Debates of May 6th, 1996

Employment Insurance Act

[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:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed from May 3, consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of Group No. 3 of motions.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand today to speak on this bill that is before us. I think that the Bloc Quebecois has demonstrated much consistency from the very beginning, and what it is asking is that this bill be withdrawn and that the consultation process be started all over again on a new basis.

All of us had a previous life before becoming members of this House. As for me, I was an unionist at the CSN. The way consultation is carried out in this House and the way it is carried out inside a democratic labour confederation are often like night and day because, when it comes to bills, we often have specific groups come here to defend our idea.

This time, many groups have come, but the government only heard what it wanted to hear.

The bill before us is seriously flawed, the main flaw being that we need to have another consultation process to get broader input and to better hear what victims of this bill have to say.

There are many things I want to discuss. Since I have only ten minutes at my disposal, I brought with me notes on the main aspects that I think should be reviewed, especially manpower policy and job training.

I was at the CSN for a long time and I know that labour confederations, employers, all community groups, groups acting on behalf of welfare recipients and the unemployed have long been asking for the transfer of manpower training, that is, for the return to Quebec of a structure that we already know very well because Travail Quebec centres also have training programs.

Constituents are constantly coming to my office and are telling me this: "Mr. Bachand, we do not know whom to turn to when it comes to manpower training. There are some fifty programs on the federal side and as many on the provincial one". Of course, when it comes to manpower or occupational training, there is a large consensus in Quebec and we have difficulty understanding why the government always insists on remaining active in this area of jurisdiction.

I also had a quick look at the whole reform, and examined the numbers involved perhaps just a bit more carefully. We think the reform is very negative because it is unfair. It is unfair because, under the present system and depending on the regions where they live, some people must work 15 hours a week for 12 to 15 weeks, or between 180 and 300 hours, before becoming entitled to UI. From now on, they will have to work 35 hours a week for 12 to 20 weeks, that is to say between 420 and 700 hours.

It is understandable that in regions where there is more work, people are expected to work for longer periods. Nevertheless, the government is doubling the number of hours required to be eligible for unemployment insurance. The Minister of Finance, who is among us today, must be happy with the measure presented by his colleague. This measure will inject more money into the fund, which already receives quite a lot of money. The minister will no doubt use it to reduce the deficit.

Naturally, it is the unemployed and welfare recipients who will suffer most since, in today's context, which is the complete opposite of what the Liberals promised-that is jobs, jobs, jobs-when your unemployment insurance benefits run out, you become a welfare recipient. We often hear the federal ministers say that they have created thousands of jobs since they came to power.

What they do not say is that there were also job losses. When we look at the figures, we note that there are fewer jobs now than there were when this government came to power. This explains why the minister is presenting us a reform that, once more, will penalize the most disadvantaged.

We could also mention the people who are just starting to work. We all remember our first day at work. We were very happy to come back home with a paycheck and be able to say that finally we were contributing to society and were recognized as workers. Many young people have a job paid at minimum wage. From now on, they will have to pay employment insurance premiums and work 910 hours to become eligible. If you have a weekend job in a McDonald's and work only ten hours a week, it takes time to accumulate 910 hours. Therefore, this reform is unfair for new workers also.

This reform is also regressive because it causes a lot of distortion. The bill only succeeds in getting more money for the fund. However, it introduces a lot of negativism, and I have just described a part of that. But the fact that the maximum insurable earnings are being lowered from $42,000 to $39,000 means that a person earning more than $39,000 will not pay premiums anymore. So instead of hiring another employee, employers will ask their present workers to work overtime because over $39,000 the employer and the employee pay no more premiums. This measure is not conducive to job creation.

At the present time, society is thinking about job sharing. When one wants to stimulate job creation to give work to more people, this is exactly the kind of measure that is counterproductive because employers and employees will seize the opportunity to do overtime, thus avoiding paying unemployment insurance contributions since maximum insurable earnings are set at $39,000.

The measure will also create poverty because not only will people be told that there is less work, but their benefits will also be reduced. The shortening of the benefit period will throw more people on social assistance. We saw the impact of the changes implemented in 1994 on social assistance in Quebec. There was a major increase in the number of social assistance recipients and the provinces, not the federal government, have to foot the bill.

The federal government can argue that it makes transfers for social assistance programs, but we know that those transfers decrease steadily. Meanwhile, Quebec taxpayers have to pay through their Quebec taxes for the federal withdrawal from these jurisdictions. In the 1994 reform, there were $2.4 billion in cuts for all of Canada, including $735 million for Quebec. The new measures represent a further loss of $600 million for Quebec. So, since 1994, we lost about $1.3 billion for the unemployed.

This is a terrible blow for areas crippled by unemployment. As I said, this means that less federal funds will be made available and that more people will end up on welfare.

I also said that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry must be very happy.

If we consider the principles and duties of a government that is supposed to redistribute wealth, we wonder what the industry minister is doing. He goes around telling businesses like Bell and the financial institutions: "You should not lay people off. You should be careful. The good way to redistribute wealth and to create more jobs is to keep people at work".

