Debates of May 10th, 1996

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and on Motions No. 10 and 10A.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the debate on Group No. 5. It is important to put these amendments in context.

One of the problems we had in committee was with the opposition as it relates to amendments important for the improvement of the bill.

One of the things we asked at the very beginning of the process was that if members of Parliament were serious about wanting to see improvements to the bill, that they were given ample opportunity not only in committee but in discussions individually with members and through the department to have their improvements put forward and vetted through the department. It would do an analysis and come up with recommendations about whether the amendment we are involved with would be appropriate under the circumstances.

The amendment by the member for Mercier is a perfect example of the shenanigans going on in the opposition. Filibustering took place over the number of weeks as we tried as a government to co-operate with the opposition for it to be successful in bringing amendments forward.

Instead of bringing amendments like this to the committee, we get a nonsensical amendment like the one we are debating today. This motion removes from Bill C-12 the whole clause 5, defining insurable employment, thus removing the foundation for EI coverage and premium payments completely.

It also proposes to remove from the UI act all references to penalty or stoppage of benefits for quitting without just cause and being fired for misconduct.

If we were to approve and accept this amendment it would totally put in chaos the unemployment insurance system as we know it today or as we are proposing under the new changes.

I want to make it very clear that we are debating a motion that is intended to filibuster the very important work of the House and waste the time of members. This motion should be completely out of order because it is nonsensical. If a member puts an amendment to a bill forward, at least put one that is reasonable and has some merit. Obviously this one does not.

It does not surprise me. I refer to other statements the member for Mercier made on what the bill does or does not do.

Not long ago in the House the member for Mercier claimed the bill does not promote job creation because it reduces inter-regional subsidization, that it will make the poor regions even poorer. When someone makes comments like that, it suggests somehow there is a diabolical scheme that will hurt the poorer provinces.

I want to put on record today some facts as they relate to that issue to coincide with some of the other amendments the member is proposing to prove to all the people who are listening, particularly in Quebec, how ridiculous this situation has become.

Look at the numbers. This is even before considering the allocation of the $800 million reinvestment in active measures. This relates to every dollar paid into the program in the years 2001-02. Keep in mind it relates to promoting job creation and the inter-regional subsidization.

In the year 2000-01 for every dollar workers in Prince Edward Island put in they will receive $2.77 in benefits out of the program. Newfoundlanders will receive $2.73 for every dollar they put in. Nova Scotians will receive $1.52 for every dollar they put into the system. New Brunswickers will receive $1.59 for every dollar they put into the system. In Quebec, the province members are talking about as being so hard done by in this piece of legislation, workers will receive $1.32 for every dollar they put in.

Keep that in mind because here is a member from Ontario speaking on behalf of his province. In Ontario workers will receive 76 cents for every dollar they put in. As Ontarians, if we are not sharing with the other provinces, the ones I have mentioned, then what are we doing? If we are not distributing wealth, then what exactly are we doing when we look at the facts?

Quite frankly, as a federalist I expect and accept that is what we are doing. That is the way we make the disparities in the regions disappear over time. We do it by helping the have not areas, by lifting them up, by putting them into a position where they can create employment, improve their training apparatus, get involved in giving people a helping hand so they can achieve their goals in those regions.

When the member for Mercier says that we are attacking the poorer regions, it is not true, like so many of the other claims the hon. member has mentioned. I go back to the particular issue of section 5 which she basically wants to remove completely. When we look at that we have to ask ourselves what the rationale is for the opposition and what its motive is for making these very serious allegations that the government is not interested in helping Canadians.

As my colleague from Malpeque has said on a number of occasions, which I want to emphasize in my remarks this afternoon, this is a significant overhaul of the unemployment insurance system in order to put us in a position to help working men and women in the years to come in the country called Canada. In essence this is its first major overhaul in over 25 years. The intent of it is to look at the areas where we believe men and women will be looking for employment in the future, the non-conventional areas.

One of the major components of this bill is to bring part time workers into the EI system for the first time in history. As the House knows, part timers now account for 27 per cent of the workforce. That is a very serious problem which has to be addressed. They are individuals who until once this bill is passed have not been able to collect unemployment insurance. They have not been able to ask for help under the more active measures under part II, the five tools we have advocated under the $800 million which has been put forward, including the other billions of dollars we have had before. Up to $2.7 billion will be put toward part II and the tools that will be used to help Canadians get retrained and re-educated.

Then we looked at something else which is very profound, something which shows that this government understands there is a changing environment in the workplace. We have now gone to first hour coverage, from weeks to hours.

In a region like mine, northern Ontario, which is very similar to northern Quebec, many Canadians work in seasonal industries. That is the kind of environment, the kind of country that we live in. Those individuals, especially in the summertime and in the fall, do not work eight hours a day like people do in other industries such as the auto industry in southern Ontario. They work 12 to 16 hours a day.

