Debates of June 1st, 1998

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Waterloo—Wellington.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion before us. I believe it is important to set the record straight with regard to the Bloc's motion and the employment insurance program.

Lately it has become obvious that the Bloc is living in the past. Instead of moving forward and looking for ways to help people escape unemployment and go back to work, the Bloc is still recommending ways for people to draw employment insurance as long as possible.

The Bloc is still recommending ways to foster greater dependence on employment insurance while being critical of the new employment insurance plan designed to help people get back to work.

We have no interest in going back. Our government and our reforms are about moving forward and helping Canadians meet the challenges of the 21st century. The old EI system was in need of total overhaul. The system was 25 years old and needed to be changed to adapt to today's labour market. It was totally focused on passive income support. It did nothing to help unemployed Canadians move toward work.

The new economy requires Canadians to constantly upgrade their skills and knowledge in order to be competitive in the world of work. The new employment insurance system is precisely about finding a balance between giving people the temporary support they need when they lose a job and helping people with the tools they need to get back to work.

We needed to reform employment insurance, to modernize the system, to make it fairer and more equitable, to break an ongoing cycle of dependence on employment insurance, to give unemployed Canadians access to programs that would help them get back to work and try to create jobs in areas of high unemployment.

We are convinced that, contrary to what Bloc members are saying, Canadians would rather work than receive employment insurance benefits. We believe they want to retrain to acquire the necessary skills to find employment in the new economy. We believe Canadians are more optimistic regarding their future than what the Bloc will ever say in this matter.

Canadians' optimism, coupled with our budget policies, helps foster an economic climate favourable to job creation. Since 1993, over 1.2 million new jobs have been created in Canada. Last year alone a further 450,000 Canadians found jobs in Canada. The unemployment rate is at its lowest in nearly eight years. In every province the number of people on welfare is down, including in Quebec where it is the lowest it has ever been in the past five years.

Our review of the old unemployment insurance plan revealed a need for change in various areas. The old plan was based on weeks worked rather than hours. It was unfair. Whether you worked 15 hours or 60 hours a week did not make any difference. Your benefits were calculated according to the number of weeks you had worked. If you worked fewer than 15 hours a week, you were just not eligible for unemployment insurance. For thousands of workers, particularly women, this meant being trapped in a ghetto of 14 hour a week jobs because employers avoided paying EI premiums by giving them less than 15 hours of work every week.

When these workers lost their jobs, they did not have access to income support or any other form of support to find another job. Now, for the first time, all part time workers are covered under the plan. Unemployment insurance was a passive income support system. However, a passive approach does not make people's lives better. It only maintains them in their current situation longer.

It may be a good thing for the opposition, but not for the many workers looking for help to find a new job, a better job, and not only for a cheque every two weeks. Our government chose to establish a plan designed to help workers prepare their future with optimism. That is why we came up with a series of active employment measures: to help people get back to work.

That is why we have taken part of the savings generated by the employment insurance reform and reinvested them in measures that help people rejoin the workforce instead of maintaining them on employment insurance.

That is why we are transferring $2.7 billion to the Quebec government, so that active employment measures designed to help people go back to work can be developed locally to meet local needs.

It is because of this employment insurance reform that we were in a position to negotiate with the Quebec government a historic agreement on the development of the labour market. That agreement led to the solving of a difficult issue with the Quebec government, one that pleases everyone and shows that Canadian federalism is being modernized and is adjusting.

In order to help people get back to work, we invested $300 million in the transitional jobs fund. The purpose of that fund is to promote employment, specifically in very high unemployment regions.

We anticipate that this investment, made over a three year period, will ultimately result in the creation of 30,000 new jobs.

We also felt that unemployment insurance encouraged dependence. The passive approach lured many Canadians into an ongoing cycle of short term jobs and unemployment insurance. Worst of all, studies showed us that easy access to employment insurance often encouraged young people to leave school and start on a cycle of short term work and employment insurance. Part of our changes had to be based on trying to break this cycle of dependence and to help people find and take available work.

Have employment insurance reforms succeeded in helping Canadians? The Bloc should ask the woman in Sidney, Nova Scotia, who is working 14 hours per week in a departmental store. Under the former system, that woman would not have qualified, but now, after 30 weeks of work, she is eligible for benefits.