On the other hand, the minister is a lot less in a hurry to introduce bills dealing with the banks which made profits of $5 billion and Bell which made $2 or $3 billion profit while continuing to lay people off. The government is quick to attack the disadvantaged, those who are jobless and desperate.

We have also seen that the government is quick to close debates. We are speaking on behalf of the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians, 414,000 of whom are in Quebec. We are going to tell these people that we were not given enough time to defend ourselves. Who will defend these people if not the Bloc Quebecois? We do not defend Quebecers only, but Canadians as well. And the government has just told Canadians and Quebecers that it will not allow them to express their views any longer because it wants to ram its bill through and, in order to do that, it will impose time allocation to prevent us from acting as the government's conscience. That is our job here, but we are prevented from doing it.

So we will be more than happy to show Canadians what kind of government they are dealing with.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise at noon today to speak to Bill C-12, a bill which, by the way, the official opposition is prevented from debating as fully as it would have wished because of the gag you have just allowed, when all we want is to defend the poorest members of Canadian society.

First of all, Bill C-12 sets out to change the name "unemployment insurance" to "employment insurance", as though it were a disgrace to draw UI benefits. So, from now on, it will be called employment insurance.

I had a discussion with a member of the Liberal government, who tried to win me over to his way of seeing things by explaining that employment insurance should operate on the same principle as car insurance, the idea being that if you have a car accident, fine, two accidents, not quite so fine, and, after three, your insurance rates go up because you are a high risk case. This same MP tried to convince me that seasonal workers depended on UI for a living.

Since those who grow Christmas trees, woodcutters, or fishermen, for example, must turn to UI year after year, they would be poor clients for the insurance company, which would either have to raise its rates or lower its benefits.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are ill, at a low ebb, you have cancer perhaps. And their idea of gratitude is to bump up your health insurance premiums, whether or not you can afford it. Or perhaps they would say: "You are ill, we will take less care of you". Yes, just like you are going to do with employment insurance. You will penalize the so-called frequent users. It is crazy.

Worse yet, the surplus in the fund this year will be over $5 billion. Those $5 billion will be taken mainly from the workers' pockets, in a variety of ways, but particularly by increasing the number of weeks worked.

Your reply will be that I have misunderstood, that what we are looking at is not insurable weeks any more, it is hours. But in your calculations-of course I mean the government's calculations-a week is 35 hours, but all hours are counted. So the logger slogging away in the woods could accumulate ten 84 hour weeks. With his 10 weeks at 84 hours a week, he would become eligible after 10 weeks, because that would total 840 hours, assuming he is not a first time user of UI. He would be eligible because the 840 would be divided by 35, which would give more than the 20 or 22 weeks required.

Now to take the example of Mrs. Blouin, of Saint-Nazaire Street in Thetford Mines. She works at Cooprix, a supermarket, and averages 15 to 24 hours a week. Because the unemployment rate in the Chaudière-Appalaches region is 8 per cent, this lady will have great difficulty in becoming eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

According to Bill C-12, and using the example of the Chaudière-Appalaches region with its 8 per cent unemployment, this lady would have to work 18 weeks at 35 hours a week which, by my calculations, makes 630 hours. This lady works a very few hours, although she would love to have 35 hours a week. There just is not enough work.

I would also like to point out that, in the various regions, calculation of the unemployment rate is sometimes very roundabout, I would not go so far as to say the figures are fiddled with, but obtained in a roundabout way, yes. It is strange, however, that in the Chaudière-Appalaches region the rate of unemployment is only 8 per cent, down 2 per cent in the past three years, yet there has been a 4 per cent increase in welfare recipients.

So there we have the see saw effect, take people away from the UI side and put them onto the welfare side. To all intents and purposes, the federal government assumed an area of provincial jurisdiction in 1940, imposing itself on an area that was not within its purview, over the objections of Maurice Duplessis. Now, in order to make that area more cost-effective, it is pushing the most disadvantaged off onto an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely social assistance. You will share my opinion that the trick of changing unemployment insurance into employment insurance is both mean spirited and crooked.

It had been the wish of the Bloc to withdraw eligibility from those who leave jobs of their own free will. In the bill, those who quit would have serious difficulties in drawing employment insurance, unemployment insurance benefits. It is comical to see how the folks in the Liberal Party are changing their tune.

In 1990, when it was in the opposition, the Liberal Party had emphatically and fiercely objected to the conservative government's plan to penalize workers who voluntarily quit their jobs. You know as well as I do what is going on in some plants. Their was an article in La Presse two weeks ago saying that some plant managers literally exploit their employees. Many of them have to quit before they drop dead on the job or suffer a breakdown. Their notice of termination of employment indicates that they left of their own will. Some employers-fortunately not all of them but their will always be some-take advantage of their employees and will do it even more in the future.

