Debates of Oct. 26th, 1998

Supply

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises an excellent point that I did not have time to mention in my presentation. As a matter of fact what we have here is regional inequality. If we are to give something to one part of the country, why on earth would we not give it to the rest of the family?

I have 17% unemployment in my home town of Prince George. We do not have access to a program like this one. If this program after evaluation has been determined to have some merit, to give it to one section of the country, one small section only, is basically saying to the rest of the country that it just does not count.

The Liberal government has been doing this to Canada as long as it has been in power, as have the Tories before it. It favours one part of the country over another. It has fostered in the nation everything that has given rise to differences, to dividing the country through its policies. It is about time the government started treating Canada like a family and treating everyone equally.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my esteemed colleague and want to touch on a few key comments as well.

It might cause some confusion for those who are listening to hear about small weeks, big weeks, and the difference between one week and another. The motion deals with the unemployment insurance adjustment program which allows individuals who have worked only a portion of a week, perhaps part time or that kind of thing, to combine this work and apply it to their overall income to derive benefits from the EI plan.

On the face of it there is some good rationale for that kind of initiative to encourage people to continue to work, even if it is only part time, and not be penalized by reduced benefits. It sounds like a good idea.

I think what is a key element here is that the motion is perhaps premature today because we have spent $230 million on this program. There has been a $230 million increase in expenses because of this change. I guess the member opposite pointed out that this is a sign that the program is working. This is clearly a program that is needed.

What we have to ask ourselves, now that we have spent $230 million, is has that actually encouraged people to work as opposed to not working and collecting a higher premium when it comes to the part time or short week type of work? Has it actually achieved the result of encouraging people to take on this part time or seasonal work? We do not have the answers to those questions.

This is a fundamental issue that is at play. I want to speak to this today because I see so many of the initiatives that are taken by governments, the government across the way in particular, and governments right across the land where there is no evaluation. I mean a third party evaluation, not an evaluation done by the government itself. Those kinds of evaluations are subject to political bias and possibly moving dollars in the way that will derive votes and support. I do not like to make those kinds of accusations, but I have seen enough to make me skeptical.

My concern is that there has been absolutely no evaluation. I came from a business background and if we were to spend $230 million on anything along the way there would be assessments. Is this actually reaching the target? Are we encouraging people to continue to work? Are we achieving our goals? If not, shut it down and come up with something better. If we are, try to find ways to score more toward the goal to derive more benefit.

What do we have today? We have a motion that says “Keep it going. Keep spending the money. Somebody is collecting the money, therefore, it must be working”.

This is a fundamental problem with the Liberal government in the way it approaches these types of issues. We have an auditor general who evaluates the government and I have read many of his recommendations. I think he often makes some very good recommendations that point out shortcomings. A third party evaluation of the money spent. Unfortunately it does not seem that the Liberal government acts on too many of the auditor general's recommendations. If it does it is very slow.

The key thing is that we must have some assessment of whether or not these tax dollars are actually deriving the stated benefit. If in fact they are, then perhaps we can improve on it.

As my hon. colleague said, why just Atlantic Canada? Why not other parts of Canada? In my own riding there are people who are unemployed. Do they have any less trauma by being unemployed or any less of a challenge in making it day to day than someone in Atlantic Canada? I would say not. Why do they not have access to it if in fact it is working?

Another benefit of evaluation is that we might come up with some better ideas, for Atlantic Canada particularly. In this day and age, with the information age, there are many new challenges in gaining new skills and that $230 million could retrain 23,000 workers at $10,000 a worker. There are a lot of potential abilities and a lot of new markets that those people could move into. If it was set up as a loan program we could benefit three to four times that many people with new training.

We do not question these things when we do not properly evaluate these programs. Someone is collecting. Just keep it rolling. There is no accountability at the end of the day with respect to where those tax dollars are going.

But again, is this so unusual? Tragically no. The government has treated the EI fund, basically, I am afraid to say, as a cash cow. It is not really being treated as a benefit program for workers. We have accumulated a $19 billion surplus. It is accumulating at $7 billion a year. There is room for a 33% reduction in the premiums that workers and employers pay and we would still have some left over for that rainy day. Yet we do not see it happening.