The Bloc should also ask the young father from Trois-Rivières, who is working at three different jobs for 14 hours per week. Under the old system, none of these jobs would have qualified him, but that person can now collect benefits after 11 weeks of work.

We could also put the same question to the young woman from the Cornwall area who, through our positive employment measures, received financial assistance to help her plan and set up her own business, after losing her job at the local office of a large insurance company. Her business, Excellent Secretarial Services, is doing very well indeed.

I think it is important to correct a misleading and incorrect statement the Bloc Quebecois keeps making about the negative impact of our employment insurance reforms on women.

I would like the Bloc members to tell us why they are against our employment insurance reforms, which eliminated the 14 hour trap for women. Around 270,000 women are now eligible for employment insurance for the first time.

Close to 70% of those who are getting the new family income supplement are women who now qualify for this supplement.

We are more ambitious than the Bloc members. What we want is for workers, whether they are young people, women or experienced, to really be able to remain in the labour force. And should they lose their jobs, they will get from our system the tools and the means they need to get back to work, unlike the Bloc members who are simply trying to ensure the people stay on employment insurance benefits as long as possible. It is their only goal.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, as brief as it is, to ask the hon. minister a question and put a comment or two forward.

It seemed to me at least, unless I was getting the wrong impression, that he was bragging during his presentation about the 270,000 women who are now covered under EI for the first time with the changes brought forward by the government. He was bragging about the new eligibility criteria. He was quoting statistics.

I refer to a working mother in my riding I recently heard from. This lady works as a permanent part time employee with the school district as a bus driver. Recently she had to take a six week medical leave of her duties and applied for medical benefits through employment insurance. After waiting several weeks she finally received her cards to fill out. Shortly after a letter from HRDC arrived informing her she did not qualify for any benefits. She did not have enough hours. A claimant needs 700 hours in a 52 week period and her total number of hours was only 648.

Her concern is, and I agree, that she is paying for insurance that she is ineligible to collect. Legislation does not take into account consideration of this scenario and there are no exceptions to the rules.

This woman is not alone. I think these people see EI as simply another tax. When some individuals call EI premiums a payroll tax, that is exactly what it is. It is especially true when those individuals are ineligible to collect benefits. To take those premiums off their pay, as small as it is, is unethical when they are in a situation where they have this additional tax, and it is simply a tax because they cannot get any benefits. We already have the highest tax in the G-7.

I wonder if the hon. minister would care to comment and refer his comments to the situation with this working mother and the fact that while on medical leave she was unable to get any benefits despite the fact that she pays her premiums like all other working Canadians.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Reform Party is now hinting that maybe we should make it easier to give benefits to Canadians. I do not know exactly what is the Reform position. It is the first time I have heard such a statement from the Reform Party which normally thinks we are not tough enough on unemployed Canadians and that we should have even more difficult access to the employment insurance aspect.

In the case of the woman he raised, she did not have the number of hours to qualify. It is pretty obvious that if a worker has not reached the number of hours to be covered by the system at this stage, they cannot have unemployment benefits.

When she has worked the additional 52 hours she needs to qualify, whether in this job or some other job, she will be covered by the employment insurance system because every hour counts and we will add it to what she has already worked.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development should try to put himself in the shoes of ordinary Canadians. He gave us the example of a woman from Sydney.

I will try to be brief. In a region such as the Gaspé Peninsula, which is severely affected by TAGS, where active measures are sorely lacking, where nothing is being done and which is being deprived of $50 million because of reduced benefits and reduced eligibility, how does the minister think that people can find new jobs? Why can he not consider restoring some fairness in the system?

I would like to quote from his leader. I will be very brief. The quote is from a letter sent in 1993 to a group called Action-Chômage, in which the current Prime Minister described the measures put forward by the Conservatives as being very coercive.

“While they seem to show compassion on the eve of the election, they are forgetting the names of the victims”.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of one thing. Our government is sensitive to the concerns of these Canadians. The reason we have established a transitional jobs fund is to create jobs in areas where unemployment is too high. That is why we want to invest more money in high employment areas.

We have seen that, so far, in Atlantic and eastern Canada, our reform has helped a lot of unemployed people find work to accumulate the additional number of weeks needed to maintain their level of benefits. I think this incentive to find work seems to be having positive results so far.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Minister of Human Resources misled the House when he spoke of the transitional jobs fund.