Under the old system it did not matter if people worked 70 hours a week or 35 hours a week, it only counted for one week. Now under the new system people are not going to be forced to work overtime. It is not called overtime in seasonal industries. It is called making a dollar when the sun shines, working when you can, making sure you make enough money in the period of four to six months to support your family.

For people to suggest that going from weeks to hours is driving people to work overtime, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious they have never visited northern Ontario or northern Quebec or places where people work in the mines, forestry and tourism. They are not in the labour force because they are unionized or non-unionized, they are there because that is where they make their living.

For example, people who work at tourist camps work 16 hours a day, as they do when the tourist camps are open in my region. They start at 7 a.m., sometimes 6 a.m., to get the fishermen out fishing and all the activities going and they work until dark. You know this, Mr. Speaker, because you know northern Ontario very well, that it gets dark around 9 p.m. so people are working from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Those are long hours.

Now every single hour that those people work counts. They do not have to work 20 weeks; they may only have to work 10 weeks to qualify for EI. Whereas in the past they did not qualify at all, now they will qualify. If that is not an important structural change for the good of many Canadians, I do not know what is.

What is frustrating me and many members on the government side is that the opposition continues to talk with rhetorical abandon about this bill without talking about the facts.

There are women who have worked part time all their lives. I have a sister-in-law who has two jobs and has never in her life been able to collect UI simply because she always worked less than that 15 hour ceiling. She would work 14 hours at the local grocery store and then another 14 hours or less in the same week at a local restaurant. Under these changes she will now have all the benefits whether they be maternity benefits, sick benefits, or regular UI benefits if she is laid off. That is a dramatic improvement.

I take exception to some of the remarks made by the members opposite that this bill is somehow going to hurt people. We can look at the numbers, and I will speak later about those when we go to a different group. Just look at how many more people in each province are going to be getting into the system versus the argument the opposition is making that this will shrink the system significantly.

As a labour unionist, I am very familiar with what the labour unions are saying. Quite frankly that is why they are so marginalized in this country. They cannot tell their membership something that is not factually correct. They have to tell them the absolute truth, whether they are of one political persuasion or another.

Because members opposite have a particular vision of what Canada should look like at the end of the day, maybe they are coming at it from a different angle. I also take exception to some of the labour unionists who are saying we are shrinking the system. In fact the numbers show that 52 per cent of people who are unemployed can get unemployment insurance now. With a 2 per cent or 3 per cent increase which is guaranteed in the next number of years we will back not too long from now to where as high as 60 per cent of the people who end up unemployed will be able to get UI benefits. People, the media and the labour movement are saying it is down to 40 per cent and that is not factually correct.

We have never had the opportunity in committee to see what the opposition would really like. We as a government held our hand out to all members. Members on the government side took us up on the offer and told us where they thought there were some weaknesses.

One was in the divisor. We changed the divisor. It cost the government a significant amount of money. We looked at the gap which is a major problem for employees who work in seasonal industries. We changed the gap. It cost the government $265 million to make that change. If that is not good work in the committee I do not know what is.

My colleague from Toronto worked very hard looking at what would happen to people at the low end of the scale, poorer people. The recommendation came forward from her that we would exempt from the intensity rule people with under $26,000 of family income. This is a significant change and worth some $24 million to the poor people who cannot afford to be targeted.

What kind of amendments did we get from the opposition? None. This place must work effectively and the government says it is willing to do business differently than in the past. I was here when the Tories were in power. When we went to committee we could forget it. We were there to obstruct; we were not there to put in amendments because we knew no one would ever take them seriously. However, with this bill amendments were put forward and they were accepted by this government.

I want to reiterate that if the members are going to say things that are factually incorrect we on this side of the House are going to get up time and time again and give the people of Canada the facts. It is unfair. This is a complicated bill. There is no argument about that. A lot of people, even people in the press are saying that the bill is not getting much attention because quite frankly, most people do not understand it.

However, the members who have been on the committee, like myself and the hon. member for Malpeque, have spent lots of time in order to understand the bill thoroughly. We will stand in this place to put the facts on the record. Members like the hon. member for Mercier will not get away with total rhetoric. We expect her to argue the points based on the facts. If they are not there, we will certainly call her on it.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I got into politics, I have become aware of things I never noticed before. For instance, I have noticed to what extremes some people will go to pull the wool over people's eyes. They tell half-truths, until the public realizes in the end that not a word of what they have been told is true.

A reporter in Quebec used to say: "To tell the truth is a challenge, but the real challenge is to tell the whole truth". I have been listening to my colleague opposite who is trying to say that, yes, this bill will be very good for Canada. Also, if we were to believe him, the Bloc Quebecois refused to do any work on this bill. Quite the contrary. We took part in consideration of this bill, but what we tried to do was to move amendments to improve the legislation.