I have in my riding the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Those people lobby me and talk to me on a regular basis. I have many restaurant owners in my riding and they have continually come to me and said “Please put pressure on the finance minister to roll back the EI premiums that we are forced to pay”.

This is an industry that employs many young people. It is their first step into the workplace. This group of small business people point out to me that this is the worst thing that the finance minister can do. We all applaud and praise small business as the engine of the economy, yet we skewer them with higher taxes, particularly payroll taxes. These payroll taxes must be rolled back, but we are not seeing that and I think it is tragic.

These are issues that I believe are even more important than the one we are debating today. It surprised me that this was actually the motion the Progressive Conservative Party felt needed to be debated here today.

Is it likely that we would actually see the Liberal Party roll back these EI payroll taxes? I would suggest that it is not. I would point to the budget debate last spring when the Liberals said that they wanted to spend any surplus. The official opposition at the time proposed broad based tax relief for Atlantic Canadians totalling over $900 per year. That is really what is needed. We do not need more in the way of strengthened social programs. People get self-esteem and fulfilment from a job and we should be working toward providing jobs to Atlantic Canadians.

I am not the only one saying this. Let me quote Fred McMahon, a senior policy analyst with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. He says that the EI merry-go-round seems like a good idea for Atlantic Canada, but it is often not working. He goes on to say that the EI system has undermined Atlantic Canada's growth prospects. It has marginalized thousands of workers and even helped destroy our fish. Now, this is not me, this is Fred McMahon, senior policy analyst with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. It has not been good for Atlantic Canada by any measure. These are people who have studied the situation and they are saying that this is not the way to go in the best interests of Atlantic Canadians.

I point out again that if we had followed the reducing taxes and paying down debt approach in Atlantic Canada long advocated by the Reform Party as opposed to holding on to these high payroll taxes through the employment insurance program, if we had gone instead with our proposals, we would see a grand total of over $1 billion a year in the pockets of long suffering Atlantic taxpayers, money which could be spent and invested not by bureaucrats and politicians but by Atlantic Canadians themselves to improve their own lives and future.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, I know that across this country we have a lot of different interests and a lot of different concerns. However, it amazes me sometimes that some of us in one area of the country can become such experts on someplace else. It is one of the facts in the House.

I have a question for the hon. member. I appreciate his sincerity in trying to deal with these issues. As with the previous speaker, I support the concept that we have of attempting to put together what I call small weeks or grouping of hours in areas of high unemployment.

In Atlantic Canada, in particular, we have a good number of industries that rely upon workers for very short periods of time.

I was home during Thanksgiving week and it rained every day of that week. Fishing boats go out to sea, but sometimes they cannot harvest fish every day of the week. If we want our fish factories and our smaller firms to work in Atlantic Canada we have to provide an opportunity for people to put their hours together to constitute weeks for unemployment insurance purposes.

Is the member aware of this problem and the concerns that we have? I point out to him that it was not the workers who came to us in the Atlantic caucus asking for small weeks or days to be put together, rather it was the industries in Atlantic Canada that were having difficulty providing 40 hours of employment for X number of weeks for their workers.

Perhaps he could relate to the House his concept of this problem and how he and his party would deal with it.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. We should all be aware that we are all Canadians from one side of the country to the other. The approach of saying that what works in one part of the country will not work in another is what underlies a lot of the policies of the Liberal government that have caused division in this country.

I can tell members that there is seasonal work in my province. There is seasonal work in my riding. The people who experience seasonal work have the same challenges, the same problems, the same concerns as people in Atlantic Canada. To say that the Canadian in Atlantic Canada who is in this situation is different than the Canadian in Calgary who feels that same set of challenges works against the whole coming together of Canada and making a stronger nation. I think the premise of his question is incorrect.

As far as the short weeks program is concerned, we have stated that it sounds like a good idea. It could be beneficial. We are not necessarily against it. What we are against is extending additional dollars to a program that has not been thoroughly evaluated to see if it is actually encouraging people to get out and work and to work part time as opposed to staying off EI benefits. That is the crux of it.

