Debates of May 14th, 1996

Fisheries

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, what is holding the plant workers up is the greed of those people who want 100 per cent of the quota.

If anybody is missing the point, it is the hon. member. He does not understand that there are 16,100 tonnes of crab at a time when fishermen in Atlantic Canada would die to catch something. He should pay attention to the real issue which is that there is a resource to be caught. There are fishermen who want to catch this resource and I will make sure it is caught by those who wish to catch it.

Agriculture

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta's minister of agriculture has just announced a proposal to buy farmers' grain for a dollar a load and to sell it back to them in the United States for a dollar a load, all this to get around the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. This would earn an extra $2,500 a truckload for cash strapped farmers struggling to cope with increased costs of planting.

Alberta farmers decided in a plebiscite that they wanted the freedom to market their wheat and barley as they choose. Will the minister act immediately to honour farmers' wishes or will he continue to rob farmers of the $2,500 a load, money so desperately needed for spring planting?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to join with me in applauding the fact that over the last 18 months we have seen a steady increase in grain prices around the world. These grain price increases are accruing to the benefit of our farmers in Canada.

With respect to the marketing system, the hon. gentleman knows full well that a process has been under way in Canada for many months, beginning last year, continuing through the winter and coming to fruition in June. It is through the auspices of the western grain marketing panel. It will allow all farmers who have different perspectives on grain marketing to bring those perspectives forward and to have them debated and discussed in a logical and orderly manner.

I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to pre-empt the opinions of farmers who have contributed to this process. I would remind him, quite contrary to his precipitous advice, that 130,000 farm families depend upon the viable marketing system for their product.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should be known as the minister of procrastination.

Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. They have decided by plebiscite. The minister's refusal to act is costing farmers about $2,500 a truckload when they so desperately need the money for planting.

When will the minister stop working against farmers and act on their democratically determined wishes?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting contradiction in what the hon. gentleman is suggesting.

The member is obviously an opponent of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is obviously requesting this government to take a course of action that would diminish the Canadian Wheat Board. Interestingly enough, in conjunction with our red book in 1993, we indicated support for the Canadian Wheat Board. If we were to do what the hon. member is suggesting, we would be violating one of our election campaign commitments. It is interesting that Reformers seem to be prepared to invite us to do that when in another context and in such a sanctimonious way they invite us to adhere to the red book promises. Will they make up their minds?

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The government's policy has driven the unemployment rate up and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has told us why: interest rate policies have kept the economy in a low growth vice to the point where we are on the verge of a catastrophic deflation.

In opposition the Liberal Party condemned the job killing policies of former Bank of Canada Governor John Crow. Is it not time the finance minister ate some crow, admitted that he has been supporting the same job killing policies and instructed the Bank of Canada to work for sustainable economic growth, not against an imaginary inflation?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, at the time the citations the member sets forth were made, we were in opposition and Canadian interest rates were substantially higher than the interest rates in the United States.

Today as a result of the actions of this government, Canadian short term interest rates are substantially below U.S. interest rates. They are almost 400 bases points or four percentage points below those of a year ago.

Also, employment is on the increase as a result of the actions of this government. Unemployment has dropped down from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. In the last four months the country has created over 160,000 new jobs. That is a fundamental difference between today and then.

There is one other difference-

[Some hon. members]

More.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.

Mining

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

This week having been proclaimed national mining week, the keep mining in Canada lobby has produced a provocative 12 point plan for mining in our country.

Will the government be acting on this 12 point plan and what will it being doing to further promote mining in Canada?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the 12 point plan is substantially consistent with the government's current objectives and responsibilities.

The government is acting in areas of federal jurisdiction to strengthen Canada's mining industry. Canada remains one of the best places in the world for mineral investment. We estimate that 49 mines may open over the next two years.

In addition, I am very pleased with the industry's involvement in Canada's second annual mining week currently taking place. It is through partnerships like this that we raise the awareness of mining to Canadians everywhere in the country.

[The Speaker]

I have a question of privilege from the member for Halifax.

Privilege

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I bring to your attention that following the answer given by the hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women with regard to the women's march, the hon. member for Saint John replied to some comments made from this side: "They are all crazy women. You are all crazy women".

