Debates of March 12th, 1996

Supply

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection. We are prepared to give unanimous consent, as the opposition House leader said, that the debate not go any later than at 8 p.m., with no calling of quorum or presenting of delaying motions, and that the question be deemed to have been put and the recorded division deferred until tomorrow, at 6.30 p.m.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I could have the assurance there would be no votes or quorum calls I would have no objection to the debate being extended until 8 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie gave his assurance there would be no quorum calls, no dilatory motions and that the vote would be deferred until tomorrow at 6.30 p.m.

Just to wrap this business up, the debate on the official opposition motion today is being extended no later than 8 p.m. with no quorum calls or dilatory motions. The question will be put and the vote deferred until tomorrow at the time of adjournment at 6.30 p.m. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore today.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the employment insurance reforms in the legislation that has been put forward by the Minister of Human Resource Development. This legislation is appropriate and is an improvement over the system currently in place. This legislation deserves the support of the House.

I will deal with some general principles upon which I believe the legislation has been formulated. These principles are worth enunciating in the House to make it clear exactly what it is the government is trying to accomplish.

The first principle is a recognition that the best social program one can have is a job. Beyond all else that is the best way of securing one's financial future and is the best social program that can possibly exist.

The second principle is that as a government and as individuals here in Parliament, we need to create an environment in the private sector that allows business in general and small business in particular to create jobs.

The third principle is we need to design programs which encourage rather than discourage people to work.

The fourth principle, and one the government has demonstrated over and over again on the various pieces of legislation it has brought forward, is that the benefits should be directed to those who are most in need. That is an appropriate principle to build reform on.

The fifth principle is we must recognize that the deficit we have as a government and a nation is too high. It simply is not sustainable in the long run.

Those are principles our government has looked at in formulating not only this legislation but many other pieces of legislation. They are good principles and ones that definitely need to be followed.

All members in this House should recognize as I certainly do that an employment insurance system has to be more than an income support program. One of the members from the third party who spoke in the House said it should be a stop gap measure or a temporary income support for times of difficulty.

That might have been an appropriate approach 30 or 40 years ago. Back then most unemployment was of a very temporary nature and individuals who lost their jobs would be re-employed in a number of weeks or months down the road when the supply and demand equalized out. That is not the case today. Today many people who are unemployed find themselves in that position not because there has been a temporary lack of demand for a product or service but because their jobs have permanently disappeared.

It is important when designing a program that it have more than the income support component. It must have a job creation component. It must help individuals become re-employed. They must be able to develop new skills and find new jobs so they can re-enter the workforce. It is not appropriate to simply concentrate on income support alone in today's environment.

The EI program is certainly one that helps in the area of job creation. It does it in three ways. First, it does it through a series of employment tools. The minister announced the employment tools which go along with the program. They will assist in the area of job creation. Second, contrary to what the hon. member from the third party mentioned in debate, this EI program is going to help small business create jobs. Third, the EI program will provide incentives that will lead to increased employment.

This reform is calling for an additional $800 million in revenue for employment tools. That is on top of the $1.9 billion which is already being spent in that area. A significant amount of new money will be spent on employment tools. These tools are more than just handing out a dollar to someone hoping they have a temporary job for a while and then when it is gone it is not to be seen again. These tools are designed to help people obtain long term employment and to create sustainable economies in the areas in which they work.

Many of my colleagues have gone into some detail on these but I will enunciate them here. There are wage subsidies and earning supplements. The self-employment initiative is one that is already in place but which is going to be expanded. It is one I personally believe in. It assists unemployed individuals and provides them with the tools to start their own businesses which not only will employ themselves but possibly will employ others.

There are job creation partnerships which provide valuable job experience for the individual. At the same time they work on creating infrastructure that leads to permanent jobs. There is going to be some specific assistance to areas of high unemployment as well. The employment tools are an important step toward increasing job creation.

There is assistance to small business. I want to correct an impression that might have been left by my colleague from the third party when he suggested that small businesses do not like this reform. I had an opportunity to read the latest bulletin put out by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a very well respected business organization. It terms the employment insurance program as a hard won victory for small business.

To suggest that small business is opposed to this reform is inappropriate. Small business is in support of this reform because it does reduce payroll taxes not only in terms of the rate but in terms of the maximum insurable earnings. More important, it provides a simplified system for small businesses to keep track of their employees' records of employment.

Too often small business people spend so much of their time dealing with paperwork and basically trying to adhere to government regulations that they are taken away from doing what they do best which is running their small businesses, creating wealth and creating jobs. I am not going to deny that there are some businesses that might face increased costs through this program. They will receive rebates from the government in order to ease the transition if they are faced with higher costs.

We have talked about some incentives to help individuals. Obviously the way the program is designed now, the more they work the more their benefits are. They can earn up to 25 per cent while staying in the system. Lower income Canadians will be eligible for enhanced benefits. It is also important to point out that 500,000 part time workers who were not eligible for UI under the existing program are going to be eligible. That is an important reform.

In wrapping up I want to refer to something which occurred in question period yesterday. It had to do with the exchange which took place between the hon. member for Mercier and the human resources minister. It dealt with the issue of how we were coming along with EI reform. The hon. Bloc member suggested that the minister could not seriously be looking at changing things because we did not see any more money in the budget.

I know the hon. member cares deeply and is committed to this process. However what that showed was a mindset from back in the 1970s and 1960s where something was fixed simply by throwing money at it. That is not necessarily the way to deal with things. Things are fixed by creating something better by being innovative in the approach. Simply throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it is going to be fixed.

