Debates of June 1st, 1998

Supply

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief. I wonder if my friend can tell workers and employers where the $15 billion EI fund is. Is it in a vault somewhere? Is it invested? What exactly has happened to that $15 billion fund? I think workers and employers would like to know that it is stored away safely.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this government has shown how credible it is in dealing with the finances of the nation.

Members can be assured that with this government and our Minister of Finance in control the money is going to be there in the future for those workers who need it. We see it as an investment. When we came to power there was something like a $6 billion deficit in terms of the unemployment insurance fund at that time. As a result, premiums were going up under the former Tory administration. We were able to bring them down and still have surplus funds in the EI fund to be there to protect workers' interests in the future. That is good management by this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad my question has to be short because I could say a lot on this subject. My colleague spoke about Quebec separating, but I can guarantee one thing: New Brunswick has no plans to separate, but it does have problems.

The member speaks of part time employees working 14 hours. How does he explain the fact that fewer than 40% of workers qualify for employment insurance? All the others were cut off employment insurance, because of the government.

I will close on this question. How does he explain that, before the election, his government said that changes to employment insurance would spell disaster for New Brunswick and, now that it is in power, it has made them?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member's figure of 40% is slightly off base. In terms of his province, New Brunswick, the figure is actually 75%. It shows that the system is working for him. Instead of burying our heads in the sand, we have tried to put a system in place that gives people the skills and the opportunity to get back into the workforce rather than to the continue the cycle of being on EI and using it as an income supplement.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the motion from the Bloc Quebecois. Because time is so limited I will try to focus on one aspect of this motion. I wish to address the aspect of the EI fund.

A couple of minutes ago I asked my friend a very direct question about the EI fund. I said that I hoped the government had stored away this money very carefully and that workers and employers who have contributed more than $15 billion into the fund, which is more than they have received back in benefits, would want to know that it had been stored away very safely, that it had been invested and put away in a vault somewhere. My friend provided an answer that was a little evasive, a little less than direct. My friend said in his speech that the government has been ensuring that the EI fund is there so that we can go into the future, or some bromide like that.

The EI fund is a myth. The EI fund does not exist in any real way. There is no fund. It is a fairy tale. It is not exactly one of the brothers Grimm fairy tales but it is a very grim fairy tale. Just like leprechauns, unicorns and the fairies of the woods, the EI fund does not exist. It never has existed.

We have a situation where the government runs around telling people “If we mandate that money is taken off your cheques and sent to us, it will go into some fund”. It is very much like the Bre-X disaster of a couple of years ago. Somebody told people “Invest in our company. We have millions of dollars of gold reserves in the jungles of Indonesia that we will soon be drawing upon. We just need a little money to get it out of the ground. Pretty soon it will all come back to you”.

Just like the Indonesian goldfields, the EI fund is a myth. It does not exist. There is a note in the consolidated revenue fund, an IOU to the workers and employers who have contributed to this fund. A $15 billion IOU.

My friend who was talking in a rather evasive way about the fund should be more direct and admit that the EI fund does not exist. There is no money in there. People who have been paying into it for years and years have been misled. We see this happening often in a government that is armed with the ability to tax and to spend.

We see it as well in things like the Canada pension plan. For years people were led to believe that all the money they paid in premiums was going into an account and it was building up for their retirement, only to find out that it was being lent to the provinces at below market rates of interest and there really was not any money. We see it happening with the federal superannuation pension fund.

Whenever there is a fund of money, the federal government cannot wait to get its greedy little fingers on it. No matter where it came from, no matter under what premise it was taken from people, in the end it never ever uses it for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. This is another example of that.

Where did the $15 billion go? It is a great mystery.

[An hon. member]

Indonesia.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Perhaps, who knows? Maybe it went to Italy. We do not know.

All we know is that it went into the consolidated revenue fund. We also know that the government is proposing to spend another $11 billion in the next few years. So we have a situation where the money that has allegedly come into the EI fund does not exist. We also know the government is going to spend $11 billion in the next few years.

We can only conclude that money is going to all kinds of things that workers and employers did not ask for and do not want. The government says “We have a better idea. We will spend it for you because we think we know better”. It speaks to the government's unspoken assumption that people do not know as well as the government does how to spend taxpayers' money.