I would like all Canadians to take note that the fund—-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I think the hon. member is rising on a point of debate. If there is a discrepancy between what the minister said and what the hon. member understood, that is not a point of order.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is both unfortunate and frustrating that the House is once again embroiled in a debate based on an outdated understanding of the employment insurance system.

There can be no debate that the progressive and equitable reforms to employment insurance introduced by this government are good reforms. They are good for Canadians out of work, good for the economy and good for the country.

Canadians inherently know this and certainly the residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington know it and understand it, and this is in fact true.

With the new Employment Insurance Act this government is helping Canadians to find work. Instead of just doling out cheques, we now respond to the real employment needs of people who have fallen on hard times and we tailor strategies to help them succeed.

While our hon. colleagues on the opposite side of the Chamber seem stuck in a time warp, the so-called good old days when the system perpetuated dependency, we instead are moving forward, shifting the focus to one of dignity and self-sufficiency by creating meaningful opportunities for all Canadians.

The new employment insurance system both reflects and responds to today's labour market. Technological revolution and global trade are rapidly changing the world of work. Jobs are disappearing in some sectors, while new positions are being created in others which require different skills.

Intense international competition is also pushing Canada to produce higher educated and higher skilled workers. This new reality is very difficult for individuals who find themselves falling short of these requirements or who are already left behind. That is why we are investing in programs that are more targeted, more results oriented and proven to work for the people who need them.

The new employment insurance system is designed to help unemployed Canadians not only cope with but capitalize on the new economy. We are enabling individuals temporarily out of work to acquire the necessary skills to secure jobs in the new working world.

We are helping Canadians, especially those most at risk of exclusion, to adjust to the knowledge-based economy. We are empowering them to adapt to economic change so they can once again lead productive and satisfying lives.

Employment insurance reforms are fundamentally about finding a balance, about giving people the temporary support they need when they lose a job and providing people with the tools they need to get back to work.

We do not have to choose between economics and people. Success is a question of making the right choices in order to build a better society.

Societal development goes hand in hand with economic development. As our population becomes more productive, our country will be more productive.

An equally important benefit for all Canadians is that the new employment insurance system allows us to work more efficiently and less expensively, providing the public with the services they need and the services they can afford.

Long term affordability of the system is at the heart of the reserve in the employment insurance account. The government must pay employment insurance benefits in all circumstances, even when the account has a deficit, as it did during most of the 1980s and the early 1990s. The reserve means that the money is there when it is most needed, during an economic downturn, and ensures that we do not have to raise premiums at the worst possible time.

In modernizing the system we also make it fairer and more equitable. For the first time, every hour of work counts. Counting total hours instead of meeting a minimum number of weeks makes it easier for most people, particularly women, young people and seasonal workers, to satisfy entrance requirements. Whether we talk about the part time worker, the mother to be who will be able to collect maternity benefits, the construction worker laid off during the winter months or the student working as a department store clerk, employment insurance benefits have been restructured to strengthen the value of work. The system now recognizes that whether work is full time, part time or integrated from time to time, every Canadian's contribution counts.

Perhaps the most important improvements are enhanced active employment measures that are helping countless unemployed Canadians get back into the workforce. Wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and skills, loans and grants are giving many a real chance to start new careers.

I remind my hon. colleagues that we have broadened eligibility so that all Canadians who received employment insurance or unemployment insurance in the past three years can benefit from these measures. So too can people who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five years and then withdrew from the labour force to care for their child. This means that up to 45% of provincial social assistance recipients are eligible for active employment measures to get the skills and the experience they need in order to re-enter the workforce.

Improved claimant assistance such as counselling and closer case management will also help unemployed people return to work as quickly as possible. That ultimately is what the changes are all about, helping Canadians to find and keep good jobs.

The labour market development agreements with the provinces, long sought after by the province of Quebec, ensure that active employment measures are tailored to local needs.

The Bloc fails to acknowledge that these new measures, $2.7 billion over the next five years in Quebec alone, are financed from savings the government is now achieving as a result of employment insurance reform. Without these savings the government would not have the necessary funds to pay for skills upgrading which is essential to becoming more employable.