It spoke volumes for the perspective being presented that an absolute relationship was trying to be made that if we do not spend more money then we cannot be doing something positive. That is not a legitimate way of looking at it. This reform shows that through innovation and a new approach we can accomplish something positive and something that works well.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka says that the principle, the main goal of this reform is to encourage people to work. But where are the jobs? Could he tell us where to find them? I do not know where the Liberal government is heading with this reform. It is doing things event the Tories did not dare doing. As far as I am concerned, this is tantamount to aggression. It is a frontal attack against workers, the unemployed and labour.

Earlier this afternoon, during question period, I was deeply distressed when the Minister of Human Resources Development viciously attacked labour leaders, especially Bob White, the CLC president.

I come from organized labour and I am proud of it. I know Mr. White, he is a dedicated labour advocate. He has served Canadian workers well. Internationally, he was the head of the Canadian Auto Workers Union for years. He has lead historical battles on behalf of auto workers.

I ask the member where is the government headed with this reform? Why make cuts? What is the logic of cutting unemployment insurance benefits when the fund has a surplus? What is the logic of cutting benefits the government is not funding? Where is the logic in all that? Answer me, please.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about logic to suggest that you have a program that simply provides income support and does not provide tools to help create employment, that is an illogical argument.

To answer a specific question about jobs that the hon. member asked, let me tell him about jobs. Let me tell this House about jobs. There have been 650,000 jobs created in this country since this government came to power. That is an answer about jobs. We can talk about the 150,000 new jobs that Statistics Canada just reported which have been created in this economy in the last three years.

We could talk about what our government has done to ensure that the fundamentals of our economy are right so that job creation can occur. Perhaps we want to talk about the fact that inflation is at its lowest sustained level in 30 years and we want to talk about that.

We could talk about the fact that interest rates in this country have come down by 3 percentage points in the last year and that this is stimulating job growth. I think we want to talk about that fundamental.

We can talk about the fundamental that the borrowings the federal government is having to make is going to drop to $13 billion this year, $6 billion next year. The best of the G-7 nations. We are not crowding out the private sector any longer so they are able to have the necessary moneys to invest in new jobs.

What we have is inflation down, interest down, government borrowings down and job creation up. That is what we are talking about with jobs.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this debate and to address one aspect of the discussion that came from the opposition which spoke to the fact that women would be disadvantaged by this reform.

The changes to UI will benefit women. The changes to UI and the arguments that are made on the other side are far from the truth. The new system is designed to smooth out inequities. It is much more inclusive than the old one. The whole idea is to make the system more relevant to today's workplace, to extend the coverage to more people and to shift the emphasis toward employment.

The EI system will mean that all part time work will be insurable. Women represent 70 per cent of part time workers. In fact, 270,000 women in part time jobs will have their work insured for the first time.

Under current UI rules there is a so-called ceiling of 15-hour weeks that affects many part time workers and therefore many Canadian women. To avoid paying premiums employers restrict them to less than 15 hours of work a week. I think most of us know that story. However, with employment insurance premiums will be paid on the first dollar earned, enabling individuals to ensure much more of their work and encouraging employers to provide additional hours of work for part time workers.

In addition, the eligibility and the duration of benefits will be based on all the hours a person has worked in the past 12 months. This simple change may encourage employers to offer part time employees more work and encourage individuals to accept more part time work because it is now insurable. It also means that many women will be eligible for benefits for the first time.

Women currently make up about 70 per cent of Canada's part time workforce. By insuring all part time work, 270,000 more women will now have their work insured. In addition 700,000 women with very low earnings will receive a full premium refund.

Many women hold down more than one part time job trying to make ends meet. Most of these multiple job holders currently do not qualify for UI and often only some or even none of their work is insurable. Under this new system every hour worked counts. Again

many of these multiple job holders will be eligible for insurance benefits for the first time. Maternity and parental benefits will continue to be a fundamental support for women and families.

One of the overriding features of these reforms is that they are fair and balanced. Employment insurance is designed to strengthen the social safety net, to provide added security for those who need it most, among them women in low income families and single mothers.

Benefits for single parents and low income families with children will actually increase thanks to an innovative family supplement to top up their benefits. Single parents, most of whom are women, will receive an average 10 per cent more than they currently do in benefits. Overall, claimants in low income families with children will receive about 7 per cent more in benefits.

The new rules mean that low income women will be able to increase their weekly income while claiming benefits. Changes brought about by this bill mean that Canadians, both men and women, will be able to earn up to $50 a week without having their benefits reduced.

A general analysis shows that employment insurance measures will have a positive effect on many women, particularly those in low income families. With employment insurance what counts are results, getting unemployed Canadians back to work as quickly as possible. Perhaps the best new measure for women are five basic employment benefits. My friend who spoke earlier mentioned those employment benefits, measures that have been tested for results.

One cornerstone of the reform is to move from a passive to an active approach to re-employment by investing $800 million of the savings in employment benefits. These innovative employment benefits will provide women with opportunities to establish themselves in today's workplace, that will help them increase their earnings and most important, that will help them build a bridge back to employment.

Access to these measures will be extended to anyone who has had a claim for insurable benefits in the past three years and to those who received maternity or parental benefits in the past five years. Women re-entering the workforce after caring for their children can use employment benefits to make the transition to work. For example, wage subsidies to employers can help level the playing field for people facing disadvantages in the workplace, like women.

Studies show this approach works. It can mean an increase of $5,000 a year on average in earnings. Income supplements will increase the incomes of people who might be reluctant to take lower paying jobs. These projects help unemployed single parents get back on their feet and gain new experience.

I can quote stories of individuals who over the many years have worked at low paying, temporary and part time jobs. For them it has been a struggle. They can take advantage of some of the new initiatives to do well for themselves.