The hon. member for Malpeque, fortunately for him, was not a member of the House of Commons in 1990. Had he been part of the Liberal clan at that time, I believe he would have acted the same way. When Liberals were in opposition, that rule was not acceptable to them. It had to be eliminated in order to prevent abuse. Now that they are in power, the Liberals once more take advantage of the neediest.

Another measure I find deplorable is that all gains over $39,000 are no longer insurable. In return, the maximum amount of benefits to which workers could be eligible will be reduced. Since my time is already up, I would like to urge this government and the finance minister to look at other avenues, other alternatives before reducing their deficit on the back of the most disadvantaged people.

I invite the finance minister, through you Mr. Speaker, to register all his boats in Canada and to pay a little more income tax. He can afford it. I also invite him, when he purchases new ships, to buy them in Canada rather than in Asia, for instance. That would create jobs here.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the employment insurance bill since it has dominated the best part of the last 18 months of my being here.

The system has worked in large measure. The social security review took place and a committee of Parliament went across Canada talking about our social programs and how they might be reorganized. I will be the first to acknowledge that not all the things that people asked were done, but as a member of the committee I can tell members that people were listened to and those interventions had an impact.

The minister put forward a bill after that exercise. While a good start on the reform, it had some flaws. Rather than stubbornly holding to the bill, significant amendments have not only been allowed or accepted but actually encouraged.

That is evidence the system can work and that these pieces of legislation can be significantly improved in the interest of Canadians, and in our case specifically seasonal workers in all parts of Canada, certainly in Atlantic Canada.

Three major amendments we have witnessed have to do with the so-called intensity rule, the gap and the divisor. I will speak specifically about the benefits of the bill so that those who are involved in debate will realize exactly what it is they would have us not do if they got their way and were able to through the bill out.

Specifically, because of the shift from weeks to hours as the measure of eligibility, essentially the government is saying that if a person works a 70 hour week, which many people in Atlantic Canada are very familiar with, with this change the employee is getting the value of two weeks under the existing law. In other words, someone who works 70 hours gets the value of one week. After this amendment, the value of 70 hours will be two weeks for all intents and purposes. That means that on average many people in my part of Canada will get into the UI system more easily than has been the case for many years. This is probably the first time in six or seven years that the system has been more accessible rather than less accessible.

Because the value is on hours rather than on weeks, at the end of the claim there is an additional period of eligibility because eligibility is based on how much one works. If the number of weeks worked is limited, regardless if it was 15 hours a week or 75 hours a week, under the present rules it is one week. With the new system every hour will be counted. On average for Atlantic Canada it will mean about two additional weeks of eligibility at the end of a claim. That is very important.

Ultimately the effect is that we are allowing more people in the current labour pool, the people who are in and out of the program regularly, more access to a nationally based income redistribution program.

There are those in the third party who are very negative, to be polite, about the social policy aspects of the unemployment insurance program. It is important to accept and understand the extent of this very real and important element of EI, that there are communities, industries and families in the country that, while they can work for a period of time each year, cannot work all year and cannot make enough money during their working period to sustain the family year round. This is a very efficient way of dealing with the problem.

I would accept that the first two budgets of the government had the effect of making unemployment insurance, soon to be employment insurance, harder to get. However, the amendment will go in the opposite direction and make the program more accessible. It is something very important to the people working in seasonal industries, particularly in Atlantic Canada but also across the country. That in itself is sufficient reason to applaud the government for the amendment.

There is also the low income supplement. Families with incomes of less than $26,000 will see their benefits increased as much as 13 per cent. That is again in keeping with the social policy objectives in the employment insurance program. That is good news particularly for those who simply cannot make enough money in part of a year to sustain a family. This should be applauded by all concerned for those families that receive less than $26,000.

All those people who were held at 14 hours per week because their employer did not want to pay benefits will now have first hour coverage. I will be the first to admit it will be more difficult for first time entrants to get into the system. However, if they worked anything up to 14 hours in the past they had absolutely no access whatsoever.

Because of the change in the way the employment benefits or non-income based aspects of the program are being reorganized many people will have access to employment benefits, the human resources investment fund benefits, who have been on unemployment insurance in the last three years, or five years if it was for maternity or sickness benefits.

That means all of those people we have heard about who were in programs because they were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits will now be entitled to benefits after their income benefits are exhausted. That is a major improvement. We all know of cases where people were in programs and as soon as their income benefits were exhausted they were out of the program.

This is a very contentious part of the bill. I would like to speak to its objective, that new entrants will have a harder time than in the past. That has often been brought to our attention. We will have to

deal with it. We will have to improve it. We will have to recognize where the weaknesses and the faults are.

Generally speaking, it is important for Canadians to talk about what it means when kids leave school to go into industries where ultimately they will be sustained only by a social program such as UI. I do not want that for my kids. I do not want to hold out for my children the possibility of going into an industry which in all likelihood will be short lived.

They will be sustained only because of the existence of the unemployment insurance program. I recognize our obligation to the people who are there now. However, it is a difficult question for me whether we want to attract more people to those programs. I acknowledge our responsibility to replace the job opportunities with other opportunities for young Canadians, but I am not sure I can abide by an objective which would see people drawn into a system which would provide unemployment insurance as a means of livelihood well into the future.