We have a situation now where the government is going to start to spend this money away. I would argue this is wrong headed. It is a much better approach to say to employers and employees “Why do we not allow you to run this fund? Why do we not take this fund off budget? Why do we not get workers and employers to decide between them which is the appropriate level of premiums to pay and what are the right benefits to pay”.

Ultimately there will be a system where both parties will have their vested interests at the table and they will come up with a compromise that will somehow suit both parties. That system is in place in other countries so we think it is a very plausible way to go. We would argue that if we did that we would have a fund that would actually be there for people when they need to draw upon it.

My friends would say that in the past the government has honoured its IOUs. Fair enough. But in this case, if we go into a recession in the next couple of months, if as an example the economy suddenly turned down because the Asian crisis hits Canada in a hard way, we would be in the situation that because the government did not prudently set aside the $15 billion, we would have to go $15 billion into the hole. We would have to start running deficits once again. That is the effect of not putting that money aside.

Who would pay to get out of that deficit hole again? It would be the workers and employers because as the government has done over the last four years, it would raise taxes to get out of the deficit. We would see workers and employers paying twice to get out of the soup.

We argue that instead of perpetuating the myth that there is a fund, as my friend did a few minutes ago, why not be honest with Canadians? Why not tell them that the money has been spent away? Why not resolve not to do it again by setting up a separate account, hiving it from the actual budget and letting employers and employees run the account themselves? That would be a much better plan.

There is another issue associated with this. The other day the finance minister was before the finance committee. Regrettably I was unable to be there. He spoke about the EI surplus and was asked some questions about it. One thing he said which was rather strange was that cutting EI premiums would not create jobs. I found that very strange. When the government cut EI premiums by so very little a few months ago, it issued a press release in which it said that cutting EI premiums would create jobs.

Which way is it? Does the finance minister believe that cutting EI premiums will create jobs as he said a couple of months ago, or is he saying now that it will not, as he said on Thursday? The government should make up its mind. One day it will create jobs, the next day it will not create jobs. The finance minister better talk to some of the people in his own department and get it straight.

Canadians want to see some cuts to EI premiums. I think they have made that very clear. We know the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been after the government for years. We know that the Reform Party has been after the government for years. We ran in the election campaign on lowering EI premiums. The finance minister had better get his act together and quit trying to engage in this type of doublespeak where he tells what he thinks they want to hear at different times.

The government has perpetuated the myth for a long time that this fund is solvent with billions of dollars in it and it will be there when it is needed in the event of a recession. That is clearly not the case. I hope my friends across the way would quit perpetuating this myth, as my friend from Prince Edward Island did a couple of minutes ago, and start to give Canadians the honest truth. Only then when we have the complete truth will we all be able to sit down together like adults and solve these problems.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic that the member would stand today after a very successful convention in London where it was decided to reform the party into change. Obviously the old Reform Party which has been around for 10 years was not working very well so now it is in the process of changing.

Based on that I want to get the new Reform Party on record on where it stands on this issue. The member wants to know whether there is such a thing as an EI account. We know there is an EI account because we know by law that this fund is set up to help unemployed workers through active measures, benefits and a combination of income support when people are laid off. There are also some active measures to help people find jobs because the economy is changing very rapidly and those changes were needed.

Most economists on Bay Street say the number one choice in making cuts to put more money in people's pockets is to cut personal income tax, not to cut EI premiums. EI premiums have a very limited effect and the majority, except for one NDP economist in the Globe and Mail , suggested that premium cuts are the way to go.

Even though the government has cut premiums substantially, they were rising to $3.30 under the Tories, they are now down to $2.70. The government is on target to reduce premiums more this year. I want the member to be aware of two things.

There is an independent commission that does review it. It has representatives of labour and employers. It makes recommendations to the minister of human resources and to the Minister of Finance. The member was incorrect in that. There is such a commission today.

Which is the new Reform Party's position on this issue?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I point out to the member that the Reform Party has done fairly well. It did displace eight Liberals in the west in the last election. The old Reform Party functioned fairly effectively as well as the new Reform Party does, as the member puts it.