I can boast of a Toronto woman who took advantage of a federal program to help budding entrepreneurs create their own future. After losing her job as a psychotherapist, Sheena Singh used her own funds and talent to create a multicultural calendar promoting greater understanding between different cultures and ethnic groups.

With self-employment assistance she turned her calendar into a full fledged business. Sheena's calendar is now sold across Canada and her orders have doubled for the coming year. She tells us: "My ultimate goal is to have one of these calendars in every home in Canada and the United States".

The self-employment assistance program has already helped more than 34,000 Canadians start their own businesses, injecting about $188 million into the economy. Not only will EI enhance opportunities for women but it will also create work. EI reforms are expected to generate between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs.

Fairness and opportunities for women have been improved by strengthening employment equity legislation. Women are being helped to break through the barriers into non-traditional jobs. One and a half million dollars will be contributed over three years to a project to help female youth find work in trades, technology and the so-called blue collar jobs. At the same time a new national employment service will tell women where the jobs are. Across Canada job centres, self-serve computer kiosks will help match unemployed women with suitable job openings.

Canadians want to work and they have told us that they want a system that makes work pay. A government cheque every two weeks is not enough for many Canadians. They are working hard to find new job opportunities and adjust to a changing economy. They want programs that get results.

Employment insurance will get more unemployed women back into the workforce as quickly as possible and boost their earning power. That is why $300 million is being invested in a three-year transitional jobs fund, targeted at regions that suffer from high levels of unemployment. This fund will encourage partnerships between provinces, communities and business to create new sustainable jobs. Canadians have long held the idea of sharing the load, of helping each other through difficult times. It is fundamental to the vision that created this country. Employment insurance taps into the spirit of shared strength to help get more Canadians back to work.

It is important that the opposition parties understand the benefits that are in the programs, especially the benefits that will come to women as a result of the new changes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The honourable Alfonso Gagliano, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will have unanimous consent for the House to proceed with the debate on the adjournment proceedings immediately after the speech of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and afterwards to resume debate on the motion now before us, pursuant to an order of the House adopted earlier today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the honourable Minister of Labour. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Debate is resumed with question period.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech from my colleague. She talked about the situation of women which, according to her, would be improved by the new system.

I would like the hon. member to answer the following question. For instance, in my riding, some women are finishing their degree in nursing or in recreation techniques. According to the information they received, with the unemployment insurance reform, when they enter the system they will have to work 910 hours a year, which is the equivalent of 26 35-hour weeks, while previously, with the system currently in place, they were eligible for benefits after 20 weeks at a minimum of 15 hours a week, that is to say after 300 hours.

Could the hon. member explain to me what is the advantage for women, and for men, when anyone entering the labour force goes from a system requiring 300 hours of work to be eligible for benefits to a system requiring 910 hours? If we had applied the same rules as before we would have said: "Now we require the equivalent of 20 weeks of 35 hours" and we would have talked about 700 hours. Young people looking at these figures get the feeling that they are being taken for a ride. They are required to work even longer than the 20 weeks required before. They will have to work 910 hours.

Are we not encouraging the underground economy? The young worker who has tried to work 910 hours during a given year and realizes at the end of the year that he or she cannot reach that number, especially if he or she works in an area of seasonal employment, will be simply encouraged to work underground and offer employers to work outside the rules, because the rules are neither acceptable nor viable for that person?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are starting the whole process of debate on the bill, which the hon. member has been working on in committee.

I want to focus on the fact that women's groups and others who have looked at the draft legislation have all commented on the positive aspects of the bill.

To ask me in one minute or so to define the finer points of the bill is not giving due consideration to the fact that the House is spending time on the details of the bill. However, it is important to note that groups such as the New Brunswick Advisory Council and others across the country support the move from weeks to hours.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate today because, it is worth repeating, the opposition motion asks that this House require the Minister of Human Resources Development to withdraw Bill C-12, an Act respecting employment insurance in Canada, from the Order Paper immediately and go back to the drawing board, since this reform hits young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.

What is the first question we can ask ourselves? Why is the opposition asking the government to withdraw the bill as a whole?

Could we not be satisfied with some cosmetic changes? The first reason is that there is an error in the title of the act. They speak about employment insurance, although nowhere in the program is there an active employment policy which would guarantee to people who are losing their job that they will be able to find another one. The objective of this program is absolutely not to guarantee a job to people. It is to define the rules under which they will be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

So, right at that moment, the government made the choice of saying: "We will use a popular term that responds to the concerns of the people, to the fact that they want jobs, but basically, the contents of the bill will not reflect the reality." Right there I think the bill is unacceptable.

Another reason why it seems important to us that the minister withdraws his bill is that it was said everywhere that people who were complaining about the bill were professional agitators, people who were doing that professionally. I can tell you that the people that I met in public meetings in Trois-Rivières, Saint-Pascal, Rivière-du-Loup, Pohénégamook, almost 1,000 people who came throughout the day during the protest, were not professional agitators.

They are people who were asking questions because, for the last 5, 10 or 20 years, they have been working in a region with a seasonal industry where they must sacrifice their lives to manage to get by. In Trois-Pistoles, it was not the president of a national labour body who was asking questions. It was young people who asked me: "How is the 900- hour thing going to work? Does it mean that, in order to qualify for UI, someone who lives in Trois-Pistoles and has managed to work 300 or 400 hours in his region in the summer will have to move to Montreal to work the rest and chase hours of work everywhere, so that he will no longer want to live in his home town?"

By its action, the government wants somewhat to ensure that the market will empty the regions. People are aware of that. It is not a sociologist or someone with a very theoretical approach who came to talk to us about that. It is people who feel it in their daily lives; they want to stay in their own environments and they find this unacceptable.