I strongly believe the system has to be improved and changed. When the bill was presented many of us were very concerned about its weaknesses. After doing our homework we were able to affect the outcome of law. I feel good about that. I thank the minister and my colleagues who joined with me in the process.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague opposite and I would have thought that, following consultations with the various groups and organizations which appeared before the human resources development committee, he would be tempted to try to change the attitude of his government on this reform.

The bill before us-and I am sure my colleague will agree-is based on very dubious assumptions. First, the government tells us that claimants abuse the system. This is totally wrong. When there are no jobs anywhere, when the campaign promise to create jobs is not kept, it is pretty hard to ask people to work. So it is not surprising that the number of unemployed has been continually rising since the 1993 election.

Another assumption of this bill is that jobs are available.

Yes, and about those jobs that are available, we would like to know where they are, who they are for and how they could be filled.

When we have no control over job training, we can ask why jobs are available, because training will be provided in areas where there is no need. Therefore, for this very reason, shortages develop in certain areas, in certain types of jobs, resulting in there being no takers. Is it the fault of the workers? No. I say no it is not the fault of the workers. It is the fault of the federal government, which cannot agree with the provinces to relinquish the field of job training to them.

Training belongs to those closest to the people. We are too far removed here to know exactly what is happening in my region. So, let us leave it up to people in the regions to decide what sort of training they are going to give. So, let us leave it up to the provinces to look after things. That way, we can avoid useless expenditure.

This bill, therefore, is not focussed on the real challenge of the social programs. There is only one way to meet the challenge of the social programs, and that is by creating jobs, and they have not managed to do so. Jobs, jobs, jobs is what they promised. There are none, and they have not created any either.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We have created them.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

They have not created any, they have created jobless individuals.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Oh, no. We did create jobs.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Sure. It wakes certain people up when they are told that. Of course it is upsetting. It is distressing for them to be reminded of one of their promises. The one that brought them to power was the promise to create jobs, but they have not created any. Of course, it is hard to accept.

I am really wondering about how we could make this government understand that a majority of Canadian citizens do not want this reform. How can we go about it? Everywhere we go, we are told this reform is inequitable, unfair and inefficient. Those are terms we often hear.

It is a reform which will make citizens poorer still. And who are those who are becoming poorer? Mostly young people, women and those who will be left out. People will be stuck in the same vicious cycle: a small project here, an odd job there, then UI benefits, welfare and so on. It will become impossible to get out of this vicious cycle.

This reform is ruining collective instruments we had elaborated here, based on a social consensus. People accepted to share some of the common wealth. Today, they do not care anymore about this great principle. They even use the UI fund surplus not to create jobs but precisely to reduce the deficit. This money would be better spent and more profitable if it were used to create jobs, all the more so since the government is no longer contributing to the fund. As a consequence, it now belongs to workers and employers.

We have no right to take money in this fund belonging to those who pay into it. If we do so, it should not be to erase a deficit but to try to improve things for workers.

I was in my riding last Saturday. I walked with union leaders, priests, seniors, young people, board of trade representatives, city councillors, business owners, men and women of common sense.

They were demonstrating with me to tell the government they did not want this UI reform.

So there was another demonstration. I did not see any activist behind it, although they say that all these demonstrations are organized by people who are paid to do so. I did not see that. It was organized by social services, humanitarian organizations and community groups, all ordinary people.

However, not one single Liberal Party representative was present at that demonstration. None. There were no Liberals to answer people's questions. What I saw were ordinary people, people who want to change their lives, people who think restructuring work and the labour market is important, but that it should not be done the way it is being done now, with this bill.

There was also a group which seized that opportunity to bring me a petition, a group of people from Ferland-et-Boilleau in the Chicoutimi riding, a town of approximately 680 people. More than three-fourths of them signed the petition. Unfortunately, I know we will have to vote on the bill this week and maybe there will not be time to have the petition certified by the clerk and tabled in the House. Therefore, I am speaking on their behalf. They said: "Please ask the government to abandon its unemployment insurance reform".

These small-town people are honest, hard-working and a good part of them do not have a steady job as we say. They do not have that opportunity over there. Why? Because most of them find their livelihood in logging and a few others in tourism. You will have understood that they are seasonal workers, and we know what the bill has in store for them. They know full well, they do understand that this reform will push several of them onto welfare. As welfare recipients, they will no longer depend on the federal government, but on provincial governments.

This is another way to shovel the deficit and an ever increasing debt into the provinces' backyards. Seasonal workers can be found just about anywhere in the country. I say it again, they are the ones who are going to be the most severely penalized by this reform. Why? Because they cannot find work year round, a permanent job is a thing of the past. It does not exist any more, and the present reform does not take this fact into account.

Sure, there are other kinds of seasonal workers: forestry workers, people working in the tourism industry, construction workers; we cannot say that the construction industry is very healthy in Canada right now. The housing sector is a bit like the fleet of taxis around here, it is going to ratchet.