[The Speaker]

Colleague, being at this end your Speaker did not hear the comments. If such comments were made, and I hope they were not, I point out that sometimes in the course of exchanges these things happen. I hope it did not happen but because you named an hon. member, and I do not want to get into any debate here, the hon. is here and if she wishes to clarify this I will permit her to do so.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to say to the hon. member from Halifax is that the Liberals should not be promoting women walking across Canada. The Liberals should be available to talk to them and perhaps they could give them a vehicle to drive them.

[The Speaker]

I would like to close this point of privilege right here.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, an act employment insurance in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Employment Insurance Act

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on one of the most important pieces of legislation on the agenda of the government.

The government in its commitment to Canada said new employment insurance legislation would be law by July 1 of this year. I begin my remarks by encouraging hon. members to give swift passage to the bill so that Canadians can begin to quickly benefit from a more fair and balanced regime, one that removes the inequities that have characterized the current unemployment insurance system.

The new proposed EI system follows more than two years of consultation with Canadians in all walks of life. I held four town hall meetings in the fall of 1994 to get the input of people in my riding. Because of this public input, the new employment insurance bill will help unemployed Canadians get jobs. It will strengthen work initiatives, ensure fairer treatment for all workers and help workers adjust to our changing economic climate by investing in back to work benefits. It will save Canadian taxpayers $1.2 billion by the year 2001.

I will concentrate now on the benefits to a large group in my riding, the part time workers and multiple job holders. As amended by the standing committee, the new system is simpler, more modern and fairer. At the centre of the new approach is the method of qualifying for EI based on hours of work rather than weeks. A week is a very clumsy measure of a person's work. Using it to calculate unemployment insurance credits is neither accurate nor adequate.

For the current unemployment insurance purposes, a week is a week whether it contains 15 hours or 70 hours. This fails to accommodate the reality of today's labour market where more and more people are working part time and holding more than one part time job.

In the current system a person needs 15 hours of work in any one week to qualify for UI. Less than that and the person is out of luck. Over time this has led to a situation in which some employees hire a person for less than 15 hours a week in order to avoid UI premiums.

I have heard from many constituents in my riding who have suffered due to this barrier. A worker with less than 15 hours per week, even working year round, could not qualify for UI. Neither could a person holding two or three small jobs which may well be the hour equivalent to a full time job.

For example, someone holding down three part time jobs requiring 14 hours per week, totalling 42 hours, does not qualify for UI benefits. On the other hand, a person with a single 42 hour a week job does qualify. This is double jeopardy for part time workers and holders of multiple jobs. They have difficulty getting more hours of work because of the 15 hour ceiling imposed by employers. What they do get does not qualify them for UI benefits.

By counting hours per week, the new employment insurance act brings forward these inequities and treats them on a fair and

equitable basis. EI also provides better rules for setting the level of benefits for part time workers. Current UI benefits are based on total earning weeks prior to job loss. The new EI system will use average earnings over a fixed period before job loss. The period will vary with the unemployment rate in each region. Benefits will be based on the average weekly earnings figure, with the result that all earnings in the fixed period will count toward benefits. That is a fair system.

With amendments introduced as a result of the standing committee review, the gaps in income will be taken into account through an improved method of looking back 26 weeks prior to the claim. Furthermore, regional differences in employment conditions will be taken into account by a new divisor that is two weeks more than the minimum entrance requirement for the region.

These measures link benefits more directly to earnings than the current UI system. They provide greater incentive for workers to seek additional work.

Bill C-12 benefits part time workers and multiple job holders in several fundamental ways. The higher a worker's earnings in the 26 week period prior to unemployment, up to an annual ceiling, the higher the benefit regardless of the work pattern. Total earnings in that 26 week period prior to unemployment from all jobs, including part time jobs of less than 15 hours per week, are included. Extra work during the fixed earnings period, even at lower wages, will add to average earnings and therefore benefits.

The effect of all of this is that under EI 2.4 million people who are now part time workers will have their earnings insured, compared with the current 1.9 million. No less than 500,000 additional part time workers will have their work insured for the first time. Some of these workers will have to pay premiums for the first time as well. It is estimated that 76 per cent, some 380,000, will have their premiums refunded.