A Canadian in Calgary, in our estimation, is no different from a Canadian in the Atlantic provinces.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear Reform members stand to quote their friends in the right wing sectors of society.

I would remind the hon. member that the finance minister went to Halifax after the recent EI cuts of last year and asked the chamber of commerce a direct question: “If I reduce the premiums by another 20%, how many jobs would you create?” He asked the entire chamber of commerce that question at its luncheon meeting. Nobody could give an answer. There was no answer. Nobody could stand to say that they would create a job tomorrow if he reduced EI premiums. Not one. That was the finance minister asking the chamber of commerce that question. The hon. member mentioned Fred McMahon. He was also there for that meeting.

If the Reform Party really wants to cut taxes it should start working on cutting the GST and the HST in this country. Then we will have a serious tax cut that will help to create jobs right across this country.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that a number of studies have been done which show that a 1% reduction in payroll taxes in this country will create thousands of jobs.

It is interesting that he would note the fact that the people this question was put to said they were not sure how many jobs it would create. However, study after study shows that if we reduce payroll taxes people hire more people.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Fisheries; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Millennium Scholarships.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche would like the government to make the small weeks pilot projects a permanent feature of the employment insurance system.

Like some of my colleagues on this side of the House, I greatly appreciate this salutary debate on the employment insurance system, but I must stress that these projects are, as their name shows, pilot projects. They were established in March 1997 to test other means of calculating EI benefits for a period ending November 15 of this year.

When it set up the employment insurance system in 1996, undertaking the first major reform of the unemployment insurance program in 25 years, the government knew full well that it was facing a very complicated situation.

Adjustment pilot projects were launched precisely to determine how to solve the problems faced by workers earning less than $150 a week. These adjustment projects were implemented in 29 Canadian regions where the unemployment rate consistently exceeded 10%.

These measures were taken because some thought that the new legislation was dissuading people from taking part time jobs. Some workers thought a week without income was better than a week with a small income that would reduce their EI benefits.

Since the government's general objective is to put unemployed Canadians back to work, pilot projects were created to examine possible solutions to this problem. Two methods of calculating benefits were tested. The first one was to bundle small weeks and the second one, to exclude them.

They were two different ways of solving the problem of reduced work weeks in high unemployment regions. But both methods had the same positive results for employment insurance recipients. It was a matter of methodology, as one can except with pilot projects.

The Government of Canada wanted to see which calculation method would work best and to determine the impact of pilot projects in general. It is important to remember this. The purpose of the pilot projects was to find solutions and to determine what would work best.

What were the results of these pilot projects? Since their implementation in May and August of 1997, 130,000 benefit periods have been established for small work weeks. Almost 12% of benefit claims submitted in participating regions involved small weeks.

What is important is that the people participating in the projects received benefits averaging $19 or about 10% more per week. I must specify that this group of recipients included more women—about 61%—than men.

Also, since these projects were implemented in high unemployment regions, more than 51% of applications came from Quebec and 35% from the Atlantic provinces. Overall, these preliminary results are encouraging.

However, these are preliminary—and I insist on this word—preliminary results, and the analysis has not been completed. After all, that is what pilot projects are for: to provide information that will serve as a basis for the development of long term policies.

Whether the hon. member likes it or not, policies cannot, and should not, be developed without due consideration. The government must thoroughly review the results before taking action. To do otherwise would be to act hastily.

We in this House of the Parliament of Canada know how essential the employment insurance system is to the social fabric of this country. That is why small weeks projects must be put in the appropriate context. In establishing a new employment insurance system, the Government of Canada wanted to introduce an hour based system.

In particular, it wanted to encourage Canadians to accept the work that was available. To all appearances, that is exactly what the new employment insurance program has enabled it to do. As the pilot programs have shown, the government is fully prepared to listen and to act.

As I have said, this reform is the broadest in a quarter of a century. That is why the government is prepared to examine the effects of the reform, and to make the necessary changes.