The people in Saint-Pascal mostly talked to me about benefit calculation, which is arousing a great deal of anger. People must understand what this means. In the future, someone filing UI claims year after year will need 420 hours of work to qualify for benefits. He may have worked 42 hours a week for 10 weeks for a total of 420 hours. However, starting in January 1997, benefits will be calculated by dividing the total not by 10, the actual number of weeks of work, but by 16.

You can imagine what that does to benefits. This cut is totally unacceptable. For example, a salary of $400 a week divided by 16 weeks will result in an average benefit of $250. And, after a few years, the benefits of seasonal workers will be slashed by 50 per cent. This means that some people will go from a $400 weekly salary to a UI benefit of $125 a week. I do not know if you can imagine the consequences. This is less than welfare.

The proposed reform would systematically impoverish people. These people are wondering: "If they are doing this and if we are really in a difficult financial situation, we might be willing to do our share. But are others doing their share?" Yet, they hear about the tremendous increase in the banks' after-tax profits. They also hear that the UI fund is probably not in such bad shape, since it runs an annual surplus of $5 billion, which now comes from the pockets of employers and employees.

As for the surplus at the end of the year, insurance plan managers normally look at annual costs and see if rebates could be given to policy holders. They look for ways to humanize the system. In the case of a dental plan, for example, managers see if additional services can be provided. Not so in this case. Instead of looking at the UI system to find ways of helping people in difficult situations, the government has decided to use the surplus as evidence that it has succeeded in reducing the deficit.

It is in fact a hidden tax, and this is the negative side of this reform. The members across the way often claim that people want a reform.

When asked in a survey if they are for employment insurance reform, people are likely to say yes. But ask them, for instance, what they think about the current situation, and they will tell you that, right across eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, everyone agrees that, if the government keeps it up, it will have hell to pay.

This should have happened only after the next elections, and everyone will have been penalized by then, but now there is a chance that the government might withdraw the bill. Luckily, we have a new minister. He could take the time, as suggested in our motion, to go back to the drawing board and see if it would not be possible to go about it differently, so that the public can see that a real effort is being made to create jobs.

To ask regions that depend on seasonal industries to tighten their belts, so to speak, with measures such as these, while at the same time not providing any government support to help these regions diversify their economies is to penalize the workers, who are the producers in these regions and whose products often benefit larger centres, among others. This is therefore an unacceptable reform, and it appears essential to us that it be amended.

The reform, as it stands, is also disrespectful. In Pohenegamook, what was on the minds of the people there, was the fate of forestry workers. They asked me: "What is going to happen to us? We are jobbers, contract workers. Our job is to cut trees in a certain area. Also, the number of weeks is calculated differently." In the context of this reform, no one has been able so far to respond to these people. No one has been able to tell them what their coverage will be starting next summer. This is unacceptable to me.

I think that the government make a major mistake when, last December, it decided to skip the second reading debate through some procedural device. The bill was then referred to committee, at which stage we will hear the testimony of experts and look at what amendments could be made, but the merits of the issue were never debated. This is why the official opposition must spend the whole day on this issue today, because there has been no debate in the House, and we could not deliver the message we have received since December, when the terms were made public, indicating that Canadians were terribly disappointed with the reform being proposed to them.

The hon. members from the Maritimes are certainly asking the same questions as we are. Let us hope that they will carry enough weight in the government to have it drastically change its reform. More than two or three minor changes are needed here. Canadians

want the reform to be replaced with an approach which is really focused on productivity, on the realization that, even in times of economic growth like today, even when government members are right in saying that 100 000 jobs have been created in Canada, the fact is that these jobs still exclude many people, either because they are young and just entering the labour market or because they are 45 or 50 years old and losing their jobs due to the implementation of new technologies.

The government must not only ensure that these people are still able to feed themselves, but it must also see that they are retrained, that an active employment policy is in place, and that productivity gains are being redistributed among workers, so that they can be proud to produce interesting things. So, what would a constructive employment policy include? After all, opposition members are often told: "You criticize a lot, but what would you suggest to improve the situation?"

The first thing that we should do is to remove the obligation for employees to work overtime. That should immediately become a social value. The government should say: "Our priority is to bring the unemployment rate down to 6 or 8 per cent today". We are told that the deficit should not exceed 3 per cent of the GDP. I challenge the government to set similar goals regarding employment and to act on them.

The government must realize that, in two or three years, its performance will be evaluated not only in terms of productivity, but also in terms of how it made sure that every working-age person living in Quebec and in Canada has a chance to work and to support his or her family on the territory where that person lives.

There are ways to achieve that. For example, we could make good use of the productivity gains made through the use of new computer technologies. Someone, somewhere is making additional profits. Some of these profits are made by banks.

Why are there no measures to ensure a constructive employment policy? Thus, if banks want to keep the savings they made through technological change, they would have to use it for job creation, but not necessarily in their area of activity. Why not require them to make a social contribution allowing for bank profits to be used to create jobs for people taking care of seniors at home?

The issue requires innovative solutions, but there are none in the present government proposals. The budget speech only provided for a technical committee on taxation, something that will have effects after a year or two whereas the problem is today.

I will give another example. Officials in the public and quasi-public sectors could be encouraged to facilitate work time reduction. Has there been any action in that regard as part of a full action plan or a concerted action plan by the government? We could remove the right for retired government employees to work for the government while receiving retirement benefits. There are many such situations in the public service at present. I am sure the national capital area, the Ottawa area, would benefit a lot from that.

Young people graduating from the CEGEP de l'Outaouais and young people already on the labour market could be very productive, and that would be very beneficial to society.