It is safe to say Reformers believe very strongly that we need to reduce EI premiums. That was part of our election platform in the 1997 election. We also point out the government should hold the line on spending instead of engaging in $11 billion in new spending initiatives and cooking the books to try to run up a big surplus. If it would hold the line it would find it would have ample money to both reduce EI premiums and reduce personal income taxes and to start the process of paying down Canada's behemoth debt of $583 billion. Being a little disciplined opens up a world of options for the government.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the EI fund being a myth. He cannot have it both ways. On one hand the member says the fund does not exist and on the other he says the government will defend it.

In terms of government spending on this EI fund for the benefit of future employment, what is the member's view on the re-employment measures and the active measures and the millions of dollars we are spending to get people back to work?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend across the way for the question.

Of course there is a line somewhere in the budget that says employment insurance account, but it is empty. My friend knows it. It is the actual account itself, the money in it, that is the myth. There is no money there.

My friend suggested there are various types of programs. I think he called them partnerships and strategies. I think sometimes the strategies are tragedies because we know very well that after 30 years of all types of strategies and partnerships and all kinds of programs unemployment is chronic in many parts of the country. We know in Atlantic Canada we have unemployment in some cases of 20%.

I simply ask in return how well have these worked, all these strategies and partnerships that have left us with 20% unemployment.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the motion moved by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, castigating 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.

The EI reforms are proof that the Liberal government is not listening to the Canadian people. Overly stringent eligibility criteria have condemned thousands of unemployed workers to poverty.

My colleague across the way boasted that now a woman working 14 hours in an industry qualifies for EI. But he kept quiet about the fact that fewer than 40% of workers are now eligible. That was not mentioned.

He did not mention that my predecessor, Doug Young, won the election by saying that the changes made by the Conservatives had been a disaster for New Brunswick. Today, New Brunswick's premier, Camille Thériault, says that the province lost over $125 million annually.

The Liberals proudly tell us that they do want to encourage young people to go on EI. The fact of the matter is that, instead of EI, the young people in my region are now turning to welfare, with benefits at $200 a month. That is the reality in my riding.

Countless times, I have invited the Minister of Human Resources Development to come and see our young people. He has always declined. Over and over, New Brunswick's Liberal ministers, Camille H. Thériault, Jean-Camille DeGrâce and Bernard Thériault, have denounced the federal government for taking money out of workers' pockets. They are all from the same party, all Liberals.

Overly tough EI eligibility criteria have driven thousands of workers into poverty. Fewer than 40% of this country's unemployed workers are drawing benefits right now. This means that, in April 1998, almost 780,000 unemployed workers were denied access to their own program. It is there for them, not to help the Minister of Finance pay down the debt. He has no claim on it whatsoever.

I was sorry this morning when I realized that the Liberal member from PEI still has not got the message from Atlantic Canada; he may be the next one to be shown the door, because in Nova Scotia they got rid of all the Liberals, while in New Brunswick they dumped some senior ministers such as Doug Young.

The Liberals must see the reality that prevails in the Atlantic provinces, the Gaspé Peninsula, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario and northern Alberta. They must see what is really going on in the country. We have a job problem. The government will not solve it by punishing families.

When the Liberals were canvassing during the election campaign, they did not tell people “We will make families suffer”. This is not what they said. Perhaps the members opposite who are laughing do so because they do not have in their ridings people who are starving and who shoot themselves in the head. They say we must not scare people. But this is what goes on in our ridings.

The Liberals may laugh all they want, but this is the reality they created in this country. They took a measure which they had opposed when the Conservatives were in office. Indeed, when the Conservatives formed the government, the Liberals were telling Canadians from coast to coast that all these changes to the employment insurance program would be disastrous for workers. Now, they have the nerve to come and tell the public “We are lowering the debt”.

The member referred to the 400,000 people who got help, but there are 780,000 who no longer qualify. How can he have the nerve to rise in this House and say such things? This is absolutely shameful.

Some workers are being told “We will take money out of your contributions so that when you do not have a job, you can get one”. Then, there are employers who fire employees for absolutely no reason and these employees do not qualify for employment insurance even though they have contributed for years. How can the hon. member claim that this is a good program?