During this debate, much reference has been made to the beneficiaries to unemployed ratio. I must start off by pointing out that the beneficiaries to unemployed ratio was never established to measure the proportion of unemployed workers receiving employment insurance, and also more importantly that the it does not have a great deal to say about how effective the employment insurance program is at attaining its objectives. Why? Because the program is not intended to pay benefits to unemployed persons with tenuous or non-existent links to the labour market, or those who have left their jobs without justification.

The employment insurance program applies to 78% of Canadians with links to the labour market who have lost their jobs or resigned for valid reasons.

And although we have made great strides in the area of employment insurance, we should recognize that the plan cannot meet the needs of all unemployed Canadians. Everyone must realize that employment insurance is only part of the solution.

Other government measures are required and are in the process of implementation: measures to help people with disabilities, including a $30 million employability assistance fund over three years to help them find work; the aboriginal human resources development strategy, spread over five years and supported by a board headed by the private sector aimed at improving native people's access to employment; the youth employment strategy to help young people, including those at risk, to make a successful transition from school to work.

Finally, we set up the Canadian opportunities strategy to ensure that all Canadians have greater access to education and to the skills that will enable them to find and keep a better job. Nevertheless, the government does not have all the answers.

The concerns of the unemployed must become the concerns of all of us in the federal and provincial governments and in the private sector.

We must work together to find solutions. We must also not lose sight of the problems the employment insurance program was established to attack. It is not enough to make the plan more flexible in order to resolve the problems. That is not a solution.

As I said earlier, the situation is complex and will not be resolved with simple solutions. That having been said, we must continue to assess how Canadians and our economy are adjusting to the new EI regime.

Fortunately, the economic picture is improving in Canada. We are achieving some success in our efforts to lower the country's unemployment rate. In September, the unemployment rate was 8.3%, the lowest it has been in eight years.

We have also seen a 10.3% increase in the number of young people with jobs since the beginning of the year. The number of jobs has increased by a total of 1.3 million since October 1993.

Clearly, we are making headway. Together, we can attain our common goal of helping Canadians rejoin the workforce. As the statistics so clearly show, that is exactly what we are in the process of doing.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the way the government member is going on, it is clear he has his head in the sand, just like the Minister of Human Resources Development. They apparently do not want to move too quickly because we are living in one of the best countries in the world.

The pilot project was rushed in right after the reform because the new reform turned out to be unfair.

The Liberals are making it up as they go along. They are stalling for time on this issue. Why? Because there is a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund and it has come out of the pockets of unemployed Canadians.

I would ask my colleague opposite to get moving. Money is being slowly siphoned out of the pockets of the unemployed to plump up the EI fund while this government is no longer contributing anything at all. This is affecting employees and employers. The Bloc Quebecois has introduced six bills to improve the system. We have to stop worrying. We are only too aware of the system's impact. In fact, we have asjed the committee to give priority to the whole issue of the impact of EI reform, but the government is not interested.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I clearly remember that when we were elected in 1993, the unemployment rate—as I like to point out—was close to 12%. The Minister of Finance and the government put in place certain tax policies, with the result that the national unemployment rate is now at 8.3%, if I am not mistaken.

I must say that even in Quebec, in spite of the terrible threat of separation that hangs over our heads, the unemployment rate has also gone down. I believe it is now around 10%.

I am the first to admit that there is work to do, but I am convinced that in a few months, when a new government is in office in Quebec, that rate will continue to go down.

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

Madam Speaker, I remind my distinguished colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, that the pilot project is currently being tried out in only 29 regions. The poverty to which we often allude in this House does not exist only in these 29 regions of Canada. In my riding, for example, the government refused to recognize the region of Thetford Mines, using the pretext that it was part of a very large region, Region No. 13, Chaudière—Appalaches, and also part of the Estrie region, where the unemployment rate is artificially lower.

I ask the parliamentary secretary whether an unfair practice is being used to penalize certain regions where the unemployment rate is high, but which have a lower unemployment rate when taken together. There is a reason why, within a period of four years, EI contributions have allowed the government to accumulate a surplus of $20 billion. If there is a $20 billion surplus, it is because there are people who make EI contributions, but who do not collect benefits. It is somewhat like being insured against fire, having your house burn down, and being told “You did pay premiums, but you were not covered, so you should have avoided that situation”.