This means that the value of houses is decreasing because people can no longer afford to keep them in good repair, which has a domino effect on municipalities since they have to lower the assessment. We cannot say that the construction industry is healthy. Work in this sector is truly seasonal.

Since you are indicating that my time is running out, I will stop. On Saturday, I was asked to do something else; people told me to make sure that the government would not adopt this reform. I could not make such a promise. When I make a promise, I try to keep it.

There are a few hours left before we are called to vote on this reform; members opposite should be thinking about what has been happening in the last year and a half or two years since we have been talking about this reform, and realize people are going to be forced onto welfare because of it. They should change their mind.

For the sake of all these people, of all the workers who do not waste their time drinking beer-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is expired. The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill. We are creating jobs for young people and I want to share some facts with my colleagues.

Here are some of the facts with respect to creating new opportunities for youth. I want to share a number of points. An estimated 39,000 young Canadians who cannot qualify for UI today will now qualify for employment insurance benefits once this bill becomes law. Funding for youth is being boosted by 22 per cent from $193 million last year to $236 million this year. That is a substantial amount.

The Team Canada partnerships with provinces and businesses will give unemployed young people opportunities to develop hard, job ready skills. We recognize the difficulties facing many youths and students. As such, the Government of Canada will double its funding for summer student jobs in 1996.

For young people, once this becomes law, every hour of work will now count. Weeks are often a poor measure of time spent on the job, particularly for part time workers and multiple job holders. Four out of ten part time workers in Canada are young people under 25 years of age. Under employment insurance all work will be insured.

Employment insurance will provide income protection for more young people if they work enough hours. The hours based system will remove the glass ceiling that limits part time workers, including many young workers, to less than 15 hours a week. This will benefit many young people who start out with a number of small jobs to gain work experience.

As well, employment insurance will provide fairer premiums to many youth. About 625,000 young people will have their premiums refunded because they earn $2,000 a year or less. This represents nearly half of the 1.3 million who will receive the rebate.

For students the new system will have little impact from one perspective. For example, a student who works 14 hours a week for $7 an hour would pay less than $3 a week in premiums. In return the work is insured which is a very important objective.

Many youth will gain valuable experience with employment insurance's active employment benefits. The government is investing $800 million a year from employment insurance reform savings into direct, proven measures to get Canadians back to work. Several employment insurance employment tools will help get unemployed youth back to work.

Targeted wage subsidies will help young people get to work and get the work experience they need to round out their résumés and to qualify for jobs in the new economy.

Job creating partnerships will bring government and community groups together to give unemployed youth opportunities to gain hard, new, employable skills.

These are but some of the measures.

And here are some more. You certainly know that not everyone needs an employment benefit to find a new job. The national employment service will help young people to find jobs in new and emerging industries and to receive training for 21st century jobs.

At the present time, two million Canadians, including many young people, use information and counselling services to look for jobs. A reinforced and automated job market information system will tell young people where there are jobs available.

Human Resources Development Canada staff will also show young people how to be more efficient in their job search, through new services, especially group information sessions designed to speed up as much as possible their return to the work force.

Investing in our youth is the top priority of this government and an essential part of our job strategy. Youth unemployment is presently around 16 per cent. That is one and a half times more than the national average. Many young people go to school and rely on their summer job, or on a more regular job, to pay for their studies and to acquire the work experience they really need.

The government recognizes the difficult situation in which young people are. That is why it has taken several initiatives to respond to their concerns. We recognize that a post-secondary diploma is becoming an essential element of job stability. The budget is allocating an additional $165 million over three years to help students and their families meet the increasing cost of education.

To assist young people, we are extending the eligibility to the allowance for child care expenses in order to help a greater number of young parents working nights or going back to school.

Easier student loan repayment provisions will also give our young people a break. Young graduates will be in a better position to repay their loans when they have joined the labour force. All these measures show the absolute priority we place on giving our young people a leg up in an increasingly competitive and hard market.

I have just shared with my colleagues some facts which are rarely discussed by opposition members, in fact, which they do not even mention. Members opposite saw it as their role to attack the bill. I recognize that role as basic in a democracy such as ours. But I would have appreciated receiving concrete and specific suggestions, with related costs, as to how the bill could be improved. In addition to criticism, we would like to hear some solutions.

As I was saying, I have shared with my colleagues a number of key points with respect to this legislation. These are facts. If opposition members wish to dispute them, they may do so. I would be delighted to respond.

I find it surprising that they would not have put the positives as well as that which they see as potential negatives in front of us. We would then have a more balanced picture of what it is that is happening.

It is unfortunate there are no specifics costed out, potential responses to those weaknesses which they see. That would have improved not only the dialogue, the debate, the exchange, the discussion but perhaps even this legislation.

Having made those points, I would hope that in the spirit of the democratic ideal of this House of Commons we would look at that which is good and no matter what our political party allegiance, say it. Then look at that which can be improved on and indicate how that might be so.