Canadians do not want a handout, they want a hand up. They want the chance to acquire new skills and advance their education. They want to be able to provide a better standard of living and quality of life for their families. We must enable them to achieve their dreams.

We would do no one any favours if we adopted the regressive measures proposed by my hon. colleagues. They would have us return to the days of passive income support. They would deny individuals the opportunity to upgrade their skills and make themselves more employable.

I point to the government's impressive track record as proof that our approach is working. The unemployment rate is at its lowest level in almost eight years. Since the beginning of 1997 543,000 jobs have been created in Canada.

Equally interesting, there was a 6% decline in job losses during the first year of reform. So it is not surprising that the number of beneficiaries and the total employment insurance benefits paid out have decreased since March 1997. Clearly we are on the right track, so let us stay on it and let us make sure we carry it forward.

The federal government has worked unceasingly to keep the Canadian economy on a solid foundation.

The federal government will continue to provide programs which meet Canadians' expectations and needs.

The federal government will continue to look after the interests of all Canadians.

For all the sound and reasoned arguments put forward by myself and the members of my caucus today, I urge my fellow parliamentarians to set aside this unnecessary motion. Let us work together to create conditions conducive to job creation and economic growth. Let us work together to help Canadians get back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the speech by my hon. colleague and to ask him a question.

I always react to categorical remarks and to accusations that the Bloc Quebecois is living in the past. I believe we live in the present, but we do not share the current government's concept of what the present is. Allow me to explain.

Up to this date, close to $16 billion have been collected in indirect taxes. I call them indirect taxes because Canadians and Quebeckers pay provincial income tax, federal income tax, and both provincial and federal sales taxes, and then on their weekly paycheque another indirect tax is deducted, which adds up to $7 billion or $8 billion each year.

In my opinion consumers have had it with government taxes, and this one is an indirect tax. There is not even any provision for it in the government's books. It is sneakily collected from all workers and all employers, and it is years since this government has contributed to the fund. Now it has taken upon itself to set the contribution rate as it pleases and to adjust this indirect tax to pay down its deficit.

Perhaps my colleague could answer the following. What is his answer to the voters in his riding when they say they are tired of paying taxes, taxes and more taxes, income and otherwise, and now just one more? What is his answer to this, particularly when we have already been told that in this government's employment enhancement measures a 10 cent reduction per $100 represents the creation of 30,000 jobs?

This is not true, according to the way we see things. People are having problems with employment insurance, which is an indirect tax on people. What is his answer to his constituents?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that there is a lot of evidence that we as a government can put forward in terms of the kinds of things we are doing for Canadians from coast to coast. I reference specifically the programs that are in place to assist workers at a time when they need it most, which is most important. I think Canadians across the country understand that and respect it.

The hon. member talks about being in the past. I was doing some research into what the Bloc has recently introduced by way of private members' bills on this particular issue. What those bills would do, in effect, would be to reverse the EI reforms that we as a government have put in place. I would reference, for example, Bill C-295, Bill C-296, Bill C-297, Bill C-298 and Bill C-300. These five private members' bills would turn back the clock and reverse the kind of progressiveness that we as a government are ensuring is in place for all Canadians no matter where they live.

I would also point out to the hon. member that $2.7 billion over five years is going to Quebec alone in order to ensure that there are active employment measures in place. That spells good news not only for Quebeckers, but for Canadians all across this great country of ours.

We as a government are moving in the right direction with foresight, according to the needs of Canadians.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is what stings a government when it comes into office.

I have here a letter from the Prime Minister sent to a region in Quebec, which says, and I will quote briefly from it, “Clearly the government is not very concerned about the victims of the economic crisis—he was talking about the Conservatives at the time—because instead of going after the heart of the problem, they go after the unemployed”.

Now they are in power. Does this mean that they were living in the past in 1993? Were they stung by a bee as they took office so they could go after the unemployed too? It is shameful. I would like the hon. member to tell me what stung the Liberal members.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for the question.

I am astounded at the fact that the NDP in this case would take us on in terms of what our position is. It really has no financial credibility. As members all know, that party's election platform, which was widely rejected by Canadians, proposed to spend an additional $18 billion in four years if it had been elected. It is the leader of the NDP who told Canadians that she never planned on forming a government, so I guess those kinds of outrageous statements can be made to try to rope the people in.