It is also important to note that the human resources development committee travelled throughout Canada to listen to what the public had to say about this bill. What did the government do? It turned a deaf ear. It travelled throughout Canada to show how democratic the whole process was, to show that, yes, the public had been consulted and that, yes, the bill is consistent and meets the expectations of Canadians.

When I was appointed to this committee, I was disappointed to see that the government had held consultations, but had it really listened to what was said? Did the committee members travelled throughout Canada just for the sake of it? That is the impression I am left with.

I think the problem here is that the public still does not know this bill well enough. When people finally understand, probably in May, when the act will be in effect and its effects will unfortunately have started being felt, when their pay cheques are cut, then the people will take to the streets. In fact, they have already started.

For instance, people in Jonquière and Chicoutimi took part in a 18- kilometre march recently. Do you think they did it for fun? Do you think people demonstrate just for fun or simply to protest? No, like the hon. member opposite said, in a region such as mine, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, people march because they have to deal with certain realities, with seasonal work. This bill will have a negative impact on seasonal workers. The government would have us believe otherwise. Fascinating.

There is another reality that I would like to mention, the one our young people are living in. The situation is clear enough. I have friends who are still in university and who will be working this summer. We know how hard it is to find a first job, but people are always hoping to find one.

With this bill, which makes it even harder to qualify for UI benefits, we, the young, tell ourselves: "UI is for other people, for those who were part of the old system". Again, young people are hit in the knees. At least, that is the impression I get.

Another point the hon. member for Mercier mentioned this morning is something unbelievable that people are not well aware of, that is, the issue of double jobs. The hon. member said a little while ago that this bill will precisely benefit those who hold down two jobs. In a sense you always look good telling the truth, but it must be the whole truth.

We know that this reform affects people who have two jobs, and we know full well that it is often young people who have two jobs, who have two McJobs. Those who have two jobs, let us say job A and job B-and I am telling you this because it is important-will have to accumulate a certain number of hours in order to become eligible. I once had two jobs, as a matter of fact, when I went to Alberta to learn English.

I had two jobs at that time and I suddenly realized that it was too much for me, so I quit one. Today, if a person quits one of his two jobs, that person will be penalized in terms of the total number of hours and in terms of benefits. These are things that my colleague opposite has neglected to mention.

Again, I would like it so much if people who are watching us would listen carefully to what I am saying and understand what is really going on. This bill is scary. It takes us back 20 years. What I find unfortunate is that the government still refuses to listen, saying, of course, that the opposition has done nothing to improve this bill. It is very disappointing, but we will see what happens. Time will prove us right.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-12, I want to emphasize the positive impact this legislation will have on the creation of jobs in the country. The government calculates that the change from unemployment insurance to employment insurance should create between 100,000 and 150,000 new job opportunities.

I would like to take a minute or two to describe how these figures were arrived at. First, the modernization of the system will have an impact. The central change in the EI system is in the way individuals qualify for benefits. Under the old system, an individual had to work a certain number of weeks, called a fixed period, at a minimum of 15 hours per week and had to earn a minimum amount per week in each one of those weeks to qualify. In high unemployment areas the minimum was 12 weeks and in low unemployment areas the minimum was 20 weeks.

Once workers had the minimum number of weeks they could apply for benefits and the benefit was calculated at 55 per cent of the average weekly earnings up to a maximum amount. It was also

based on an average of the weekly earnings in the last 12 to 20 weeks worked over a 52 week period.

The problem was there was a built in disincentive to take any other work beyond the minimum weeks required to qualify, particularly if the extra work paid anything less than the person was earning in the previous 12 to 20 weeks. Taking any short term job that paid less would cut UI benefits if a claim was made. It would lower the average weekly earnings and, therefore, the benefit cheque would be less.

If a person was laid off after having worked the minimum period at the rate of $600 per week, why would a person take a short term job for maybe two or three weeks that paid only $450 per week? Or why would the person search out a part time job or any other work if it meant that in the end he or she would receive lower benefits?

I should also mention the amount of work that goes unreported in the underground economy. Some people who are unemployed and on claims take on informal work on which no premium is paid and no tax collected. This costs other workers in higher premiums and higher taxes. It also distorts the true picture of the amount of work that is actually available.

These are some of the major disincentives to work in the old system. And not just for workers. Many employers also built their hiring and layoff practices around the rigid weeks worked component of the old system rather than basing their decisions on the needs of their marketplace.

Also, in several areas many employers have real difficulty finding people to work because the unemployment insurance benefit payment is higher than the employer can afford to pay.

To eliminate these disincentives the new employment insurance system is based on hours worked, not weeks. Under the new system every hour worked in the last 52 weeks counts in determining entry. Therefore, all work is insurable and all earnings over the last 26 weeks count in calculating benefits.

The disincentive to work for longer periods or to take on jobs that may pay less or to avoid reporting work and earnings will be reduced. To maximize benefit under the new system workers will require two more weeks of work beyond the minimum entrance requirement in each region.