How can the Liberal member from Prince Edward Island, in Atlantic Canada, dare talk the way he did this morning? This is truly shameful. He should pack his things and go home. I am convinced he will when the next election is held. People in Atlantic Canada and in Kapuskasing who elected Liberals will not forget. Their problems are the same. Nobody is begging not to work.

In my own area, companies that set up shop and needed, say, 200 workers got thousands of applications. How can the government turn around and suggest employment insurance makes people dependent? How dare it say things like that?

It really is a shame that the government should take the workers' money through the back door to pay down the debt. It should be ashamed to use their money to balance the budget. This is shameful. And the only thing our Reform Party friends can think of is lowering the contributions.

I have never seen workers take to the streets to demand lower contributions. But I did see workers, unemployed people along with priests and bishops in the streets condemning the federal government because what it is doing is wrong. I did see the whole community in the streets during the election campaign, on May 2, 1997, when 5,000 people stood in front of the UI office in Bathurst with priests and bishops with them.

We even had priests telling the faithful in their churches they should participate in these demonstrations because it was their duty and our families are suffering. These demonstrations did occur. What the federal government is doing with the employment insurance is shameful and totally unacceptable. And then it has the gall to tell us the opposition is short of ideas and is not talking about jobs.

I keep talking about jobs every day. I keep telling the federal government, which is responsible for this, that we should keep our fish and process and reprocess it ourselves. I keep saying that we should process and reprocess our wood locally. Every day I say that we should process and reprocess our blueberries, to make jams or other products.

As long as I am in this House, I will not accept without raising my voice that the government should steal money from workers to pay for the national debt and to balance the budget. I will never do so. I challenge any Liberal member in this House to stand and say how nice the government is toward workers. This is a real shame.

The Liberals do not even deserve to be here. They were elected by human beings to whom they cause hardship every day: women, children, fathers, entire families are suffering. The Liberals should be ashamed and should not even stand to ask questions, because they have doomed Canadians to poverty. This is what they have done. My colleague from Prince Edward Island should be ashamed of the way he talked today. He certainly does not know where his roots are.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on his speech. He described what life is really for the people in theirs regions. I congratulate him particularly because the Liberal majority wanted to blame this on us, to make it an issue concerning sovereignists, separatists who do not believe in Canada.

That is not the case. This is a matter of social justice and that is what it is all about.

In support of what he said, I will read from a letter dated February 17, 1993. I will read you one paragraph and let you guess who signed this letter:

In my opinion, it is unacceptable for the people of Canada to continue in this disastrous direction and further penalize the victims of this recession. Things will change after the people have had a chance to vote in the 1993 election. I am sure that a new team with new approaches and directions will help Canadians regain the confidence and hope they have lost because of the present government.

This statement was made with respect to the Conservative employment insurance bill.

Who signed this letter? Who said it was unacceptable and things would change after the election? The current Prime Minister of Canada. This letter exists. It is available. It confirms what the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst said.

Is it not a fact that the federal government unilaterally decided to break the agreement between source and manufacturing regions in Quebec and Canada? Some sort of an agreement had been in place for more than 25 or 30 years. Source regions supplied primary resources and the philosophy was to provide an employment insurance plan ensuring a good income the rest of the year because it helped create jobs, manufacturing jobs, year round in larger centres. All workers understood the need for this kind of solidarity.

With its successive EI reforms limiting duration of payments and eligibility, did the Liberal government not call into question this agreement between all regions of Quebec and Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague has just mentioned in quoting the letter, my predecessor, Doug Young, did the same thing to Inkerman, New Brunswick, before 1993. He told 700 people in a room there “If you elect me, I will fight on your behalf. I will fight on your behalf for employment insurance, because otherwise it will be disastrous for New Brunswick”. He sounded like the current Prime Minister.

You must understand that people at home do not want to be on employment insurance. They want to work. But what happens? With the cuts to EI, people stop receiving benefits in January and end up in the so-called black hole. They get $165 a week before taxes, which amounts to $135. No one on the other side of the House can live on so little.

My colleague on the other side of the House who is shouting should have been here earlier to hear my speech. He should be ashamed to be in this House.

Doug Young cut UI and he was shown the door. The Liberals then rewarded him with $6 million for the highway between Fredericton and Moncton. That is what the Liberals did. That is what they are bragging about.