The people are not fooled by such nonsense. Canadians have worked too hard to eliminate the deficit to allow their government to go on a free wheeling and irresponsible tax and spending spree.

When the member opposite from the NDP makes those kinds of outrageous statements, it is incumbent upon those of us on the government side to ensure that that kind of nonsense is put in its place. It has no place in this great country of ours and as a government we will ensure that.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

I am pleased to join my colleagues, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the member for Québec East, and to take part in the debate on the opposition motion they presented in this House, which reads as follows:

That the House castigate the government for the catastrophic effects of its reforms to unemployment insurance; for having taken over funds destined for unemployed persons; and for its inability to adapt the unemployment insurance system to the new realities of the labour market, particularly where young people, women and self-employed persons are concerned.

It was not yesterday that the Bloc Quebecois started criticizing the reforms to unemployment insurance and its devastating effects on the people of Quebec and Canada and more especially on groups of workers in vulnerable situations on the labour market, such as young people and women, who are being pushed into the maze of social assistance.

Last week, the Bloc Quebecois initiated an employment insurance week to draw the government's attention to the experience of the unemployed in Quebec and Canada.

As we might expect, the Liberal government again displayed its insensitivity to these groups of men and women, who, after contributing to the plan, are denied access to it when they need it most.

However the media did not ignore the questions raised by the Bloc Quebecois when it reminded us that only 41% of unemployed workers get benefits and that only 26% of young workers—one in four—who contribute to the plan end up getting benefits.

All of last week, we have seen and heard reports on television and on the radio highlighting the fact that the employment insurance plan is inadequate, given the conditions on the labour market. This is employment insurance in name only. We should rather be talking about a deficit insurance plan, because the government has had no qualms about diverting EI funds to erase the deficit first and now, with hardly any embarrassment, to build up budget surpluses.

This whole situation is utterly unacceptable, and groups all over Quebec are condemning the employment insurance plan and the government's policies that have thrown so many people into poverty.

We have to stop this bleeding of public funds. The employment insurance should be redesigned to ensure a better balanced support for various groups of workers in Quebec and in Canada.

It is nothing short of shameful that the EI fund is bursting at the seams while the federal government has to admit the sorry state of poverty in Canada. In 1989, 14.5% of children lived in families below the poverty line. There are now 20.5%. There is a direct link between this and the finance minister's drastic cuts in social programs.

The federal government can try all it wants to counter through piecemeal programs the impact of poverty on children in Quebec and Canada, but it should first give the heads of single parent families better opportunities to enter the labour market and support them in between jobs.

It is the same for young Quebeckers and Canadians who hold precarious jobs, contract jobs for a few weeks or a few months. This is the reality of the workforce for several of them.

And to encourage them to accumulate this invaluable work experience that will allow them to apply for better paying and more stable jobs, the human resources development minister has found nothing better than to impose a minimum of 910 hours of work on these newcomers during their first year of employment.

This is what I could call an employment insurance welcome tax. Indeed, it is a welcome tax for new members in the workforce, workers who will be the foundation of our economy and who will ensure the existence of our social programs in the future. Is this not a situation that should be of concern?

This is quite a gift from the Liberal government to our young people. On one side, it pushes them toward welfare and on the other, with red flags in hand, it claims to help these young people with the millennium scholarships slogan. Once again, Quebec's student group representatives came to say no to the Prime Minister and their speeches were eloquent, according to those who had the opportunity to listen to the RDI special program this morning.

The Bloc Quebecois is more valuable than ever, given the arrogance of this government that pretends to be sensitive to the Canadian and Quebec people. Our clashing voice in this stagnant pool of Liberal members who are waiting for their leader's cue, even when their personal beliefs are at stake, is echoing the voice of Quebeckers who have been let down by this dominating and centralizing federal system.

In the riding of Jonquière especially, my team and I have received many testimonies from people affected by the cuts in the employment insurance system.

Among the situations experienced by my fellow citizens, there is the sad situation of several part time workers who used to be eligible for unemployment insurance and are now unable to accumulate the number of hours required in a 52 week period.