As a group, fewer part time workers will pay premiums: 1.7 million under EI compared with 1.9 million under the old UI. About 300,000 part time workers now paying premiums who earn less than $2,000 per year will have their premiums refunded. That is significant. For the remaining 1.6 million part time workers who now pay premiums under the UI system there will be a reduction from $3 to $2.95 for every hundred dollars of insurable earnings. In all, part time workers as a group will pay a total of about $6 million less in premiums than they do today.

Bill C-12 provides an employment insurance system that matches current economic realities in Canada. Employment insurance will continue to provide income support for 2.4 million

unemployed Canadians. Employment insurance matches the varying labour market conditions across the country. Employment insurance treats all workers fairly and realistically measures their work in calculating benefits. Employment insurance encourages workers to add to their hours and incomes and discourages dependency on income support.

The new system's active employment measures will contribute to getting the unemployed back to work and will contribute to job creation and growth. Employment insurance requirements will be much simpler for employers to administer.

Having contributed for 32 years to this program, I know it needs to be changed. The members of our party and I are prepared to support this legislation. We must move quickly to assist the taxpayers of Canada so that $1.2 billion will be saved by the year 2001. Members have every reason to pass the bill into law without delay.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain was in Prince Edward Island with the committee studying youth last weekend. We were most fortunate to have him with us. When he was there he was also talking to quite a number of islanders. Could he tell us the islanders' views on the new EI legislation? I will give the member a little background. Earlier this morning the hon. member for Lévis left a mistaken impression of what the minister of economic development for P.E.I said at committee.

I quote for the benefit of both the hon. members for Souris-Moose Mountain and Lévis what the minister of economic development for P.E.I. said: "We were never afraid from a Prince Edward Island perspective to change the existing system. We have gone through that a number of times".

He went on to say: "I do hope you have some influence on government members who sit on the committee as well, because I think it is very important that you take the opportunity to hear from some people within the seasonal industry".

He concluded by saying: "We in Prince Edward Island certainly support the government's move to address the situation you identified. You have the support of the Government of Prince Edward Island and, I would assume, of all the political parties in Prince Edward Island".

Based on the hon. member's assessment, does he believe that the people at the meeting in Prince Edward Island view the changes made as being very positive and forward looking, contrary to what the member for Lévis tried to indicate earlier?

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member for Malpeque.

Let me assure the member that the people on the island and across eastern Canada support the initiatives put forward. If anyone understands the problem, certainly it would be the people on the island.

They are prepared to change and they are looking for the leadership that the government, through the minister and the committee, can provide. They understand that change is inevitable and that change will accommodate those people who have been left out the system through some of the inequities of the past. If a person works 15 hours a week, those 15 hours should be recognized as a contribution.

I thank the member for raising this question. From time to time there are errors in quotations that are read. I am happy that the the minister of economic development for P.E.I. came before the committee to clarify the issue. Workers are able to see the positive initiatives and recognize that those people with less than 15 hours of week can accumulate those hours. They will recognize that through EI benefits they will be treated fairly by the system.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. By inviting his colleague to corroborate his comments, the hon. member for Malpeque tried to correct an impression. Even though I do not have the blues in front of me at this time, I remember full well the answer he gave to one of my questions. I asked him what he meant by talking to other Liberal members to convince them to ease up a little because, as he said, the changes were a little too fast.

I will ask the hon. member a very simple question to give him an opportunity to answer. Does he, who represents a riding in Prince Edward Island, agree that his fellow citizens are losing $11 million?

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the first part of the question.

When we are going through with the changes to this bill, in summary for all Canadians whether they are from the riding of the hon. member or from Prince Edward Island, I think he will find that the legislation will deal fairly with all those people who had been left out of the system.

