours when they can. It is just the way it is in the construction industry. They work 16 to 18 hours a day when it is nice out, when the sun is shining and it is not raining. Every single hour an individual works will qualify. He may only work eight

weeks but is working 60 hours a week during those eight weeks. He will qualify under the new system but will not qualify if we stay with the old system.

I would like an explanation as to why the Bloc is opposed to the hourly system. Everyone I have spoken to thinks it is a tremendous improvement for the average worker in Canada.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. It is truly extraordinary that, each week-and the minister again complained about that today, as do people in his region-demonstrations are held every Sunday afternoon in his area, with some 2,000 or 3,000 people taking part.

The hon. member from Fredericton sat with us on the human resources development committee and we accompanied him. The three of us went to Bathurst last year and people, not just unions, made that point. I remember in particular four single mothers telling us that if what was being contemplated became reality, it would be terrible for the economy of the Caraquet region, Acadia in particular, but also the maritimes as a whole.

I know I will never convince the member opposite with this answer, but-and this is what people in these regions understand-that in itself should be enough to reconsider the issue. In fact, before he became parliamentary secretary, the hon. member said that he would ask the former human resources minister, who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs, to make these corrections. In other words, he recognized the situation.

In a recent statement, a colleague of yours, the member for Madawaska-Victoria, who is now acting speaker, said that if the bill was not changed, she would not be able to support it. I know that many government members have the same problem. Of course, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is now Acting Speaker. Because of this, she may not have to vote. But I do not wish to get into a debate on this matter.

I also object to the idea that taking into account the number of hours will improve the situation. The parliamentary secretary is saying that this will encourage those who have jobs to hustle to accumulate the highest number of hours. In other words, in the forest or tourism industry, for example, one would work two jobs at the same time in order to add up hours as quickly as possible.

As critic for training and youth, I say that this stiffens the competition for young people, women, part-time workers, and those who have a hard time finding what I might call "McJobs". Young people already have a hard time finding such jobs and, with this system taking hours into account, they will face even stronger competition against those who already have jobs, who are more experienced, and who have a better knowledge of their work environment, to add up hours of work.

In the so-called leisure-oriented society we have been promised for the past 20 years, we see exactly the opposite. People must work 60 or 70 hours for fear that their company will shut down in two weeks. Is that what the parliamentary secretary calls progress? I doubt it and I say that it is an unacceptable incentive for people to take on those jobs. This is another reason why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for this bill to be withdrawn.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member did a great job of dancing around the question. I can understand his reluctance to try and deal with it. I am aware that his party is trying to dance between two interest groups, one which is in favour of the hourly system and another which is not. Let me put it to him based on questions from some women in his caucus over the last couple of days relating to women's issues.

The vast majority of part time workers are women who do not fall under the present system and do not get any benefits. I happen to know some of them. Some are related to me, very close family members who work part time and do not have benefits because of the present system.

Is the member of the Bloc telling me that his party's position is that the vast majority of women who do not come under the present system should not be able to pay into the system and get benefits when they need them because his party has a couple of union friends who do not agree with the hourly system?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problem with the government's arguments. It refers to circumstances like these, to ask if we are against that on an individual level. Finally, we have to admit that, for instance, some women who could not benefit from UI before might benefit from it now. It is possible.

But what is more likely is that we will see again the inequity condemned by the parliamentary secretary. I would like to quote, for instance, a document from the department which says: "In 2001-2002, the decrease in women's benefits will reach 9 per cent and will represent a $560 million loss". In my answer, I refer to government's figures.

Here, the government admits that women will lose $560 million in benefits. It is in black and white, and the parliamentary secretary would want me to say that this is an improvement.

I invite him to read the reports of his own department; he will find the answer there. It is detrimental to women, to everybody, but mainly to women. I hope that this answer will satisfy you. I invite you to have a look at the document, on page 8, and in particular at Part A which deals with the effects on governments.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, as you know, you must always address the Chair rather than addressing another member directly.

I would ask the member for Charlevoix, who has the floor, if he wants to speak on debate, or ask a question or make a comment.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on questions and comments.

[The Speaker]

You have two and a half to three minutes.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois on their excellent work, particularly the party's critic, the member for Mercier, the member for Lévis and the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I congratulate them on the excellent work they are doing on the human resources development committee.

I assure you, members of the Bloc Quebecois who represent us on the human resources development committee, that there are many unemployed workers and low income families. These people expect you to defend them very well in this House, and at all times, because you have the chance to remind the government that it was elected by them and that it made promises in the red book. In it, the Prime Minister committed himself and his team to job creation.

We remember what the Prime Minister said about creating "jobs, jobs, jobs" as well as reducing the deficit. It is important to remind the Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Human Resources Development of those words.

I will also ask the committee to remind the Minister of Human Resources Development not to eliminate the deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged, but rather to consult the auditor general's report, which indicates clearly to the government exactly where all the wastage of public funds is occurring.

I would like to say to the member for Lévis, who made a very fine speech on seasonal workers, in particular, that there are many seasonal workers in my riding of Charlevoix. Many of them work up to 15 hours per week, for a maximum of 10 to 12 weeks.

Tourism is developing in Charlevoix. We know that summer is very short so, unfortunately, those workers can not qualify for UI.

In my riding, there are also more and more people with innovative ideas and goodwill who want to create their own job. These people invest everything they have earned during their lifetime to create their own business. Unfortunately, there again, the government found the arm's length relationship rule to prevent such investors who are ready to create a business from being eligible for UI after the summer season.

I would like to ask my colleague from Lévis if they tried to bring that arm's length relationship rule to the minister's attention. It is important for Charlevoix because there are many seasonal businesses there. I am thinking, for example, of a landscaping company in which a woman from Charlevoix, her spouse and her brother-in-law invested but, because summer is so short, they are not eligible for UI benefits. Right now, they are getting dangerously close to welfare.

I ask my colleague from Lévis if he intends to defend-