The Prime Minister was not saying during the election “You need Doug Young in Ottawa” He said “I need Doug Young in Ottawa” To do what? To make cuts like those he made in transport, employment insurance and national defence. That is what we were left with.

At home the jobs are seasonal, whereas in the rest of the country there is much more manufacturing. However, if they decided to set up some plants in our region today, I challenge my colleague opposite from Prince Edward Island to tell us whether our people are lazy and do-nothings, as our colleague Doug Young has described them. Let him stand up and tell the people back home what the Liberals said about them.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise today on this very important issue that we have been debating from day one in committee and in the House of Commons.

The motion before the House today is very important for the regions affected. I listened carefully to my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who said what people are feeling. It is interesting to see the effect of his speech in the House, because people's feelings are just as he described.

I would also like to comment on the motion moved by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I moved a motion at the human resources committee's first meeting on October 21, 1997. I moved that the committee review the changes made to the unemployment insurance program to assess their impact on Canadians and make recommendations to the government on how to make the EI program fairer for all workers.

I had the support of every opposition party and even some government members. My motion was defeated by six votes to five. It was very close. On the government side there are also some concerns. People are suffering.

Why I brought this motion so early into committee after elections at the first committee is because it was urgent. People in Atlantic Canada and some other regions of Canada through the reform to the unemployment insurance act are suffering. It is not that we want employment insurance. People want to work.

The Liberal reform to EI has created much hardship among Canadians who are most in need, who are unable to defend themselves. That is why they elected us.

We saw on June 2 what Atlantic Canadians said. I think it was very clear. They elected mostly Tories in New Brunswick. There are not very many Liberals I do not think. I heard comments from the hon. member from P.E.I. a while ago. I am really surprised that it is coming from Atlantic Canada. I am sure that he has citizens in his riding who are suffering from the employment insurance reform. I hope they heard what he said and I hope they remember what he said.

We have to come up with a strategy. Our party has been lobbying from day one to reduce EI premiums. That is a solution for job creation. These people do not want unemployment. They want jobs. One of the problems is that there are barriers to job creation.

EI premiums are a tax on jobs. We have been asking questions of the finance minister since day one. I believe it was my first question in the House of Commons. We called the Liberals pickpockets. It was not considered unparliamentary after it was analysed. This is a way to create jobs and to get people off unemployment and off welfare.

The hon. member said a while ago that if people are not on unemployment they will find jobs. In some regions of Canada they are on welfare. Believe me, that is not too appetising when we consider the fact that in order to get a job in today's economy one must have a good education. In order to get a good education one has to have money. If people do not have money they cannot get a good education and they will not get a job. These people are behind the eight-ball and will be there for a while.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has been calling for the federal government to reduce EI premiums from $2.70 to $2 per $100 of insurable earnings. We have been saying that since day one. Even the government's chief actuary agrees that the EI fund would maintain a sustainable surplus with the kind of EI premium cuts that we are proposing. If the government does not take our word for it, it can at least take the word of the chief actuary.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has long opposed the government's tax grab on the EI surplus. The Minister of Finance points smugly to what he likes to describe as a happy economy. In that happy economy is some facts he chooses not to mention. I will mention a few he does not wish to mention.

Per capita personal income is down after inflation and taxes are taken into account. We do not hear anything about that. The number of Canadians living below the poverty line has risen under the Liberals. Those living below the poverty line are in a deeper hole than in 1993. We do not hear the government bragging about that. Canadians are saving less of their take home pay while taking on more debt. Once again, we do not hear the government bragging about that.

We hear government members saying that the Tories were there before and it was over $3. It is a broken record. It is certainly not helping today's citizens. If I were to go back to 1971 when Pierre Trudeau was here, what would it do for today's society? It would not do anything. It is certainly not creative.

Members will be interested to hear that more Canadians went bankrupt last year than ever before. We have not heard about that. We do not hear the Minister of Finance stating that. Some 85,000 Canadians declared personal bankruptcy last year. This is unacceptable.