Will there be enough money for everybody? Yes, there will. Just the idea of reducing the payment feature from $3 to $2.95 is significant. Women who had been left out of the system because they had to work at a number of small jobs are now going to become part of the process. I believe the government is to be commended. I am sure the legislation will receive support across Canada.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is not just about modernizing an outdated unemployment insurance system. It is about jobs. It is about creating new opportunities and a climate for job creation. It is about helping

unemployed Canadians find jobs. It is about breaking through the status quo, helping young people, women, displaced workers across the country get back to work quickly and back in control of their lives. It is about the government's number one priority: investing in Canadians.

In the last four months, employment jumped by 91,000 jobs, the largest quarterly growth in two years. Since November 1993, more than half a million jobs, 596,000, have been created in the country. Our job strategy is working. Employment insurance is a key part of this strategy. The cornerstone of employment insurance is set out in part II of Bill C-12, the new employment benefits.

We are making active pro-employment measures an integral part of the insurance program. We are saying that employment insurance should not just be about passive income support for the unemployed. It should help break down the barriers that keep the unemployed from working. It should help to make sure that people who lose their jobs get the help they need as they try to adjust and adapt to a fast changing economy. It should make sure that as our economy grows and changes, people get the type of assistance they need to adjust.

Employment insurance will do this by focusing on what works, the things that really make a difference for people looking for work; by working together, building bridges between different levels of government, business, communities and service organizations; by clarifying the federal government's role in the labour market and creating new flexible arrangements with the provinces and territories to harmonize the delivery of the proposed employment benefits with provincial programs.

Let us look at how these points are addressed in Bill C-12. The bill defines in the clearest and simplest way possible the objective of active employment benefits: helping people find and keep employment.

Employment benefits are focused on results and they will be managed by results. Only one rule really matters: getting people back to work. This rule is enshrined right in the legislation in section 57(1)(f). We are simplifying the maze of federal employment programs into a much simpler, more flexible set of tools that have been tried, tested and proven to get results.

For example, wage subsidies work. They encourage employers to hire an individual who is likely to face long term unemployment or barriers to employment. Under past programs people who received these subsidies were able to get an average of 16 more weeks of work, increase average annual earnings by close to $5,000, eliminate almost four weeks of social assistance, and all this at a cost of just $3,000 per participant.

Targeted earnings supplements work. They help make work for unemployed workers who need help getting re-established in a job. Self-assistance employment works to help unemployed people create their own work and in the process create work for others as well.

Our experience to date shows that these new entrepreneurs earn $142 a week more than non-participants, claim 92 per cent less UI than comparable workers and are 30 per cent less likely to use social assistance. On average, each participant who starts up a new business for themselves also creates another job for someone else.

Job creation partnerships work. Under this benefit, unemployed workers are encouraged to earn income while developing new skills and acquiring valuable work experience. This type of employment benefit not only improves an individual's future job prospects but helps to develop and diversify local economies.

We also know that skills work. The best ticket to a job for any Canadian is having the skills required for today's economy. Where provinces agree, a fifth employment benefit, skill loans and grants, will be offered, allowing unemployed workers to pursue skills training. These grants and loans will be focused on individual choice and responsibility rather than government directed training.

We also recognize that training and education are provincial responsibilities. Therefore, skill loans and grants will only be implemented in a province with the agreement of that province. In fact, one of the strengths of Bill C-12 is that it clarifies, more than ever before, federal and provincial responsibilities in this area. It commits the federal government to working in concert with provinces to help workers find jobs.

The federal government through formal agreements with provinces will ensure that the needs of the unemployed are addressed and that the employment measures allow them to return quickly to the workforce. This is an unprecedented gesture of openness and flexibility that proves federalism is a dynamic, evolving system that can change to meet the needs of real people.

Ultimately Bill C-12 is about building bridges, breaking down the old barriers that stopped us from working together in the past, and breaking down the barriers which keep Canadians from working. Results are what really matter to Canadians, no matter what level of government delivers the employment benefits and measures. Flexibility, accountability, co-operation and partnerships are the key to getting results.

Employment insurance allows new partnerships to develop and evolve for the future. It will lead to more effective labour market programs, better matched to local labour market realities. It will focus all resources and energies on the real challenge at hand; helping Canadians find and keep employment.

We will be investing some $800 million of the savings we will achieve with this legislation into active employment benefits. With the current $1.9 billion already budgeted for employment services, this means a total of $2.7 billion to actively help unemployed people get back to work.