It is not very bright on the government's part to make the poor even poorer.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, these are only pilot projects, and the government will make adjustments according to their results.

In conclusion I would like to point out that I do not entirely agree with the numbers referred to by my honourable colleague. According to the numbers I have, 80% of applicants receive benefits.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

As the Minister of Human Resources Development and other colleagues have already noted, the government is assessing the viability of the small weeks concept and we are closer to making a decision on how these projects can best serve the employment needs of Canadians.

It is important to stress that employment insurance is the most comprehensive reform of income support in 25 years. It should be quite evident that a reform of this magnitude would require certain adjustments.

Members opposite have also expressed concern regarding the benefits to unemployment ratio, commonly referred to as the BU ratio.

In this regard the government has conducted a study on the BU ratio. The study indicated that the ratio was not a good indicator of how well the employment insurance system is doing. The problem is that the ratio does not distinguish between those workers for whom the program was designed and those for whom the program was never intended.

What the study showed is that the decline in BU ratio over the past 10 years is the result of a 50:50 split between the changes to the employment insurance program and changes in the labour market. The study showed 78% of unemployed workers who lost their jobs or quit with just cause were eligible for EI.

I remind hon. members that the purpose of EI is to provide temporary benefits to unemployed Canadians who have an attachment to the labour force. In that regard, the evidence strongly suggests that EI is meeting its objective.

We have not forgotten the Canadians who do not qualify for income benefits under the new EI system. We are addressing the needs of those individuals through a number of EI related initiatives. I am thinking of initiatives such as the active employment measures under EI, the transitional jobs fund, the youth employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy and the new hires program.

At the same time let us be realistic. EI alone will not be able to address the needs of all unemployed Canadians. EI is not a panacea. It is simply one of several tools that Canadian workers can use to help return to the labour market.

As members opposite are aware, the EI act calls for five annual monitoring and assessment reports to determine how well individuals and communities are adjusting to the new system.

The 1997 report is the first, and naturally it gives us a general indication of the impact EI is having. This is to be expected with a new system as it encounters the real needs of Canadians. We know, for example, that some people are finding extra weeks of work before applying for unemployment insurance. It is terrific to see that in areas with strong economic growth people are finding jobs rather than having to apply for EI benefits.

Speaking of jobs, over the past five years 1.3 million Canadians have found employment. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD predict that this year Canada's job growth rate will be the fastest among the major industrialized nations.

While we acknowledge that the unemployment rate remains a challenge, although it is now at the lowest level in eight years, no one can say we are not making progress.

That is the real measure of success for this new income support system, fewer unemployed, not more EI beneficiaries. The goal after all is to help unemployed Canadians get back to work.

The government recognizes that monitoring and assessment reports are a crucial part of EI reform. It is important to inform Canadians on the impact that reform of the income support system is having on individuals and their communities. Given its magnitude and the limited time the EI system has been in place, I believe this first of five annual reports indicates that we are moving in the right direction.

I said EI cannot be expected to address the needs of all unemployed Canadians. That is why we have other measures that I have mentioned.

Our goal is inclusive. We are committed to helping Canadians move into the economic mainstream and become self-reliant, contributing members of their communities.

I am sure hon. members will agree that nothing fights poverty better than a rewarding job.

That is the thrust behind the transitional jobs fund which has helped to create 31,000 jobs in high unemployment regions.

We also have the family income supplement which helps low income EI claimants with children. We have contributed $190 million to a new federal-provincial initiative that helps people with disabilities to gain better access to the workforce.

As well, we have taken steps that directly address child poverty. We increased the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million in July and we will further increase it by another $850 million in the next two years.

These initial investments which will benefit low income families will increase our total investment for children to about $6.8 billion by the year 2000.

I remind the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche that Canadians told us in no uncertain terms that the old unemployment insurance system was out of date and badly in need of reform. It was a passive system that did not encourage unemployed workers to return to the labour force. EI on the other hand encourages workers to take all available work before applying for funds.