I want to raise another issue. It may look a little farfetched, but it is important to me. Why not start taxing robots? Why not tax what is bringing about job reduction for workers who lack specialized training? Why should we praise a business that is introducing new technologies while laying off workers without seeing to it that those people can find another occupation? Some measures should be put forward in that area, but they are nowhere to be found in the government proposals.

For the government, reform means cutting. We think the goal of reform should be to improve the lives of those who cannot find a job, and try to give them more opportunities to get back in the system and find a new job as quickly as possible, and not put them in a position where they periodically have to go back on welfare.

When a young student who has just finished school gets the message that he has to work 910 hours in the coming year, he might as well tell his employers that he will join the underground economy and that he will manage better that way. When our society sends out a message like that, you cannot claim to have done what you were elected for. Remember your slogan was "jobs, jobs, jobs".

If the Conservatives had been elected to form a new government, given the platform they ran on, they would do just like the Liberals, and we could always say that they are simply carrying out the program they were elected on, and that we have to live with that and try to manage as best we can. But we are now faced with a clear case of false representation. We have been told that the government would create jobs, but it is just riding the wave of economic growth, a growth that does not necessarily create jobs. The government will even do worse than that: with the reform fully in force, it will rake in $2 billion more, at the expense of those who fund the system.

That is quite something. Our system is funded by the employers and the employees, but they have no control over its operation. They are not the ones who decide how it should develop. Instead of having a $5 billion surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, would it not be possible to reduce that surplus to $3 billion and to inject the remaining $2 billion in the economy by lowering the contribution paid by the employees and the employers?

Since we are continually reminded that job creation is best left to the private sector, would it not have been a good way to ensure that jobs are created? Why insist on creating this situation? Well, part of the answer resides in the constitutional dossier. In the last few years, the federal government has had little money to spend on areas of provincial jurisdiction. So, with the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, the government has found a way to continue to interfere in the area of manpower training. With the surplus it has set aside for itself, it will be able to spend and to say to the community organizations and to everyone who wants to get some training: "We have the money, so we get to set the standards. In fact, we think we should become the Canadian Department of Education."

This is basically why the government has planned a surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, but it also wanted to use the money to hide the fact that it has not reduced its expenditures in order to fight the deficit. No, instead it is maintaining its expenditures at their current level and ensuring that the top civil servants, with their vision which dates back to the seventies, can keep carrying out their activities, thanks to a hidden tax known as the unemployment insurance fund.

This is why the workers, the young people, the women, the seasonal workers and the immigrants have told us and keep telling us day in and day out that this reform is unacceptable and has to be withdrawn by the government. If not, we have to ensure that several major changes are put forward.

In conclusion, let me summarize their arguments. They say that the 910 hours expected from the young people and the required hours of work in the future are totally unacceptable, as is the penalty for seasonal workers. A lot of things like that are brought to our attention, but, in fact, the real problem is that this reform is based on principles which are, in themselves, unacceptable. Under these circumstances, the government now has a very courageous decision to make. It must acknowledge that this reform proposal, which was developed by top federal civil servants, is not what Quebecers and Canadians want. Today, the Official Opposition has made that message even clearer and I think the government will have to take responsibility if it does not come to the same conclusion as the opposition.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his presentation. He demonstrated the weaknesses of the UI "reform" plan in such an eloquent manner that government members had to blush, if Liberal members can blush at all.

In the few moments at my disposal, I would like to make some comments about the government's attitude regarding this reform and especially that of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Twice today the minister showed quite well how he feels about this reform. First, when he took part in the debate, this morning, he offered his philosophy on the reform, which can be summarized this way: "Finally, yes, this bill must be improved upon; so, if someone has suggestions to this end, they should make them." As if, as Minister of Human Resources Development, he was not responsible for this issue and did not himself have to propose amendments to the bill.

He also said during his presentation that, due to his long experience both at the provincial and federal levels of government, he was aware of the needs of the people. So, acting as a know-it-all, if I may say so, the minister tells us on the one hand that he is aware of the needs of the people and, on the other hand, that he wants us to come up with some good ideas, that he might take them into consideration.

What is worse, though, is the attitude that the minister showed and reiterated during the question period, when the hon. member for Mercier reminded him of what he said only a few hours ago when he criticized the demonstrations being held and a union representative in particular. He named individuals, which is rather uncommon on the part of a minister, saying: "These individuals who come from New Brunswick, from my own area, are troublemakers. They like to use their Sunday afternoon to create problems for the government. These people do not know what to do on Sunday afternoon, so they look for demonstrations to go to". He added in the House: "The President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bob White, who earns more money than I, was also there as a political agitator. He is only interested in rousing the public against the government. He is not interested at all in helping ordinary folk."

If I had had the chance to ask him when he made that comment in the House, I would have asked the minister, who is an elected representative-just like Bob White is-whom he was speaking for. Was he speaking for the banks, which made exorbitantly high profits last year and will be making even higher profits in the coming year? Whom is the Minister of Human Resources Development talking for?

We must ask that question because he is the one who will give its soul to that reform. If he is convinced that the UI beneficiaries, the people who protest against his so-called UI reform, are people who have nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon or who are loafers,

do you really believe that his reform will benefit the workers? To ask the question is to answer it.

People who listen to us, those who heard the minister will understand that this is a big joke, that the government's only objective is to claw back the money to reduce its deficit. There are very simple calculations to be made and I challenge the minister to prove that they are false. With the measures already taken in past years the government can cash every year a UI surplus of $5 billion to reduce its deficit, and we agree with that. But it takes that money directly in the pockets of the unemployed while, it is worth repeating, banks alone register profits exceeding $5 billion. What should be done to improve the UI reform? To ask the question is to answer it.