Seasonal workers, especially construction workers in our region, are also greatly affected by the employment insurance reform. For these seasonal workers, it is almost impossible to accumulate the number of hours required to be eligible for employment insurance, because work periods in the construction field are limited and the reform encourages clandestine work.

We have been told that some employers take advantage of the situation. They hire workers at a lower rate and do not pay any premium for these workers, which explains why about a hundred honest workers complain every week, because they are not eligible for employment insurance or welfare.

Other problems with section 17 of the employment insurance regulations have been brought to our attention. Some people who work for the same company but live in different regions, like the Chicoutimi—Jonquière area and northern Quebec, are being treated differently under the current employment insurance scheme.

The number of hours worked to become eligible and the number of weeks of benefits differ from one region to another, which means that a resident of Alma could receive benefits during nine weeks more than a resident of Jonquière.

If, as the Minister of Human Resources Development put it, he is really “following this reform very closely in order to ensure that it continues to serve Canadians well”, I would invite him to take note of all the flaws the Bloc Quebecois has spotted in his reform of the employment insurance program.

Last week, the health minister announced a new subsidy to ParticipAction. Let me encourage this organization to launch a new fitness program especially designed for the Liberal members, something to stimulate their brains and help them connect with today's reality, so they can notice the living conditions of the unemployed, since almost half of the contributors are no longer eligible for employment insurance benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the speech of the hon. member for Jonquière. I know that she is an extremely hard working woman and that she is also very present in her riding.

What fascinates me most is the difference between the comments of the member for Jonquière and those of the Minister of Human Resources Development. My colleague referred to the insensitivity of the minister and of the Liberal members.

I wonder if there are people in her riding who tell her that they have a hard time making ends meet at the end of the month, or that they used to qualify for a much better system that allowed them to make the transition to another job, whereas now they are pretty much left on their own. Because they are no longer eligible, these people end up on welfare, which means they have to rely on the state.

The minister continues to say “our government does not live in the past, but in the present”. This is another ill-conceived notion of the present. The minister says that they are taking active employment measures, that they are creating a transitional jobs fund. Incidentally, there is not one penny left in that fund.

The minister is taking technocratic measures. I am sure the hon. member for Jonquière could provide us with examples of people who are in dire straits, people who, at the end of the month, have very little food left to put on the table, people who are overwhelmed by their situation.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on the insensitivity of that department, and compare it with the sensitivity she shows in her views and in her good work in the riding of Jonquière.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking me such an important question.

The people who come to me in my riding are people who are no longer in the system. They do not qualify for employment insurance or for welfare. The lack of understanding on the part of this government for people who work hard is beyond me.

My area has the highest rate of unemployment in Canada. It is nothing to be proud of. But I can tell you that people who come to me are people who have unstable jobs, who work 14, 15 or 16 hours a week and do not accumulate enough hours to qualify for employment insurance.

They will certainly not get rich by working only a few hours at minimum wage. At the end of the day, their employment insurance cheque will not amount to much.

All they want is to be able to survive, but the new employment insurance reform does not take this into account. People are not treated with common sense as they should be.

I wonder when the minister and his government are going to have the same common sense as ordinary people. The people in our area do not steal or cheat, they are hard working.

If I contribute to a health insurance plan, it means that when I am sick I am entitled to benefits. But people are paying employment insurance contributions and they cannot even benefit from them. They want protection against something they fear, protection that will help them get through tough times.

But no. The minister opposite and his colleagues have decided that even if you contribute to an insurance plan, you cannot draw on it unless you meet some ironclad criteria. This is unacceptable; this is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois and the people in my area are denouncing these social iniquities.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief historic overview. Just from the name of my riding, which includes the four RCMs in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, it is obvious that we represent a large area.

My region is a resource region where seasonal jobs represent more than one third of all jobs.

For the benefit of the minister opposite, there are approximately 12,000 seasonal jobs in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, mainly in farming, fishing and forestry and the processing of these products, as well as the tourist industry, including lodging and food services. That pretty much describes our seasonal jobs.

The proportion of seasonal work in my region is three times that in the rest of Quebec. This means that, in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, there are three times as many people on EI, 10.7%, compared to the Quebec average of 3.9%.

With a labour market characterized by seasonal variations in employment, my riding was hard hit by the EI reform.