Since part time hours are now insurable, declaring them is to the claimant's advantage. It is especially advantageous for people with multiple jobs to declare earnings from each of them. Under the new system individuals can now count back 26 weeks to find the required hours of work when calculating average earnings for benefit purposes. The average is then divided by what is called the divisor which as a minimum is two weeks plus the minimum number of weeks required in an individual's region. That figure is now lower in high unemployment areas and higher in lower unemployment areas compared to Bill C-12. The two weeks are added to ensure that there is a continuing incentive for people to work the full period if work is available but at the same time to ensure that it is not overly harsh on those who have limited work opportunities.

Another modernization feature of the new system which helps to create jobs is that people on benefits will be able to earn up to $50 per week, or 25 per cent of their benefit, whichever is higher, without paying a penalty.

Other features which encourage work are, one, the intensity rule, whereby repeat claimants receive slightly lower benefits and, two, higher hours for eligibility for new entrants and those who have been out of the workforce force for several years.

All of these measures add up to about 150,000 more jobs. In addition, employment offices will have a greatly enhanced ability to link up people looking for work with job opportunities. Up to two million Canadians a year use information and advisory services available through the national employment service in the job search. A new computerized job matching system is now in place. It is called the electronic labour exchange. Located on the Internet, it matches jobs to people and people to jobs faster than any traditional method.

People looking for work are also going to have access to a great deal more information on the qualifications required for different jobs, as well as things like group information sessions, job search clubs and other initiatives which will help them get back into the workforce.

For example, in my riding of Oakville-Milton we have had the job search club for a year or so and we now have the statistics reported back as to the success rate. It is 80 percent. That is, 80 per cent who attended the job search club have now found work.

There will also be appropriate counselling for people who need help finding work. People will get the kind of direct help they need to locate employment.

A second change which is going to help create more jobs is the reduction in premiums and the reduction in the maximum allowable earnings. The combination of these two measures means that both employees and employers are going to save a considerable amount of money. For employers who have complained that payroll taxes hinder job creation, a modest reduction means that they will have money to invest in hiring more people. These

changes will reduce premiums by $1.25 billion in 1996 and are predicted to create up to 20,000 new job opportunities.

The third area of change which is going to create more jobs is the new active employment benefits. The government intends to work in concert with the provinces to help get people back to work. That means harmonizing the new employment benefits with provincial programs and making new delivery arrangements which could see provincial governments delivering federal programs. A series of federal-provincial agreements will be negotiated to work out the options.

In reducing overlap and duplication, the government will be building a more efficient system that will provide better and more thorough support to unemployed Canadians. While the approaches may vary from province to province, the primary focus is on getting results, that is more people back into the workforce.

The government is open to discussions on how best this can be put into place. It will be investing some $800 million of the savings that will be achieved with this legislation into active employment benefits. With the current $1.9 billion already budgeted for employment services this means now a total of $2.7 billion to actively help unemployed people get back to work.

Upwards of 400,000 unemployed workers every year will qualify for a very flexible and innovative series of re-employment measures.

Instead of getting off the shelf programs, people looking for work will be getting the kind of direct, personalized support tailored to get them into a job as quickly as possible. These methods have been tested and proven. We know they work because we have seen the results.

Wage subsidies, for example, will encourage hiring and provide on the job experience. A claimant could arrange for a wage subsidy with a selected employer who will provide a job that will lead to long term employment or re-employment somewhere else. The wage subsidy will help thousands of people move into the workforce.

For many people, getting off social assistance and unemployment benefits can be daunting, particularly when getting a job could mean a less secure income. There are also older workers facing the switch to a new industry and finding difficulty adjusting to it. That is why there will also be wage supplements to temporarily increase income for those who would otherwise find it difficult to take a lower paying job.

People with the initiative and drive to start up their own businesses will be eligible for self-employment assistance. In most cases these new businesses employ the person starting up the business as well as one or two new employees.

Skills loans and grants will be available for people who need to upgrade their employment qualifications. These will only be run in provinces which agree to have federal involvement. A series of community job partnerships will be undertaken to directly help people find work and experience while serving in their own communities.

All these new measures will be in effect nationwide. As the components of the new EI system begin to serve workers across the country, the enthusiasm for the new program will grow.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in this House to appeal to my colleagues across the way. I told them we had brought out almost all the reasonable arguments that human reason could understand, and it seems that they still do not understood.

I appealed to their hearts by telling them that workers in Canada and in Quebec want to work, that they are proud people who want to produce, but unfortunately they are not being given the chance. The motion proposes that someone who leaves his job voluntarily would be doubly penalized. This is a disgrace.

It is very surprising to see these people, who were calling for exactly the opposite when they formed the opposition-I do not know on what planet or cloud they are living-today calling for measures that are truly insulting to the workers of Canada and Quebec.