I conclude with these few comments.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member for St. Boniface criticized the official opposition, I have no choice but to reply to him. The hon. member comes from a very nice region where the francophonie thrived and is still alive.

However, people in his region cannot get a daily French newspaper, only a weekly one.

I discussed this issue with the hon. member for St. Boniface about a year ago, but the situation has not changed.

The member, who spoke eloquently about education during most of his speech comes from a province that, since about the beginning of the century, has been violating the rights of French speaking people to education in their own language. I find it hard to understand the member's sudden interest for education and youth.

If he is serious about giving his attention to this issue, he should read the Constitution carefully. He will probably be surprised to find out that education and training are two areas that come under provincial jurisdiction. This is not a statement made by bad separatists: it is, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the House one sits, spelled out in the Constitution. We are simply asking the government to comply with the Constitution.

We are told that we only criticize, that we do not fulfil our responsibility to propose positive changes. I remind the hon. member that about 75 per cent of all those who sent submissions to the human resources development committee opposed Bill C-12. As elected representatives we represent people and we say that this bill, as the hon. member for Chicoutimi said earlier, is unacceptable to them.

If Bill C-12 is so promising for young people, how-I too will conclude by asking the member a question-can we accept that, if it is passed, a new entrant will have to have worked three times more than under the current system, that is 910 hours? This requirement alone shows how absurd Bill C-12 is in the way it treats young people. If the member can, at some point, provide an answer I want him to explain how this requirement of 910 hours, which is three times the number currently required in the case of young people or women who apply for the first time. These were my answers to the member for St. Boniface, along with a question.

Before getting on with my speech as such, I want to congratulate two members whom I know very well-there were certainly others who were out there this past weekend-and one of them even got a sunburn during the demonstration. I am referring to the hon. member for Chicoutimi who, along with local interest groups, succeeded in getting over 1,000 people to protest against Bill C-12, and the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who also convinced many of his constituents to come protest and show their discontent regarding this bill. I believe that people in every riding and region have shown their dissatisfaction with this legislation.

However, the best way to avoid all these problems with Bill C-12 remains job creation. Government, however, does not create jobs. We have seen how ineffectual this government is in that field also.

In my riding, there are two groups that are creating jobs. Since we are talking about unemployment insurance, employment insurance and jobs, I want to point out the outstanding work done by these two groups. I will start with the Société de développement économique de la Rive-Nord, under the chairmanship of Raymond Gervais.

This economic development corporation, which brings together the communities of the regional county municipality of L'Assomption, is doing outstanding work. With the stakeholders and the businessmen and women in the community, this economic development corporation seeks to attract businesses to our area and has had more than its fair share of success at it. It has a pretty good record of job creation, I want to emphasize that.

There is also the Société de développement économique des Moulins inc., which forms the other part of my riding, that is the regional county municipality of Les Moulins, except for the city of Mascouche; its chairwoman, Lise Brouillette, is doing a tremendous work to attract and keep businesses and to help create and maintain jobs in the area. Hats off to the Société de développement économique de la Rive-Nord, as well as to the Société de développement économique des Moulins inc.

These two organizations work day in and day out to create jobs. When I last spoke on Bill C-12, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to my Liberal colleagues the problem with the Terrebonne employment centre which does not make any sense.

Let me remind those who might have forgotten or not heard about it that the Terrebonne employment centre was affected by the infamous employment centres restructuring, as improvised as the infamous constitutional process, and was asked, summoned or ordered to move to a brand new building the federal government has rented for ten years in order to meet the required standards.

Even before the official opening of the new employment centre, not a few weeks after but before the opening, the director of the centre received a nice letter asking him to inform his staff that in a few months time, within a year or two, the number of employees would have to be reduced from around a hundred down to 10 or 15.

This is truly the way to destroy the climate in a workplace. This is truly the way to inspire the people hired to help young people, women and everybody to find a job. Instead of trying to encourage the people who try to help others find a job, we crush them by sending them a letter in which they are told, even before the official

opening of their brand new centre, that it will be closed and they will have to move. We do not know when, we do not know where, but do not worry.

The homeowners, the children in school and the people in that community cannot accept what is going on, and I, as their member, cannot accept it either. That is why however often we speak of unemployment insurance-and I can say it in this House-we will never accept this decision on the Terrebonne employment centre.

Now, as for the bill itself, as I said a little while ago to my colleague from St. Boniface who prides himself on having implemented, contrary to what he used to say when he was in opposition, a system that is truly against the people, how can he accept and tell the people that 75 per cent of the briefs that were presented to the human resources committee havbe been ignored? Some 75 per cent of the briefs that were tabled expressed serious reservations,or simply called for the withdrawal of Bill C-12.