We do not want to return to the days where the UI system was regularly used to supplement incomes. The government is monitoring the system carefully. I encourage members opposite to join with us in helping Canadians find work. For these reasons I cannot vote in favour of the hon. member's motion.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and the speaker before him spoke of job creation. I would much rather be talking about that today. The way to create jobs in Canada is to reduce taxes. Until that is done, there are regions in Canada, not only Atlantic Canada, which are affected. What do we do with these people, these regions? This pilot project helps them considerably.

The hon. member talked about fiscal measures that have been put in place. I would like the hon. member to please tell this House what measures they put in place. Was it the GST? Was it free trade? Was it the cut to transfer payments? Was it the cuts to unemployment that affected these people we are talking about today?

Does this member not think that the measures put in place after the reform to employment insurance helped these 29 regions throughout Canada? Does the member not think the government should have a measure in place today, that the study should be in place three weeks before the deadline, and that the pilot project be renewed immediately?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. Does the member not think it is worthwhile that the active measures are far more effective for EI than giving supplementary income and keeping people on the margin, not getting trained for a new job?

Does the member think the transitional jobs fund is not worthwhile by helping people get training so they can upgrade themselves for jobs that are available? Does the member not think these employment strategies are good strategies for these people?

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

They are not working.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

How do you know?

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Why is the employment rate so high?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

We are leading all the OECD countries at the moment in job creation.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Not all regions of Canada.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

I agree with the member. It is spotty. There is no doubt about it. We have to target those regions. The member is right on.

The Canadian opportunities strategy and the new hires program are positive initiatives. This is the first year through. We have seen it. There are problems. We admit that. We have to address them. I agree with the member that one of the best ways is to cut taxes.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that Canada is leading the G-7 in job creation but I wonder if the hon. member is aware that in 1986 Canada and the U.S. were tied in terms of the employment rate at approximately 60%.

In the last 12 years in the United States the employment rate has grown to 63%. Our employment rate has stayed at 60%. If they had stayed at the same level we would have over one million more jobs in Canada today.

I suggest to the member his statistics do not tell the whole story.

I suggest that if Canada were creating jobs at the same pace as the United States we would have virtually no unemployment today. While I understand why the member wants to pat himself on the back, it is not as clear cut as he suggests.

How in the world can he justify getting up in this place today and saying we are not going to support the motion because we do not have our study done? His party is putting together the study. Three weeks away from the time when the program comes to and end it still does not have an assessment. How can that happen?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, just to put the record straight, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have predicted that Canada will lead the job growth rate in the industrialized nations. We will see it this year.

The Americans are by far the best off of the industrialized countries at the moment. There is no doubt about that. We are not trying to oversell that. At the same time if they are predicting right, we are catching up because we will be leading this year in job creation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Rosemont.

It is with a great deal of interest that I take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member of the Conservative Party asking the government to amend the Employment Insurance Act in order to permanently extend the small weeks adjustment projects put in place by the Minister for Human Resources Development in March 1997.

As we know such pilot projects are being tried out in 29 regions. We also know that they will come to an end on November 15.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the Conservative Party's motion. However, if it had been possible, we would have liked to move an amendment asking the government to make the pilot projects a permanent feature in the 54 EI administrative areas, and to address the unfairness in the current Employment Insurance Act, which promotes increased poverty and deprives millions of people from the benefits of economic growth.

We know that a great many people who are not eligible to EI end up too quickly on welfare. Last December, the Bloc Quebecois introduced six bills aimed at improving the lean program the employment insurance system has become.

Bill C-296, introduced by the Bloc Quebecois, dealt among other things with small weeks, and was aimed at extending them to every region. We know that the level of benefits should be determined based on the average of the weeks with the highest earnings, rather than on all the weeks worked, including the small weeks, as is currently done in the 25 areas where the pilot projects are not being tried out.

Thanks to this formula, the cheques for some of the unemployed would not be greatly reduced and those who work very few hours a week would not be penalized.

I would like to give a concrete example. A lady who teaches adults has a 26 week contract, 35 hours a week at $25 an hour. At the end of her contract, she signs a new one for six weeks at the same hourly rate, but for only three hours a week. What would happen? I will show how this lady is penalized.

Under the current legislation, in an area where there is no pilot project, this lady would be entitled to $327 a week, because the last 26 weeks are taken into account, including the six weeks at only three hours a week. So, she is penalized.