As proof, I offer what took place yesterday. A group of about a hundred people set out from my riding of Matapédia-Matane in the Gaspé Peninsula. These were people who are truly not rich. One of them told me he had had to sell his house, things were so bad.

These people, who represented 35,000 others, came to the Hill to meet with the Prime Minister. They remembered that when he was in opposition-he was then reasonable, I would say-he wrote certain letters. So they said: "At least, he will come and see us".

I was at the Langevin Building with them. Three people were asked to negotiate, if you will, a meeting with Mr. Chrétien. It appeared to be a huge favour to come and meet people from back home, who were representing 35,000 people.

So three people from our region went to the office of Mr. Pelletier. They came back saying: "Mr. Chrétien is meeting very important people today-"

[The Deputy Speaker]

Am I right in understanding that the hon. member is quoting a letter or something that mentions the Prime Minister's name? Because, if it is not a quote, he must not use the Prime Minister's name, but rather refer to him as the Prime Minister, as the hon. member knows.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected.

These folks came to meet him. At that point, they were rudely told: "You are not important". People had the indecency to tell them: "You do not count". They were treated in a discourteous, ill mannered and disrespectful way.

These people from back home said some things I would not repeat in this House, although they are very polite. They said: "Please tell your colleagues across the way that they have no manners". The people from the Gaspé and from Matapédia-Matane call it poor manners when, after having travelled on the bus for 17 hours to meet Canada's first citizen, they get the brush off because, unfortunately, he does not particularly feel the need to exert himself since he will not necessarily find himself unemployed tomorrow. He will lose the next elections, but he will not necessarily be unemployed, because he has good connections. But the people where I come from rarely have connections.

In addition to 17 hours on the road from the Gaspé via my riding, they put in another 18 on the return trip to make a total of 35 hours on the road-a solid work week. All that to come and see the Prime Minister, who did not even condescend to meet them.

Since they could not see the Prime Minister, they thought they would ask to see Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin was not willing either.

The first request they addressed to the Minister of Human Resources Development was refused with the words: "It is a very important issue, but when people want to see me they have to ask me a week in advance". People from back home are not used to doing that. Although they are very polite, they are not used to all this red tape, because they themselves earn a living by the sweat of their brows. They work day and night. There may be a few things they do not know, but they do know certain things. They know how to be polite; they know when one can or cannot be received.

We asked the people from back home to be extremely polite. To which they replied: "No problem. We are always polite. We know all about politeness". There are, however, other people across the way, including the Prime Minister, who do not know about it.

I am speaking on their behalf today. These people have been deeply hurt. I wish to thank my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for their hard work. They went all the way. But the people from back home are also patient. Even though they are both polite and patient, they said: "If the Prime Minister does not want to meet with us, what can we do? If the Minister of Finance does not want to meet with us, what is left for us to do?"

The Minister of Human Resources Development finally said: "Yes, I could perhaps meet with you". So the people said: "Look, we have been waiting for two hours. We still have a 18-hour trip back home to the Gaspé region". Our leader met with them and told them: "This is what the Bloc has done, what we wanted to do". We tried in every possible way-by appealing to their minds and their hearts-to make those people understand all this, but they refuse to understand.

Some people from my riding talked to me, including the mayor of Saint-Luc, who was representing a number of regional county municipalities. She said to me: "What more can we do? Will other action have to be taken, like tabling petitions? You have given 120 per cent, but they just will not listen".

The same people told me: "We are calm, understanding people. But to want to use this insurance money that we have been paying for and that employers have been paying for to reduce the deficit, that we will never understand. We will never stand for it; it is just too cruel". It is cruel, but not only for these people, who, on an individual basis, could probably wait a tad longer.

In my community, often, in fairly large families, one spouse works away from home, while the other works, perhaps even harder, at home. In such cases, the family income is never very high, which means that the whole family is affected. Yesterday, a young couple told me: "If we did not have four kids, it would not be so bad, we could remain calm a while longer, but we do not think we will be able to any longer".

I would like my hon. colleagues opposite to understand. There must be people who are having difficulties, people on unemployment in their ridings as well. I call upon my colleagues opposite and all members of this House to go out and talk to these people. I am sorry to have to put it this way, but people out there are disgusted. When I saw them off at the bus, they told me: "We have had it". And when they say they have had it, they mean they have had it up to here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on Motion No. 10A. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We are now on Group No. 6.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-12, in Clause 12, be amended by a ) replacing lines 10 to 18, on page 20, with the following:

"(3) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period is 15 a ) because of pregnancy; b ) because the claimant is caring for one or more new- born children of the claimant or one or more children placed with the claimant for the purpose of adoption; and''; b ) replacing lines 21 to 33 on page 20, with the following:

"(4) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid for a single pregnancy or for the care of one or more new-born or adopted children as a result of a single pregnancy or placement is 15.