Even researchers hired by the department to assess the reform expressed serious reservations, and one of them is Marc Van Audenrode. He said: "If we can easily imagine what the impact of a specific amendment on one aspect of a system would be, it is almost impossible to imagine what the consequences of an as deep a reform as the one proposed would be. I could, like many other economists, give a very precise evaluation of what, I think, the consequences of reduced benefit periods or replacement rates would be, but I cannot give even a hint of what the consequences of the proposed reform would be and, frankly, I do not think any economist can". My colleague from St. Boniface has probably just got his degree in economics, because he gave us all the figures demonstrating that it was a good thing to cut young people and women off and to ask them to work three times longer to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

I want to quote some briefs that were tabled. "The two-tier system created by this legislation goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it discriminates against women and young people. The government is blaming those who have to live with decisions dictated by financial considerations". That was from the Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec. Another brief that was submitted says this: "The potential advantages of a system based on the number of hours worked are nullified by the increased number of hours labour force entrants or re-entrants, or other people, must accumulate to become eligible for benefits. A disproportionate number of women and young people belong to the labour force entrant or re-entrant category". That was from the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

Some will say that all these comments are from Quebec. Here is one from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. "Benefits will be reduced through a number of proposals. This reduction is economically and morally unjustified. The proposals will have severe repercussions on women who earn less than men in general and who will receive benefits that will be much lower than those paid to men". Again, that was from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

I will read you one more comment-I have several others-that comes from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. "The use of family income to determine eligibility (to the family supplement) is discriminatory against women. We are opposed to the dilution of unemployment insurance through a form of income support similar to welfare; if this measure is adopted, it should not have the effect of making women even less independent". Those were some of the comments-and there are many more-indicating that the majority of people, not only in Quebec, who have anything to do with this bill are strongly opposed to it. That is the most astonishing thing.

As for manpower training, it should not even be an issue. In Quebec, everybody agrees that manpower training should be the responsibility of the province. It is a unanimous opinion. Even Ghislain Dufault, who could be cited as an example, agrees that the federal government should withdraw, that it would be much simpler.

In conclusion, the minister talked about abusers. We also have statistics on abusers. We were told that this bill would eliminate abuse or reduce the number of abusers. The percentage of benefits received by abusers among unemployment insurance recipients is 0.0068 per cent. If, for less than 1 per cent, the government is willing to make everybody pay, we will certainly not support such a measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have heard a great many wild claims from the members of the Bloc Quebecois about the negative impacts of Bill C-12.

Members of the Bloc have made no secret of the fact that they do not like the legislation. It is rather disappointing to see a party allow its ideologically driven aspirations for a separate Quebec completely override a fact driven interpretation of the bill.

What seems very clear is that members of the Bloc cannot possibly support changes that will improve a federal program to help more Canadians get and keep jobs and that will, in fact, create up to 100,000 new jobs for workers, both in Quebec and across Canada. It would be an admission that Canada can be made to work better for all Quebecers and all Canadians.

They have not looked at this legislation on its merits. They simply make a series of outrageous claims which bear little or no relationship to the reality of the bill, claims which I believe must be responded to so that all Canadians, including Quebecers, understand the true nature of this very progressive and very necessary piece of legislation.

The member for Mercier, for example, said that the lower revenues of $900 million resulting from a reduction in the maximum insurable earnings will be made up by those: "who currently do not pay unemployment insurance contributions". The member for Louis-Hébert says: "Making part time workers, students and so on contribute will bring $900 million into the unemployment insurance fund and what makes that measure so pervasive is that it will allow the government to give the money to the richer workers".

What are the facts? Of the 500,000 workers who will have their work insured for the first time, 76 per cent or 380,000 will have their premiums refunded. The remaining 120,000 new premium payers will pay a total of $14 million and they will be eligible to claim benefits if they become unemployed.

That is not all. Nine hundred and twenty thousand low income individuals who are paying premiums today will have about $30 million in premiums refunded. Also, while more part time workers will be insured under EI, fewer of them will actually pay premiums. As a group they will pay $6 million less in premiums than they do today.

The biggest impact of moving to first dollar coverage in terms of premiums payments will be a lifting of the weekly maximum. This will mean that individuals with high weekly incomes will pay their fair share of premiums for the first time.

What is more, 350,000 low income claimants with families will now be eligible for a supplement which will increase their benefits to up to 80 per cent of weekly earnings from the standard 55 per cent rate. On average, this means an increase in income of some 12 per cent. In addition, they will be exempt from the intensity rule by which repeat users will see a modest reduction of benefits. As well, people will also be able to earn up to $50 per week while on claim without having their benefits reduced.

The facts are the opposite of what the Bloc members have been saying. Low income workers are not financing the reduction of the MIE. Low income workers will see their situation improve under this legislation.

The member for Mercier also claims that by reducing the MIE the government is giving a gift to major corporations and workers earning between $39,000 and $42,000. First, reducing the MIE to $39,000 means that it will be about 17 per cent above the average wage in the year 2000. Left alone it would have grown to about 47 per cent above the average.

While some high income earners and their employers will pay a bit less in premiums, which works out to about $150 a year, it also means high income workers will receive substantially less in benefits; nearly $2,340 less. As the House can see, what the member for Mercier is saying and what are the facts are two very different things. That can hardly be categorized as a gift to high income workers.