Statistics from Human Resources Development Canada show that, since 1993, the number of EI recipients in my riding has dropped by 4,000, or one-third, but the number of jobs did not increase in the same proportion.

According to the HRDC figures, changes to the employment insurance plan have reduced by $30 million the funds generated in my region.

In addition to seasonal jobs, there is a high proportion of part time jobs in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. In fact, 70% of local jobs are either part time or seasonal, compared with 46% in Quebec.

But regions like the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands are particularly hard hit by the tightening of eligibility criteria.

One of the disastrous consequences of decisions made by the government opposite was that, as figures from the 1991 census showed, the average household income in the Gaspé was $34,800, compared with $40,800 in Quebec as a whole, a $6,000 difference.

Between 1987 and 1995, we experienced a 15% drop in jobs in the Gaspé. These jobs have not been replaced, as shown by the growth in unemployment, which went from 16.4% in 1987, to 20.2% in 1995, to 25.7% in 1997.

Another disastrous consequence of the blind decisions made by the people over there is that the people are leaving. In the past 10 years, 7,300 people have left our region, a 7% drop in our population.

With figures like these, we in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have the dubious distinction of being possibly the poorest region in Canada. It is not something we want to be known for.

The employment insurance program is a real catastrophe for regions where unemployment is rampant. Only one in two jobless people is eligible.

Would you buy life insurance if you had only a 50% chance of any death benefits being paid? There is only one thing that is certain, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we are all going to die one day, but if we count on federal government coverage, our widows will not live very high off the hog.

The employment insurance program is also catastrophic for regions with flourishing employment and a low unemployment rate. Employers and workers thought they were paying into insurance that would provide a measure of protection in case of job loss, but that is not the case. The workers in those regions are directly funding federal programs they never asked for, and on which they were not consulted in the least. All the foregoing was just a bit of an overview of the situation in my riding.

My colleagues have spoken before me, but I would like to touch on the various measures presented by the Bloc Quebecois as private members' bills. It would be nice if some of the hon. members over there, even those in government, would adopt them as their own and help them through. I am talking about relaxing the eligibility criteria.

The minister has told us about a lady from Sydney who, much to her credit, worked 14 hours a week for 30 weeks. But the minister is misleading the House in saying that the lady was not eligible for employment insurance before. This lady needs 910 hours. The minister does not know his multiplication tables, then, because in his example 14 times 30 is 420. Strike 1 for the minister.

He has also told us just now that there is a transitional job creation fund. I dare him to rise in this House and tell us how much money is left in that fund. Not money that has already been committed, but money that is left to be spent. He said that the program will expire in 1999. How many projects can be submitted? Is there any money left, yes or no?

Strike three: the same minister—and I hope he or his parliamentary secretary will have the courage to rise—told us that, as a second active job creation measure, he transferred $2.7 billion through administrative agreements with the province of Quebec. That is absolutely false on two points. The amount of $2.7 billion is not only for Quebec, but for Canada as a whole. The worst part is that they are thumbing their noses at us in this House.

Unless I am mistaken, in a memo that I have here regarding this $2.7 billion, the agreements provide that this money cannot be spent until 2002. The minister has knowingly misled the House on three points, which I have just mentioned.

If Minister Saint Peter ever has to face Our Lord Jesus Christ, well I just told you that the cock crew three times. He misled the House three times, and that has to be rectified.

If nobody rises on the other side in a few moments, I will take it as meaning that the members opposite are perfectly capable of saying anything they want but do not have the courage to right their wrongs. This is totally unacceptable.

I would like that the Prime Minister was there at the time, on the opposition side. I do not know if my colleagues read this letter in its entirety earlier, but it speaks volumes.

The letter, signed by the member for Shawinigan, is dated February 17, 1993 and was sent to a group called Action-Chômage from Kamouraska.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have to interrupt the member. He knows my knowledge of the French language is not perfect. I heard what he said and I inquired as to the English translation. He said that the minister has misled the House.

This is unparliamentary and I would ask the member to withdraw what he said, namely that the minister has misled the House.

I hope the member will do this immediately.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw these words if they are deemed unparliamentary, but could the clerks at the table suggest to the Chair and to me another way of describing what the minister has done.