Canadians want to work. They do not want EI. Until we are able to remove the barriers to job creation we have to protect the people who are going through difficult periods, people with families. It is our responsibility as legislators, as members of parliament, to protect all Canadians. In times of trouble and in difficult times it is up to us to bring the issue to this floor and to protect them. We must treat them equitably and fairly.

When we look at Atlantic Canada, we look at the fisheries and we look at the wood industry. We have seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada. The reform to the Employment Insurance Act is certainly not providing for them. I wonder how government members would feel fishing on top of six feet of ice. They just cannot do it.

These people have to be protected. People cutting wood for the paper we are writing on here certainly cannot cut that wood in the winter with over six feet of snow. These people have to be protected. There seems to be nothing there for them at all but hardship.

Young people also are hurt by the employment insurance and by unemployment. Their jobless rate is twice the national average. It is truly incredible.

I have this to say to young Canadians who are out of work: since youth unemployment is only part of the larger problem of joblessness in Canada, there will be no viable solution to deal with youth unemployment as long as there is no lasting economic growth and development. We have a lot to do before young Canadians can become full members of our society. This is also why I moved that motion then.

Today I am happy to speak to the motion by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. In my riding there is an association called Future Street People. Can you believe this, future street people. We asked to meet with the minister. He turned us down.

I strongly believe we can solve this problem, but we have to work together. In the meantime, we must protect people in need.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I am very pleased today to join with my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois in decrying the unacceptable behaviour of the Liberal government.

Even if the Prime Minister likes to think of himself as a great international diplomat and a great democrat, since the beginning of the year he has been acting like a political dictator. All of the government decisions are centralized and made at the office of “the little guy from Shawinigan”, who is becoming more like a boy scout from Bay Street, in Toronto.

The Prime Minister is totally disconnected from the reality in Canada and in Quebec. We all know his position about the millennium scholarships fund. We know it is an unprecedented violation of an exclusive area of provincial jurisdiction.

We know about his position concerning the hepatitis C victims. I will never forget the shame I read on the face of several of my colleagues opposite when they had to vote against sick people. Why? Because the Prime Minister had ordered them to do so. They were forced to vote against their own conscience.

And what about his reforms to employment insurance? I say “his reforms”, because every decision is made by his own office. Last week, my colleagues, and in particular the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, with experts and former recipients, considered the negative impact of the employment insurance, which has become the poverty insurance.

Poverty insurance for our young people: one young worker in four is eligible for benefits, while, in 1990, three young workers in four who paid employment insurance premiums were eligible. That is possibly what the Liberals call the new youth employment strategy.

Poverty insurance for pregnant women: several of them are no longer eligible. Nice way to promote the family.

Poverty insurance for seasonal workers in areas such as construction, fishing, agriculture, truck crop harvesting and many others.

I have tried to find something positive in this reform. I have looked again and again, but I have not found anything yet.

The time has come to bring back on the right track the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who are using the employment insurance fund surplus as they see fit without giving any consideration to the real needs of workers.

I am proud to add my voice to those of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois who are in touch with the people of Quebec and who are not afraid to stand up for the most disadvantaged in our society.

I am adding my voice to theirs in condemning the Liberal government for the disastrous effects of the unemployment insurance reform and for what Ontario Premier Mike Harris has called theft, speaking about the use of the employment insurance fund surplus that comes from contributions paid by employers and employees.

The Bloc Quebecois also condemns the federal Liberals, namely the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and those who hold the power in this increasingly centralizing government, for their inability to adapt the employment insurance program to the new realities of our society, particularly with regard to young people, women and independent workers.

I would like to talk about another problem stemming from this infamous reform, namely the fact that the Department of Human Resources Development has been fiddling with designated areas since the 1996 reform. The changes that were made penalize the majority of rural and semi-urban areas in Quebec.

Let us take, for example, my riding of Lotbinière. With this geographic gymnastics, we end up with two regional unemployment rates: one at 6% and the other at 11.4%.

In everyday life, this means that a worker who lives in Leclerville, in the Lotbinière RCM, where the unemployment rate is at 6%, has to work 700 hours to be eligible for 14 weeks of EI benefits, while another worker living a few kilometres away in Parisville, in the Bécancour RCM, an area where unemployment stands at 11.4%, has to work only 490 hours to get EI benefits for 22 weeks.