That investment will pay off by helping up to 400,000 Canadians each year and creating more than 100,000 new jobs. In addition a $300 million transitional jobs fund will create thousands more jobs in high unemployment areas. Those are the kinds of results we need. That is what employment insurance should be all about, helping people who lose their jobs get back to work as quickly as possible.

This is a top priority for the government and for all Canadians across this country. Working Canadians want more than rigid, bureaucratic programs and an outdated UI program designed to preserve the status quo. Canadians want jobs. They want a system that gets results, an employment insurance system for the 21st century. They need a modern, active, effective employment insurance system defined in this legislation and I recommend this bill to the House.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to make a 20 minute speech, but I am told that we are now limited to 10 minutes, so I will outline 10 ideas. The first one that comes to mind is self-evident. For me, today is an ill-fated day, a sad day, because it is the third and last reading of Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform.

It is sad because this reform brings with it $2 billion in cuts, in addition to the $5 billion in cuts prescribed by the first federal budget and Bill C-17 on unemployment insurance, let us not forget.

These cuts are in addition to the others. Let us not forget either the 3 million people who, at one time or another in the past year, qualified for UI benefits. Everyone will be hit by cuts of at least 10 per cent.

But it is also sad for democracy, because if there is an important bill now under consideration, it is this one, which affects 3 million people. If there is an important bill that has been introduced by this government in the course of this Parliament, it is this one.

What did the government do with its most important bill? It tried to cover up by setting an agenda throwing as little light as possible on this bill.

I sat on the human resources development committee. We talked about a comprehensive social program reform which included an unemployment insurance reform component. We toured the country and 80 per cent of the people told us they were against this reform. We tabled our report in February 1995 and waited a very long time, until after the referendum. Seven or eight months went by before this bill was finally introduced in the House of Commons on December 1.

Why December 1? Because it was Christmastime. They were hoping that the bill would go through unnoticed, but it did not. Demonstrations were held all over the place, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. But reaction to the proposed reform was not as strong in some regions, for instance the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region. At first glance, the news does not seem to have cause much of a stir in that region.

But that is because a gag order was imposed on us, as the government repeatedly tried to prevent us from speaking up, starting at the first reading stage. Then second reading was skipped altogether and the bill underwent prestudy in committee, where limitations were put on the scope of the committee's work. Only twice since Confederation has a gag order being put on a committee and its work curtailed.

At report stage, the House was again gagged and now, at third reading, debate is limited to just one day. But the day was carefully chosen to coincide with juicier political events, or at least so they seem. First, there was Bill C-33, a bill on discrimination against homosexuals. That is an important issue, I agree. What do they do? They make this debate coincide with all the debates in Quebec and elsewhere around Mr. Bertrand's case, intended to draw media attention to an important issue indeed, namely the Canadian Constitution and the law Mr. Bertrand wishes to have invoked to prevent Quebec from achieving sovereignty. The bill before us is important, but set against this political backdrop, it is overshadowed.

I mentioned petitions. Some can be entertained by the House while other are not in order. Yesterday, I was in Beauce, a quiet region boasting the largest concentration of small and medium size businesses in Quebec, with more than 500 businesses, and I was handed a petition signed by 2,142 citizens circulated by a coalition for social fairness. Unfortunately, they forgot to specify to whom the petition was being addressed, by saying: "We pray that the House of Commons will withdraw the bill". They were opposed to the bill, but they forgot the words "House of Commons". Therefore, the petition is out of order, but I pledged to give it to whom it may concern, so, at the end of my speech, I will deliver it to the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development, because this is very important.

This morning, I tabled a petition signed by MIL Davie workers, who were hit very hard. As you know, MIL Davie is the largest private company in the Quebec City region. I looked at the impact the bill would have on these workers. Assuming that, this year, the unemployment rate and the number of jobless remain the same as in the last five years, the impact will amount to $884,280. This is

just for these workers. However, after five years, because of the recurrent effect, the shortfall for these workers from the Lévis region, who have to feed their family and buy goods and groceries, will be close to $1.4 million. People seem to forget this.