I have pointed out three statements in the minister's remarks that are incorrect. If this is unparliamentary, I am at a loss as to how this should be said.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are always differences between members about what a member has said and what another member thinks he has said.

In this case, the minister said something and the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok disagrees. They harbour different views. But it is obvious the minister did not do what the hon. member has accused him of doing, because there is a difference in opinion, and the hon. member was not convinced by the minister's arguments. The hon. member did not err, although the minister may have a different opinion.

There are differences like that all the time. It is the nature of debate in the House, but the hon. member cannot use unparliamentary terms to say that the minister did this or that. All members always want to speak the truth in the House, but the question of knowing what the truth is has been a matter for debate from time to time.

I know the hon. member can participate in the debate like all other members without using those words, and I thank him for withdrawing them.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you, but if this is the new way of putting it, I have to say I profoundly disagree with the minister.

It is nevertheless all to your credit, Mr. Speaker, that you picked up on my words, when I would have expected the minister to defend his honour himself.

I will close with a quote from the member for Shawinigan, who wrote the following to an Action-chômage group in February 1993. He said, about the Conservative government of the time, “Instead of going after the heart of the problem, they are going after the unemployed. These measures will have troubling repercussions, because they discourage workers”. The current Prime Minister went on to say “When the people have an opportunity to speak in 1993, there will be a change in course. I am sure that a new team offering new approaches and policies will help Canadians recover the confidence and hope they lost with the present government”. He was still talking about the Conservatives. The signature is that of the member for Shawinigan.

In closing, I would like to sing part of a famous song by Félix Leclerc, which goes like this:

On the eve of election He'll call you his son The following day, a hundred to one Your name he will shun

And that is exactly what happened.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok for his presentation aimed at illustrating the problem we have in our region. In the Gaspé and the Acadian peninsulas, the problem is about the same.

I ask my colleague whether he finds it acceptable for the present Prime Minister to accuse the former Conservative government as my predecessor, Doug Young, did by saying that this would be disastrous for New Brunswick. I would like to know what he thinks about this.

As I said earlier to my colleague on the other side of the House, what happened to the Liberals between the time they were in opposition and the day they took office? Something happened to them, and the member, who has more experience than me, can perhaps explain this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok may respond.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that when you name my riding, my time is not shortened accordingly.

I note, with my friend from Acadie—Bathurst, that this is deplorable. This may also be the reason why the people have lost confidence in politicians, because others who came before you and me did not keep their promises. They made all kinds of promises, they promised to look after their constituents' well-being but they did not deliver.

During the 1993 election, we told the people in Quebec that there was no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I know you are very interested in the debate between the member for Acadie—Bathurst and myself, so I will address the Chair.

It is very regrettable, but the democratic system demands that we learn to live with the people across the way. There is only one opportunity to get them to listen to reason and that is when there is an election. In 1993, the Progressive Conservatives got a taste of it, and in 1997 the Liberals came close. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst shook things up when he defeated Doug Young. I did the same when I won Mr. Gagnon's seat.

What I am saying is that it is up to the public to take action when the time comes. Right now, if people want to see other amendments, they must continue to put pressure on their local MP. And, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Canadians in the rest of Canada, in central and western Canada, to remember that the country to which they are so attached—it is perhaps sad that it is a sovereignist saying so, but I will say it anyway—owes its development to the east. The sun still rises in the east.

We have not yet learned how to gather strawberries in January and fish crab in February. To everything there is a season, and we cannot change that. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans sets the periods during which we may fish. It is not my fault if biology tells us that we cannot fish lobster for more than 10 weeks in a given zone.

But what do we do with the fisher after that? Do we send him to Montreal on a computer course? If he became a good computer programmer, would he ever return to lobster fishing?

Instead of wanting to cut all the assistance programs, what steps have Fisheries and Oceans and Human Resources Development Canada taken with the provinces concerned to improve marketing of these species and see whether there are not other species that can be marketed at the same time, so as to increase the income of fishers, dockhands and plant workers? We, too, would like not to need EI any more, but there is a difference between not needing it any more and starving. It is frustrating.

Every weekend, I return to my riding, and what I find the most surprising today, here in the House, is that the public is still calm. But I could not guarantee the physical safety of certain Liberal members across the way in the spots I visited again last weekend, because discontent is growing and it is palpable.