Try explaining that to the unemployed. It is sheer nonsense.

The Mouvement des sans-emploi de Lotbinière has made numerous representations to the human resources development department, but nobody in this department could tell us who made the decision on these territorial divisions, and nobody could tell us either who could correct those mistakes.

Even the minister is no longer answering the information requests of local citizens. What is he waiting for? He is probably busy handing out the EI fund surplus to the Minister of Finance. That is the Liberal priority.

Let me turn now to the people, very often young people, who work on the family farm. Revenue Canada and the human resources development department take the position that, because of kinship, these workers are very often excluded from the plan, even when these jobs have all the elements on a standard contract and the employer would have to hire other people anyway.

In other words, a father should say to his son that if he wants to make sure he is eligible for EI insurance, he should work for some other farmer. Nonsense. Most of the time, these young people will take over from their parents on the farm.

Moreover, these people whose jobs are deemed uninsurable by Revenue Canada are being deprived of benefits and must often reimburse benefits that they received in previous years. This approach is unfair and infringes on people's freedom.

In fact, this form of discrimination against those who employ relatives forces owners of farm businesses, where the bulk of the work is often seasonal, to hire workers from outside, instead of their own children.

I take this opportunity today to say to the human resources development minister that I am deeply disappointed with his department's decision to shut down the student labour office in Plessisville.

This office, which had been in place for several years, was meeting the needs of young people from the regional county municipality of L'Érable. The government has explained to us that, this year, in order to reach students, it is posting available jobs on at least five sites in the municipality. As if posters could talk.

But where will students have to go to be entitled to the same services that were offered last year in Plessisville? To Victoriaville, where everything has been centralized for the summer season. This is yet another nice way to get closer to the local people.

But we know why the regional directorate of the Department of Human Resources Development acted in this way. This department went through so many cuts that regional directorates are limited to offering minimal and essential services.

In his last report, the auditor general, when commenting on services offered by the Department of Human Resources Development, said that individualized services in this department would no longer be as efficient, given the significant cuts made in the last few years.

Also, what is the minister waiting for to respond to the urgent requests of the maple syrup producers who were hard hit by the ice storm in January? Where are the millions of dollars missing? This department is a shambles.

In conclusion, as it said in this morning's newspapers, this government's trademarks in the last year have been arrogance and especially a lack of compassion on the employment insurance issue.

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

Madam Speaker, based on the fact the member is a sovereignist or separatist and is very much interested in seeing his province separate from the rest of Canada, I want to get some advice from him and his party's position on the employment insurance system.

The employment insurance system takes premiums from employees and employers and redistributes that money in provinces that have high unemployment. In Quebec they get more money than they put into the system.

If Quebec were to separate it would be running a deficit in that account if it had to create its own system. Would it not be to his benefit to tell us what kind of system he would put in place to deal with an issue like that or if he believes in the EI system?

The other question deals with the active measures, part two. We transfer federal dollars under the EI system to the province of Quebec to operate part two of the EI system. The understanding is this fund was a consensus in Quebec, was supported by all factions of Quebec, both the labour movement and the employers. Can the member tell me if he is in favour or opposed to part two of the EI system?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member across the floor to know that when Quebec is entirely on its own to administer the revenue and other taxes it collects from Quebeckers, particularly the employment insurance that will be repatriated to Quebec, we will certainly have a far more efficient and far more humane way of using that surplus. In Quebec, our attitude is far more social democratic than that of all the hon. members over there.

I see this as very positive, because in their present system they are penalizing workers by forcing them to go on welfare for no logical reason. If we ever administer the employment insurance fund, it will be done in a far more humane way.

We understand that some situations, or economic contexts, are difficult as far as employment is concerned. People may lose their jobs, but they then need training, they need help, and then, if they cannot manage to find work, they can be prepared for going on welfare. That is the humane way of doing things, and that is the way things will be done in a sovereign Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member opposite and I want him to respond to the following. As he and all members know, under the EI legislation $2 billion is available to the provinces and territories for active re-employment measures and related labour market services.