(5) In a claimant's benefit period, the"; c ) replacing line 39, on page 20, with the following: a ) to more than 15 weeks of benefits, the''; d ) replacing line 5, on page 21, with the following:

"up to 15 or fewer weeks of benefits, the"; and e ) replacing lines 12 to 26, on page 21, with the following:

"ceed 30.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the".

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-12, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36, on page 59, with the following:

"(2) The Commission shall not provide any financial assistance in a province in support of employment benefits mentioned in paragraph 59( e ) or support measures under this Part without the agreement of the government of the province.''

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34, on page 125, the following new Clause:

"152.1(1) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period under subsection 12(3).

(2) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid shall be the same in the case of pregnancy as in a case where the claimant is caring for one or more new-born children of the claimant or one or more children placed with the claimant for the purpose of adoption."

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 131, the following new Clause:

"167.1 Notwithstanding any section of this Act, the Governor in Council shall, no later than January 1, 1998, amend, by order, those provisions of this Act that, in its opinion, require amendment in order to eliminate the concept of "number of hours of insurable employment" and to replace it with the concept of "number of weeks of insurable employment"."

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-12 , in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 26 on page 22 with the following:

"tion period divided by the larger of the following divisors: a ) the divisor that equals the number of weeks during the rate calculation period in which the claimant had insurable eamings, and b ) the divisor determined in accordance with the following table by reference to the applicable regional rate of unemployment:

TABLE

Regional Rate of Unemployment Divisor

not more than 6% 22 more than 6% but not more than 7% 21 more than 7% but not more than 8% 20 more than 8% but not more than 9% 19 more than 9% but not more than 10% 18 more than 10% but not more than 11% 17 more than 11% but not more than 12% 16 more than 12% but not more than 13% 15 more than 13% 14

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-12, in Clause 14, be amended a ) by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 23 with the following:

"of not more than 26 consecutive weeks in the claimant's qualifying period ending with the later of a ) the week

(i) before the claimant's benefit period begins, if it begins on the Sunday of the week in which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, or

(ii) in which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, if their benefit period begins on the Sunday of a week that is after the week in which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, and"; b ) by adding after line 10 on page 23, the following:

"A prescribed week relating to employment in the labour force shall not be taken into account when determining what weeks are within the rate calculation period.

(4.1) The rate calculation period is 26 weeks, unless the claimant's qualifying period begins on a Sunday that is less than 26 weeks before the Sunday of the week in which the rate calculation period ends under subsection (4), in which case it is the number of weeks between those Sundays."

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-12, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 27, on page 24, the following:

"(1.1) No reduction shall be made under subsection (1) if the claimant is entitled to a family supplement under section 16."

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-12, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 21 on page 31 with the following: b ) participating in any other employment activity

(i) for which assistance has been provided for the claimant under prescribed employment benefits or benefits that are the subject of an agreement under section 63 and are similar to the prescribed employment benefits; and

(ii) to which the Commission, or an authority that the Commission designates, has referred the claimant."

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 16, on page 127, the following new Clause:

"PART VIII.1

SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR NEW ENTRANTS AND RE-ENTRANTS TO THE LABOUR FORCE

153.1 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Commission shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make such regulations as it deems necessary respecting the establishment and operation of a scheme to ensure that special benefits are provided to persons who are new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force within the meaning of subsection 7(4), including regulations a ) for establishing requirements to qualify to receive the benefits, the duration of entitlement to the benefits, benefit rates, disentitlement and disqualification from receiving the benefits and benefit repayment requirements; and b ) varying the application of any other provision of this Act in relation to persons who have made claims under this Part and who subsequently make claims under Part I or VIII.

(2) The scheme established by the regulations may, with respect to any matter, be different from the provisions of this Act relating to that matter.

(3) The scheme established by the regulations may not provide special benefits to persons who a ) have less than 700 hours of insurable employment in their qualifying period; or b ) are subject to an increase under section 7.1 in the number of hours of insurable employment required to qualify for benefits.''

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-12, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 45, on page 23, and lines 1 to 13, on page 24.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have a member who is ready to speak. The Bloc just finished so I would assume it is our turn to start. Which motion is leading off?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary is absolutely correct.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-12 today, a bill that will help Canadians help themselves.

I did not have the opportunity to speak on the previous motion put forward by the hon. member for Mercier, but I am sure the hon. member will be very glad, thinking back, when the motion is defeated. I expect her premier would be very annoyed. What would the motion do for anyone in the country?

The recent budget of our neighbouring province was designed to help people and businesses. The motion would have cost our neighbouring province of Quebec hundreds of millions of dollars for businesses. It would have put us behind the eight ball, not counting the rest of the country.

I heard great news in question period today. Exports are up by tens of billions of dollars. The Minister for International Trade shared with us that for every $1 billion in exports, 11,000 jobs are created, which is good news. It is what we need to hear. I see confidence being restored in communities across the country. Following this, investments are made.

My riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is situated between Kingston and Belleville, Ontario. In the last 12 months $1 billion has been invested. This is good news for our youth. Yet we share great concerns about our youth and future of the country.

Where does the employment insurance bill leave youth? A major objective of employment insurance is to provide equal coverage to all workers, ensuring all hours of work are recognized. This is increasingly important in a world where more and more individuals have non-standard work patterns. Not only is the number of people who work part time increasing, but the number of individuals who earn a living through a number of small jobs is increasing.

The new EI system will have minimal impact on the net income of young people but includes very important benefits for all part time workers which includes young people. The new EI system will reduce benefits by 8 per cent for youth under 25 years of age, versus 11 per cent for all Canadians, and we must consider investments made in communities.

The previous speaker said no doubt we have problems and challenges with UI in our own ridings. We do. People come into our offices every day. The bill will help these people. The tools will be available for people who need them.

Given the labour market characteristics of youth, various elements of the reform will impact differently on young Canadians than on other age groups. More stringent EI entrance requirements will affect young workers, which will prevent the development of dependency on insurance benefits early in their working lives and will encourage higher levels of employment. With youth as with other people, we can do more when we offer a hand up rather than a handout.

The hours based entrance requirement and first dollar coverage will ensure every hour of work will contribute toward a claimant's eligibility. Today four out of ten part time workers are less than 25 years old. The EI system will provide income protection for more young people if they work enough hours.

Young people working less than 15 hours a week, mainly students, will be required to pay premiums for the first time under the EI system. The amount will be less than $3 a week for someone who works 14 hours at $7 an hour. There are advantages to this type of system. Insuring everyone who works, including working students, helps to ensure a level playing field in terms of premium payments and access to jobs.

Making work by students insurable will give recognition to this labour market attachment once individuals enter the labour market on a permanent basis. After completing their formal studies, if they have sufficient work, attachment in their last year as students, for example 490 hours, they would not have to meet the more stringent 910 hours entrance requirement if they faced difficulty finding stable employment.

Premiums will be refunded to approximately 625,000 young people under the premium refund program for individuals with earnings of $2,000 or less in any calendar year. This represents 48 per cent of all individuals who will receive the refund. As well, 400,000 or 31 per cent of those receiving the refund are full time students. That represents about 40 per cent of all full time students.

It is recognized that under the first dollar coverage some employers who primarily employ part time workers will be required to pay more premiums. That is why it is being proposed that a two-year premium relief measure be put in place to offset some of the cost of the first dollar coverage for small business. As well, 300,000 small businesses will benefit from this measure.

The youth unemployment rate is 16 per cent. It is a shameful number. It is over one and a half times the national average. Many young people attend school and depend on summer and/or year round work to finance their education, as well as to obtain critical job experience.

The government recognizes the particularly difficult situation facing youth and students. A number of initiatives have been announced to address these serious concerns. Youth will benefit from EI's active employment measures. Several of EI's employment tools will help unemployed young people get back to work. Targeted wage subsidies will help young people get the work experience they need to round out their résumés and to qualify for jobs. Job creation partnerships will bring government and community organizations together to give unemployed young people and others the opportunities they need to develop new, job ready skills.

Youth will remain as a top priority for federal government programs funded from general revenues. In the 1996 budget, the government announced the reallocation of $315 million of budget savings to help create employment opportunities for young Canadians over the next three years. Funding for federal summer job placements will be doubled to $120 million in 1996-97. Most of the remaining funds are being directed to assist young people who have left school to find employment opportunities. It will be in addition to existing funding of $160 million annually for youth internship and youth service Canada.

Many of these initiatives will be targeted to those with lower levels of education. They will also focus on providing employment opportunities in new and emerging sectors.

Ontario is a diverse province. There is very high unemployment in northern Ontario. In my own riding along the south shores of Lake Ontario where $1 billion is invested there is a lower rate of unemployment. In the north part of my riding it is a much higher rate. Different parts of the province will have different entry levels for EI so we can treat the people fairly according to their area.

Employment insurance will get unemployed workers back into jobs more quickly than before. Again, workers will be encouraged to help themselves.

Ontario has had to deal with major adjustments to the emerging high tech economy. Many workers lost well-paying factory and office jobs and found themselves ill-equipped to move into new jobs with comparable wages. As a result, more Ontarians have faced longer periods of unemployment. More targeted, proactive re-employment measures will assist the workers to find and maintain employment and deal with this type of structural unemployment.

Employment insurance means a workforce better prepared to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing job market in Ontario. The national employment service will offer higher quality job market information, on-line job matching services and customized employment services. Helping Ontario get back to work more

quickly means more competitive industries in Canada's economic heartland.