Instead of criticizing the union leaders and the thousands of people in the Gaspé Peninsula, the Maritimes and all over Quebec and Ontario who demonstrated against his reform, I would prefer to see the minister restrain himself and propose amendments which would make the bill more acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made me think of something when he asked where the minister's position comes from. It is often said that the opposition criticizes for the sake of criticizing.

When we look at the positions taken by some people, for example by the municipal council of Pohénégamook, a small town located in my riding, which says that it is fiercely opposed to this reform because it does not respect regional economies which are based on seasonal activities and because the 910 hour minimum requirement to be eligible for benefits is unrealistic, these judgments come from people with a lot of common sense.

Several elements of this reform will result in a drastic reduction in regional economic activity. That is why such a solidarity has developed. Opposition to this reform does not come only from UI beneficiaries, but also from regional boards of trade, community groups and business people.

Once the government cuts the money available in a particular region, this will result in significant job losses because when people have less money to buy cars or to pay the rent, when they have to move away, this has an impact on the economy of a region. If we want Canada and Quebec to be a fully developed country, these kinds of reforms have to be put aside because they are not in line with the vision we must have of what the development of a country like Quebec or Canada should be.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on February 29, I raised a question directed to the new Minister of Transport. I pointed out that the grain shipment this year was the first when we had almost complete deregulation, and the use of two fully privatized railways has been abysmal.

Grain movement in the previous crop year to mid-February was 21.4 million tonnes. This year with the new system in place the railways have moved a mere 15.1 million tonnes.

I asked the minister what he was prepared to do to make the circumstances improve. He pointed out there had been some cold weather. There were three weeks of cold weather but that would not account for even half of the discrepancy between the amount moved the year before and the amount moved this year.

In my own research I discovered that vast parts of prairie Canada have a shortage of rolling stocks in locomotives. I have checked with the railways, which admit this. They point out that they perhaps will have to bring some locomotives and cars back from the United States.

I am sure the Minister of Transport even though he is new will quickly be apprised that the rates they can charge for the same cars and locomotives in the United States are considerably more than they can charge in Canada with the current ceiling on rail shipment of grains in Canada.

The U.S. rail system has dramatically increased their fees for service because they understand that grain prices are higher and they are simply charging everything the market will bear. There has been a rapid and radical increase in fees charged to farmers and shippers in the United States. Our railways are down there trying to take advantage of this, meanwhile shorting our ability to export grain and the ability of our farmers who produced a very good crop of excellent quality in prairie Canada.

There should be very little to stand in the way of rapid movement because virtually every district in western Canada has produced top grades of wheat and barley. It is not a problem to put together a full 104 or 108 car trains of one grade to be moved to the terminals at port.

Wheat and barley are under the wheat board and a system of pooling is used so that all of the train can be dumped at one

terminal even though some of the grain may have belonged to a different company. A book exchange of grains is used to speed up the turnaround. Turnaround time on wheat board grains is double or more than double the turnaround time for a similar car of non-board grains. Some of the specialty crops have turnaround times that would make one weep. They take three to four times as long as wheat board grains.

As well, the country elevator system has not been awfully co-operative. It took advantage of the new deregulation and filled its elevators late last summer and in the early fall, at least in northeastern Saskatchewan where I come from. Most elevators report that they are about half full of non-board barley, open market barley, for which the elevator companies have not yet found a buyer.

This is clogging the system. There is less than half of the space to handle this year's crop. The farmers are beginning to despair of being able to deliver what was a very good crop in this crop year when prices are high. I wish the Ministry of Transport and the new minister would take this into account and take action as quickly as possible.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his intervention. It gives me an opportunity to expand on the position espoused by the Minister of Transport in his response to the hon. member in question period on February 29.

I have a few words to say about the movement of grain for the current crop year, which is down from the same period last year. However, to be fair to the hon. member for Mackenzie, there are a number of reasons for this.

Movements were extremely low in August and September of this year because of low carry-over stocks. Grain traffic did not really pick up until the end of the harvest. By contrast, in 1994 there was plenty of grain to move and the system was at full capacity in August and September.

Weather, as previously stated by the Minister of Transport, has also been a factor this year. There were heavy rains on the west coast in December and January. Beyond the temperatures the hon. member spoke about, there were also mud slides and of course track outages. These things take time to repair.

The prairies also experienced three weeks of record cold, as the hon. member enunciated, which slowed deliveries to the country elevator system and rail deliveries to port. Fortunately the system is catching up. Vessel line-ups at Vancouver are expected to be at normal levels very shortly.

In spite of the slow start and unfavourable weather conditions, it is anticipated that the entire crop will be moved this year.

One of the objectives of the grain transportation reform announced last year was to create a less rigid and more efficient grain transportation and handling system. A number of positive initiatives have been announced by industry since western grain transportation reform was implemented. We believe even more benefits will be achieved as structural changes take place.

Grain farmers are enjoying the benefits of high world prices for their product. I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie will agree with me when I say that we all want to be sure that their grain gets to market promptly and at the lowest possible cost.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985 when a U.S. coast guard icebreaker transited Canadian sovereign waters in the Arctic without permission, the Prime Minister said that the government of the day and Canada had been humiliated by the action.

In B.C. there is a strong sentiment that Canada has been humiliated by U.S. legislation which declares the inside passage of British Columbia an international waterway. Yet the federal government, as in the Quebec referendum, has failed to speak up for Canada.

The issue was before the U.S. congress in 1995 and at no time did the government speak up for Canada and publicly make the case for Canadian sovereignty. In fact, the U.S. congress passed the bill on October 24 and an amended version of the same bill passed the senate way back on June 30, yet there was silence from the Liberal government.