Last year, 59,000 people received unemployment insurance benefits in the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches region. These benefits totalled $586,064,393. This is a lot of money. Using the percentage set by the government itself for the purpose of the reform, that is 10 per cent when fully implemented, it means a shortfall of $58 million, almost $60 million, for the Quebec City region. This will have an impact on corner store owners, but also on automobile dealers.

It will have an impact on everyone, not just the families affected. For the province as a whole, the total economic impact of this reform when fully implemented will be an annual shortfall of $534 million, or a 10 per cent reduction.

When Liberal members rise in this House, I systematically ask them if they realize that this annual shortfall will amount to $105 million in Newfoundland, $116 million in Prince Edward Island, $63 million in Nova Scotia, $72 million in New Brunswick. In Quebec, as I said, the shortfall will be $534 million per year, in addition to some $700 million lost through Bill C-17. In other words, the Liberal government will deprive Quebecers of an annual amount of $1.2 billion in the coming years. The annual shortfall will be $380 million in Ontario, $31 million in Manitoba, $26 million in Saskatchewan, $93 million in Alberta, as for British Columbia-I heard the hon. member for Medicine Hat, a region of Alberta close to B.C.-it will be $240 million.

So, based on the government's own figures, we are talking about a total of $1.56 billion. Observers say that, on the contrary, it is over $2 billion.

There is also an impact on industries, some of which are more affected than others. In forestry, 14 per cent less; in agriculture, 12 per cent less; in manufacturing, 9 per cent less; in construction, 9 per cent less; in transportation, 8 per cent less; in the hotel industry, 8 per cent less; in mining, 7 per cent less; in government services, because of cutbacks, 7 per cent less; in real estate, 6 per cent less; in business, 6 per cent less; in finance, etc., 5 per cent less, and so on. No sector will benefit from the reform.

What is scandalous about this is that members across the way got themselves elected under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, the very one who wrote a letter on March 26, 1993 denouncing as scandalous the bill the Conservatives wanted to pass. He objected, he found it unjust. I say to him, that this bill he presented before the House is also unjust, regressive and poverty creating.

And if they think that it is only the Bloc Quebecois that is against this bill, the results of a survey appeared in Le Devoir today,

indicating Quebecers' views on the issue. The article is entitled: "75 per cent of Quebecers for patriation of unemployment insurance". But they are against the effects of the measures announced.

The Bloc Quebec is here to represent the interests of Quebec and also, as the official opposition, of all Canadians. And we feel we have people's support.

The member for Mercier gave the Minister of Human Resources Development 40,000 protest postcards from people throughout Quebec. We do not feel alone. The newspaper says that the member for Mercier found a closed door. The minister was not there, just as he was not there last week for people who had travelled 14 hours by bus to meet with him here in Ottawa. No minister wanted to meet with them. No minister, not even the Prime Minister, wanted to meet with them.

All this is to tell you in the few minutes I have that Quebec, and not just Quebec, but people from the maritimes, as well as 80 per cent of people who submitted briefs were against UI reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I have a comment on what the hon. member across the floor has just said.

I would like to comment on employment insurance and women. The bill before the House this afternoon is one which eliminates the 15 hour-week gimmick. In order to avoid having to contribute to unemployment insurance, certain employers keep their part time employees under 15 hours a week.

The new system, based on hours worked, will eliminate that invisible limit. In the new system as well, employers will have fewer reasons to limit their part time workers' hours, because all hours worked will be insurable under the system.

It must be remembered also that women make up the bulk of such workers, 69 per cent in fact. When it comes to women and employment insurance, we wanted to extend the protection offered to all part time workers. It must also be kept in mind that of the 270,000 women working part time in Canada, only 204,000 will be entitled to a refund of their contributions.

It is also worth mentioning that many women in this country hold down more than one job. They do so simply because they are not eligible for employment insurance, since they work fewer than 15 hours a week.

Another important point is that the monies paid out in employment insurance support measures will assist more than 180,000 women here in this country to find work.

My question is as follows. The hon. member opposite has made a comment about this bill being regressive in nature, and about its

creating joblessness. Does he not recognize that this bill represents a certain equity toward women?