I have heard people talk about these job kiosks and that they can be a positive or a negative according to where they are. My riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has more than 5,000 miles of main road. The riding reaches from Lake Ontario to Algonquin Park. There cannot be an HRD office in all of these towns, yet throughout the riding there are job kiosks. This will save people driving 50 miles to find out what is available. Statistics prove that when people are encouraged to help themselves find work, they find work.

I recently stopped at North Brook, Ontario. Even I could run the kiosk. I could punch the keys and bring up the jobs. If I could do it, I am sure anybody can run that computer. Often there are jobs listed. It is good for the people in local areas to find out what is available.

The different parts of the EI legislation have to be addressed. We will have to watch to see that it does what we want it to do. The new system will be monitored. Across the country, we will be watching to see what happens. We want to help people because people are the most important part of our economy.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member, with whom I have been working for over two years, but I respectfully submit that he is deluding himself.

Let us not kid ourselves. This bill will result in the loss of student jobs. Members of the Association des restaurateurs made it very clear when they came to my office. The government did not even deem appropriate to exempt students from having to pay contributions, at least those interested.

Students already face all kinds of cost increases. Now, they will have to pay UI premiums and will only be repaid the following year, when they file their income tax returns. My fellow Bloc members will get back to this issue.

This group includes the famous amendments to the first bill, which was so unacceptable that the government had to make changes as a result of the public outcry. At this point, I have something to tell members who keep saying that the opposition did not do its job because it did not move any amendments. Parliamentary procedure is such that a royal recommendation is required in order to make amendments affecting expenditures or revenues, whether in committee or in the House. So, do not tell us that we did not do our homework.

I also want to say that, in 1993, Liberal members were thoroughly upset and demanded that the legislation be withdrawn. So, if your memory is failing, try at least to remember as far back as 1993.

Let us take a look at the substance of these amendments, which are supposed to be beneficial not only for seasonal workers, but for all those who do not have stable jobs, jobs lasting the whole year. This includes those who work part time, who have odd jobs, who have contracts for a specific period, or who hold down one or two jobs.

You will remember that the government had imposed a time period. This measure was obviously so bad that there was strong public protest, which resulted in a number of amendments being proposed. However, we have to be honest here. Instead of solving the problem of the majority, the legislation before us will facilitate things for some.

A huge economic and social problem remains for most people. Why? Because the government continues to propose that earnings will be calculated over a period of only 26 weeks, out of 52. Worse still, the last version of the bill provides for a difference of two additional weeks in the length of unemployment period accepted, but it also provides that any week during which wages are earned will be included.

This means that this will create an inflexibility not yet found in the provinces, in the regions where there is a lot of seasonal employment. This means that, from a strictly economic point of view-I am not even talking about individuals-people will only take work that gives them the weeks, the divisor they need. They will not want to work short weeks, because short weeks would decrease their earnings, and people are not crazy.

What it means is that employers and workers will continue to act in an intelligent manner, in other words, they will work out agreements. And they will do this, however much you increase the penalties. You are upping the penalties, both in money and in time required for eligibility.

You are in the process of creating a mindless mishmash. It makes no sense. You talk about flexibility, but you create rigid conditions and put people in the terrible situation of having to accept zero earnings or place themselves in the position of being found guilty of fraud and other awful things.

We were told in committee that, with the amendments, workers would continue to accumulate hours in order to have decent weeks.

Essentially, this amendment does not resolve anything. Employers who want to have employees will have to agree with them so that a work week makes sense. This will continue to create rigidity and, worse, many people who were able to qualify will not be able

to do so any more, because the 26 weeks are not always sufficient. That is true for people who work in the tourism sector, and not only in the regions.

Indeed, there are many people in Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver and Victoria who are trying to get by and who can find term employment at the beginning of the year. If they do not qualify, they live from hand to mouth with their mother, their buddy or their girlfriend and then go look for another job. This provision does not make any sense.

The government should understand there is no rush to introduce this reform that will mean a reduction in premiums of $1 billion for this year. What is the rush to reduce insurable maximum earnings? What is the rush to reduce benefits from a maximum of $445 to $413 and to further reduce to $140 or $120 benefits for people who barely get by with $200 per week? What is the rush?

In the maritimes, the 1994 reform and the one presently on the table will mean $800 million less every year. Every year. Do not tell me the $300 million over three years will make up or compensate for that. That does not make any sense. This is not a policy that makes sense on the economic or the social level. I see many members smiling. People from the Gaspe Peninsula who came yesterday had despair written on their faces, and that is not funny.

For many years, these people have been living in difficult conditions and having a hard time. They live through difficult and sometimes extreme climate conditions and, for many years, they have been accused of cheating, of milking the system; they cannot take it any more. So, when proposals such as these are made, they say they have had it up to here; they cannot take it any more.

I wished their colourful accent alone would be sufficient to send us back to the drawing board. There is no rush to make a whole bunch of insecure by taking away from them the only pittance they can still count on, when it is feasible and possible.

I am far from talking only for Quebec. I have talked many times for Canadians as a whole.