"The bill", according to the Congressional Quarterly , ``is the result of a fishing dispute in which the Canadian government imposed an $1,100 fee on U.S. vessels that pass through Canadian waters between Washington and Alaska. This was an act U.S. officials regarded as inconsistent with international law''.

That being said, there is no foundation for the claim that the inside passage is an international waterway. The Americans acknowledged as much in 1846 when they signed the Oregon treaty.

Now is not the time to diminish Canadian presence on the inside passage by shutting down lighthouses and contracting out weather information from American satellites controlled by the U.S. government. We must maintain our presence in the passage at this time.

It is also not the time for ministers to turn these critical decisions over to senior coast guard officials who, in discussing the lighthouse issue, said: "We don't have to accept what the minister said". We need the minister to be tough, to give no quarter on the sovereignty issue but to recognize that the challenge to our sovereignty is at heart a fish dispute.

We should not be suckered into a school yard brawl over this issue. We must give reason a chance to work. We know what does

not work. We tried fish wars in 1982 and again in 1994 to no avail. We have tried the transit fees. We have tried normal diplomatic channels. In fact, we tried mediation with a well respected international mediator, all to no avail.

We need a fresh approach to solve this fisheries dispute and ultimately the sovereignty issue. In that fresh approach what we should do and what we must do is recognize that when we are dealing with our American cousins on this we are not dealing directly with the American government. There are four groups that have a veto, including the states of Oregon, Washington, Alaska and the native tribes of the Pacific northwest.

The solution to this problem will not be found in Washington. It will only be found on the west coast. To achieve a solution, it is my view that we must appoint someone who has the confidence of British Columbians, who understands the issue and who will bring this dispute to a resolution.

To that point, I suggest that the government appoint John Fraser, Ambassador for Environment, to deal with this issue to protect Canadian sovereignty and to get to the root cause of this, which is in fact a fisheries dispute between Canada and the United States.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Delta for his question. He has shown a keen interest in issues of fisheries for a considerable number of years.

I would be happy to put to rest some of the concerns that he expressed. In no way is the Canadian government humiliated or does it feel humiliated by what has happened.

Some legislation has been passed by the United States congress which makes certain assertions, which are no more than assertions: first, that American vessels have the right of innocent passage through the inside passage of Canada; second, that Canada violated international law by imposing transit licence fees in 1994; and third, that Canada should compensate the United States, in essence reimburse the transit licence fees applied in 1994.

The statement in the American legislation does contain some errors of law which can be easily corrected and fears put to rest. It is also interesting as an example of what might be called the King Canute approach to international law. It is beyond the competence of a national legislature by national legislation to establish a right in international law. It just cannot be done and frankly there is no need to be too concerned over that.

As to the errors of law, they are very simple issues here. The right of innocent passage, to which the U.S. legislation refers, applies under international law to what is called the territorial sea. The territorial sea in the region concerned is measured from the base line, the low water mark, on the west side of Vancouver Island. The inland passage is in fact part of Canada's inland waters or internal waters. It is not subject to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. International law does not apply to it. It is within our province to control and regulate it, to apply transit fees. We have every right under our law to do so. There is nothing in international law restricting our right to do so.

The inside passage is not part of Canada's territorial sea which is measured, as I have said, from the west side of Vancouver Island. It is part of Canada's internal waters. There is no right of innocent passage, as it is called under international law, through our internal waters. There is no prohibition under national law against our imposing a transit fee in the case concerned.

We have made the following points to the United States government. Canada is not in violation of international law. The waters of the inside passage are Canadian internal waters and no compensation will be paid.

The statements in the United States congressional legislation are interesting but they are simply findings or expressions of opinion of congress. They do not constitute anything more for purposes of international law. In particular they do not authorize an intervention by U.S. coast guard vessels into Canadian waters.

I should remind this House and perhaps the U.S. congress that under the United States constitution and under the separation of powers it embodies, it is for the President of the United States and not for congress to assume responsibility in the execution of foreign policy. The findings in the U.S. legislation are mildly offensive to Canadians but they only express an opinion.

There have been calls on this government to reintroduce the transit licence fee in response to the refusal of the United States to respect the larger Pacific salmon treaty obligations to Canada and the failure to respect the United States role in the maintenance of the Pacific salmon stocks. We also have to refer to the recent failure of the Pacific salmon mediation process.

However, I am happy to tell this House that negotiations are proceeding. There will be a Pacific salmon commission meeting on 1996 fishing arrangements and also a bilateral meeting between our Minister of Foreign Affairs and the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher. Both are scheduled for later this month.

This government will not reintroduce the transit licence fees while these initiatives are under way. That would be an error. However, all options remain on the table. They are under study and if appropriate they will be used.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I might take the liberty of a brief intervention on the matter of the adjournment proceedings. I did not interrupt the parliamentary secretary given the importance of the subject matter being raised by the hon. member for Delta.

However, as we continue our work in this new session I want to remind the House that presenters have up to four minutes and parliamentary secretaries on behalf of their ministers and the government have two minutes to reply. I would not want us to stray too far from that. As a matter of fact we should not stray at all from those limits. Understand that today I made an exception, but I would not want the House to interpret that we would take that same latitude at each and every occasion. I would ask you to be mindful of that in the days to come.

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House resumes consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier, the member for Roberval, and of the amendment of Mrs. Brown, the member for Calgary Southeast.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my personal privilege to stand in the House today to speak on this opposition motion which should definitely be rejected.