I want to bring a matter to the floor of the House. The member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans adds that women will not be able to meet the requirement as it will mean 910 hours of work a year. First, the 910 hours to qualify for EI benefits only applies to the first year in the labour market for a new entrant or a re-entrant in order to establish a reasonable attachment to the labour market before being eligible for insurance benefits. By the second year, provided the person has at least 490 hours of work in the first, they need only meet the variable entrance requirement of 420 to 700 hours. It does not go on year after year, as has been suggested by members opposite.

The reason for this change is very obvious. That low first time entry requirement can encourage young people to take temporary, unstable work rather than completing their education. The message to young people is clear. Do not drop out of school with a plan to work in a low wage job for a few months, then live off EI benefits. You will have to work longer to qualify and the new rules will also require you to do a lot more to find work.

Members opposite should also be aware that there are special provisions for women re-entering the labour force. They will be eligible for the new re-employment measures for up to five years after leaving the labour force rather than the three-year limit for regular claimants.

The member for Ahuntsic claims that the reform is an attack against seasonal workers. This is very close to my heart and to many people in this place and to part time workers. He states that eligibility requirements have been tightened. What the member does not say is that about 90,000 individuals who become unemployed today and cannot qualify for UI, will qualify for EI benefits. This includes 45,000 seasonal workers who have long hours of work but not enough insured weeks to qualify for benefits. It also includes about 45,000 part time workers and multiple job holders who have none or only certain weeks of their work insured today.

The member should also know that the amendments presented in the committee to address the issues of gaps in income of workers in seasonal jobs plus the new divisor rule will greatly help workers

in seasonal industries by providing them with a longer period to access eligibility for benefits.

When we look at the facts versus what is being said by members opposite it is obvious that this is very good legislation which will help a large number of people.

I want to use this opportunity to set the record straight on part II of Bill C-12. The member for Mercier criticized Bill C-12 for not contributing to getting the unemployed back to work. She said: "We claim, and we have every evidence to support our claim, that not only does the bill not guarantee a job, nor promote job creation, but also that it is anti-job". This is false and I want to set the record straight.

Employment insurance is a full employment system. It provides the framework for providing practical, proven measures which will help Canadians get back to work quickly and keep working. Of the $2 billion in savings achieved by EI, $800 million or 40 per cent will be reinvested in active re-employment measures. That will be added to the $1.9 billion the government already spends out of general revenues. A total of $2.7 billion will be going to address structural unemployment.

The active employment measures designed to help Canadians get back to work quickly include wage subsidies, income supplements, support for self-employment, community job partnerships and skills, loans and grants. They will help up to 400,000 Canadians to find work and get back to work. On top of that, a $300 million transitional job fund is being put in place to stimulate job creation in high unemployment areas.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the Government of Canada is working closely with the provinces to better co-ordinate support programs for unemployed Canadians, the member for Quebec still claims that unemployment insurance is funded by the provinces and that it is the federal government that tells the provinces what kind of programs and what kind of measures must be implemented to help those who cannot find a job. That statement is wrong on two counts. First, it is employers and employees who fund the program through their premiums, not the provinces. Second, the bill sets out a framework for new federal-provincial agreements on labour market arrangements aimed at eliminating duplication and overlap.

The bill permits a variety of flexible delivery methods for employment measures. I want members opposite to realize that people in Quebec are not going to buy into the rhetoric. What they want are the facts. What I have laid before the House are the facts. I wish members opposite would take the time to read the bill.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Gibbard Furniture Shops

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in extending best wishes for continued success to Canada's oldest and finest furniture manufacture, Gibbard Furniture Shops of Napanee. Gibbard designs and crafts some of the world's finest furniture.

Gibbard furniture can be found abroad in private homes and in more than 70 Canadian embassies. Most recently, Gibbard has expanded into the Japanese marketplace, where the exceptional craftsmanship and quality wood that goes into their furniture is appreciated. Bruce McPherson, Sr., tells me that the Japanese are especially interested in the solid cherry furniture produced in their historic Napanee landmark.

Founded in 1835 by John Gibbard, the company is celebrating 160 years in business. Four generations of Gibbards and, since 1940, two generations of the McPherson family have operated this firm.

Congratulations to them, their predecessors and their talented employees on achieving an exceptional and well-deserved reputation. Please join me in wishing Gibbard Furniture Shops continued success into the next millennium.

Employment

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to do something about the government's poor track record in helping the unemployed find jobs, the constituents of Québec-Est formed Solidarité-emploi Laurentien, a not for profit organization bringing together the unemployed and employers in the Quebec City area.

In two years, Solidarité-emploi has helped over 500 people in the region to find work. This is a real success story, and we congratulate the organizers, including president Suzanne Lessard, and encourage them to keep up their splendid work.

There is one question, however. Should the government not provide them with adequate support, with the resources that they must have to continue operating? It seems not.

Despite repeated requests, the minister will not see them. The federal Liberal government is not doing very well at creating jobs, but here we have an example of a local initiative achieving extraordinary success.

Congratulations to Solidarité-emploi Laurentien.