Under the plan put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in Bill C-296, this lady would have been entitled to $413 a week, because the small weeks would not have been taken into consideration. Before the 1996 reform, that teacher would have got $448 a week, again because the small weeks did not come into play.

As we can see, the Bloc Quebecois has come up with a balanced solution between the reformed EI system as we know it now and what the old system provided in terms of EI benefits.

Previously, maximum insurable earnings were $815 a week, instead of $750, as is the case today. With the small week pilot project, a person can receive $406 a week, in the same circumstances.

The current Employment Insurance Act will thus penalize this person by $121 a week compared to 1996 levels, by $35 a week compared to the Bloc's proposal and by $42 compared to the Conservative Party's proposal. This illustrates once again that the Bloc Quebecois' approach is balanced, fair and equitable.

We know there are a number of other unfair aspects in the current Employment Insurance Act and the Bloc has condemned several of them since the reform. One of these aspects is the immediate elimination of discrimination against some categories of unemployed on the basis of their so-called presence in the workforce.

We know that a woman who has taken care of her child from birth to age two and who goes back to work will have to work 30% to 117% more hours to be eligible for the same benefits as regular claimants. It depends on the regional unemployment rate.

When the minister says that the reform is helping women and young people, we can see, with figures to back us up—because we also have figures—that women who stay at home more than two years are considered as new entrants in the workforce and have to work 910 hours, according to the regional rate of unemployment, while a regular claimant will have to work between 420 and 700 hours.

If that is what the Minister of Human Resources Development means by adjustment to labour market realities, he is on the wrong track.

There are other situations that are just absurd. For example, in the same region, a woman who worked 420 hours is eligible for EI benefits whereas if she were pregnant, she would have to work 700 hours. Before the reform, a woman had to work 300 hours to be eligible for maternity benefits, and now she has to work 700 hours.

Some say that this reform helps women, but, on the contrary, I say it does not encourage women to leave their jobs, take care of their children for two years and then go back to work. Knowing how difficult it often is to re-enter the work force, a woman will certainly think twice before leaving it.

The EI fund surplus is another irritant. The government is always carrying out studies. I just heard a colleague from the government side say that things must not be rushed, but by not rushing, billions of dollars are being accumulated in the employment insurance fund, at the rate of $6 billion a year, when we know very well that the government is no longer putting a cent into the fund and that it comes from the pockets of the workers.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois has called for a separate fund, one that is administered outside the control of the Minister of Human Resources Development. The auditor general is very clear on this. He says it would not be legal to use contributions for any purpose other than the one set out in the legislation.

What does the government do? It puts the money into the consolidated revenue fund, and we know now that those $20 billion are more or less virtual money. While they are talking about their compassion for the unemployed, they are busy piling up the money and carrying out a reform that tightens up eligibility.

What the minister is not saying is that fewer and fewer people who contribute qualify for benefits. Now, 38% of contributors have access. Since the Liberals came along, eligibility has eroded, and fewer and fewer people are eligible for benefits.

I find it regrettable that $20 billion are being taken away from people in need, with seemingly no concern for what happens to them. Today, we agree with the small weeks. The pilot project put in place in a mad panic by this party because no thought was given to the impacts the reform would have on people. This pilot project was inaugurated in a mad panic because too many people could not qualify for employment insurance.

We want all regions to have access to this, because it is not only the high unemployment regions that can benefit from it. We would like to see everyone able to qualify for employment insurance in other regions which also have a high unemployment rate.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for her comments. I understand what she said. The situation is the same in my riding. There are more and more people who do not qualify, and those who do get very little money.

Today's motion is justified. It is unfortunate that it is not the Liberals who are prepared to make the necessary changes, because some people are suffering now. We told the government there was a problem with the act as such. This is very clear. I remember very well phoning Liberal ministers and telling them that one hour would be equal to one insurable week. They told me “No, do not worry, it is not what you think”. When the act was implemented, some employers phoned us to ask what was going on. We are hurting our workers.

It is sad to have a government that purposely caused such problems to people who are laid off through no fault of their own.