Once again we have a very curious spectacle. The Bloc Quebecois, the party that says it wants to change this country irrevocably, the party which says that separation is the only solution to solving all of the social and economic problems facing Quebecers, is making an impassioned plea for the status quo in Canada. This is the party that is suddenly the champion of the downtrodden worker in New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia? I do not think so and neither do many Canadians.

What the Bloc's argument comes down to is that we should simply shelve any thoughts of changing or improving the old unemployment insurance system, the program with all its inefficiencies and all the unfairness. We should just ignore proposals which came about after a lengthy process of consultation and consensus building with thousands of Canadians right across the country.

The game plan of the Bloc Quebecois members is not only transparent, it is extremely cynical. It is transparent because we all know the real reason they are opposing this legislation. They simply do not want to see any improvements in any legislation that would make the country work better. They have a vested interest in failure and it shows. Failure. It shows in all their arguments.

Modernizing the employment system for all Canadian workers, lowering premiums, making it work better, expanding it to include more people, encouraging more people to work, making the system sustainable into the next century for all Quebecers and for all Canadians are not objectives the Bloc members could support. Not today, not tomorrow, nor ever and for a very simple reason. A better employment insurance system for all Canadians including Quebecers weakens their cause for separation. And this is the party which sees everything through that particular lens.

How could the Bloc possibly support the idea that 350,000 low income families across Canada will now get an extra income supplement under this new legislation? That is what this bill will do.

How could the Bloc possibly support the proposals in the bill for the first time to ensure the work of upwards of more than 500,000 part time individuals in Quebec and across Canada who are not now part of the system?

How could the Bloc agree with a bill that will give some 270,000 seasonally employed Canadian claimants an additional three weeks of benefits?

How could the Bloc be in favour of a bill that is conservatively predicted to create upwards of 100,000 to 150,000 new jobs in the country? Many thousands of them would be in Quebec.

How could the Bloc support a bill that will lower premiums for workers and employers to the tune of $1.3 million and which lets employers put their share, more than $760 million into creating new jobs for Quebecers and for all Canadians?

How could the Bloc agree with a bill that makes special provision for women who have been out of the workforce raising families to help them get back into the workforce and have access to employment benefits?

Why would the Bloc be in favour of a bill that will expand coverage of the program to include 97 per cent of workers but at the same time return contributions to more than 1.3 million very low income workers, including 920,000 who pay premiums today?

Why would a separatist party support a bill that is going to give 300,000 small businesses in Quebec and across Canada a premium refund of up to $5,000 over two years?

How could a separatist party give its support to a bill which has a series of active employment measures, including wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment, community job partnerships, to pave the way for more Quebecers and Canadians to get

back into the workforce? These are programs which will be developed directly with the provinces.

I guess if I were a separatist, heaven forbid, I would probably not want to see this bill go through either or anything else that might improve the employment situation in this country for that matter. The plain fact is the bill is good for workers and for the economy and we will prove that.

I think the real cynicism of the party opposite shows itself in this motion. What the Bloc is saying is that it does not want Canadians or Quebecers to talk about trying to improve the bill in our committee.

We have to come to terms with how we modernize our outdated unemployment system so that it reflects the realities of today's working world because that world has changed just as profoundly in Quebec as it has in the rest of Canada and across the western world. Fewer and fewer people work in the traditional nine to five pattern for which the old UI system was created. More and more people work part time or in multiple part time jobs. They are not fully covered under the current plan with its rigid rule of weeks worked. Since every hour worked will now count toward eligibility for benefits, workers will have incentives to accept available work.

The opposition says the new program is unfair to young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants. What does this new measure really mean for youth? Four out of ten part time workers are young people. With an unemployment rate of 16 per cent, nearly double the average of all other workers, this bill is going to help thousands of young people who are caught in the 15 hour trap. Many employers use this 15 hour system to avoid paying premiums. That denies our young people benefits when the work runs out. This bill will be especially helpful for youth.

Young people also need support to make that all important school to work transition. For this reason we have invested in the intern programs working with business, local communities and educators. We have also invested in youth services to help young people get the experience and skills they need to find jobs. The government has announced that funding for summer jobs is going to be doubled from $60 million to $120 million. It will be committed over the next three years to help young people get into the job market.

The opposition says that women are being penalized. Again, this is not true. On average, women currently earn 70 per cent of what men earn. They make up 60 per cent of minimum wage earners. The new arrangements recognize these facts and make a real attempt to turn that situation around in several ways.

Two-thirds of those who qualify for the new family supplement will be women. This supplement results in low income single parent families receiving 10 per cent more than they do today. Women returning to work after having received maternity or parental leave benefits will have access to the new re-employment benefits for a full five years. Very low income women will be eligible for a premium refund.

What about new Canadians? The opposition claims they are being punished. Again, it just is not true. Asking for a slightly longer initial attachment to the workforce in the first year before being eligible for benefits just like everybody else is not wrong. Again, it is only the first year. In the second and following years if they have some attachment to the workforce they will have lower qualifying periods. They will also have access to re-employment benefit tools.

More good news for the home front. There is going to be a very positive impact on the social assistance caseloads within the provinces. At the moment 45 per cent of social assistance recipients have also been UI claimants within the last three years. Many are UI exhaustees. These individuals will now have access to the new re-employment measures which will help get them back into the workforce and will help reduce provincial social assistance roles. Many people are going to be very happy with this legislation.

Canadians expect us to come up with better answers and so do Quebecers. My suggestion to the opposition members is that they should join in that process, work with their colleagues who are members of our standing committee and help us come up with the right solutions. I sincerely hope they can put aside their ideological goals and help us deal with the task of creating a new and better system of unemployment insurance protection for all Canadians. This motion should be defeated.