These provisions provide unemployed Canadians, including youth and women, with improved skills and opportunities for employment. Employment insurance also helps women by increasing their earned income through a $50 minimum earnings exemption and by removing the artificial 15 hour ceiling on part time work and through employment benefits such as wage subsidies and earnings supplement.

What would the member have against those two moves? On the one hand we have money being given over to the provinces and the territories and on the other we have assistance for women. What exactly does he have against those two ideas?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member across the floor, first of all, that the money comes from the provinces. The money is collected from taxpayers living in all of the provinces of Canada. That is the money the government is trying to administer in the employment insurance fund.

You will see that, in Quebec, we are going to do things properly, because an agreement has been signed, not long ago, on manpower training. Judging by the way Minister Louise Harel and her colleagues in the National Assembly are preparing this program, I am sure that training will be far more appropriate and far more responsive to the needs of the community, because it will be in the hands of the Quebec government, and in the hands of the governments of the other provinces.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but notice this morning, during the debate on a motion put forward by my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, that the arrogance and cynicism shown last week by the Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Human Resources Development are contagious.

The hon. member for Malpeque, in Prince Edward Island, and the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River, in Manitoba, were laughing at us, making disparaging remarks while we were delivering our speeches, while we were talking about the poverty created entirely by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development. Their smiles, their cynicism and their disparaging remarks make them unworthy of speaking on behalf of those they claim to represent.

I was listening earlier to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who defeated Doug Young. During question period and debates concerning employment insurance, Doug Young used to demonstrate the same pompous arrogance and cynicism and make the same disparaging, uncalled for and unparliamentary remarks as these members of parliament. My hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst defeated him.

I hope the same thing will happen to the members for Malpeque and Kenora—Rainy River. If their constituents are watching us, I want to tell them “Defeat them in the next election. Go to their riding offices and hold them accountable for their actions. Ask them why they laughed when we were talking about the poor, the unemployed and all the people left out of the employment insurance reforms. Voters from Malpeque and Kenora—Rainy River, go knock on the doors of these pompous members of Parliament who claim that the people in their ridings are quite satisfied with the employment insurance program. Go tell these cynics that it is not true. Go tell these sarcastic members they are not worthy of the seat they are occupying. They are no more worthy than the finance minister”.

His not being here today will not stop me from mentioning that last week he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to present his analysis of the supplementary estimates. Do you think that given the excellent job by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques we were going to stick to the supplementary estimates?

We talked about employment insurance and while I was presenting all the arguments against the Liberal reform implemented since 1996, the finance minister did exactly the same thing as the members for Malpeque and Kenora—Rainy River. He was laughing at people's misery. He was laughing at the results of his policy. He was proudly boasting about his accomplishments as Minister of Finance.

Any dummy could have done what he did; it is easy to put your financial house in order when you choose two targets: students, who were hit with billions and billions of dollars in cuts to post-secondary education, and the unemployed, who were robbed year after year of $6 billion for a grand total of $19 billion.

I listened to my Liberal colleague for Malpeque, who makes fun of the unemployed and the underprivileged, saying that the EI fund does exist, but it does not really. What the finance minister has been doing for the past four years is basically this: he has been taking employee and employer contributions and putting them into his own pocket.

When the time came to pay his debts to eliminate the deficit, he paid cash. That is why there is no money left in that fund. He stole it. At the end of the current fiscal year, he will have stolen $19 billion. Next year, it will be $25 billion, and that amount will continue to grow year after year.

If the member is too thick-headed to know what is really going on with regard to employment insurance, he should not be here. He has no right to laugh about the terrible things that are happening in Canada, especially concerning the management of the employment insurance fund.

What is going on with regard to employment insurance? What is going on with regard to the job market? It is quite simple. Until the early 1990s, more than 80% of unemployed Canadians, including women and young people, were able to rely on a form of help called unemployment insurance. They could rely on that help for a certain amount of time, enough to relocate and to find another job.

Since 1996, since the reform brought in by the member for Lasalle—Émard and finance minister and by two successive human resources development ministers—the first being the one who was defeated by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst and the second being the one whom it would be in our interest to defeat in the next election—, the proportion of employment insurance beneficiaries has shrunk almost by half.

Today, only 42% of those who would normally qualify are eligible to receive benefits; less than half of those people, 42%, are now eligible because of the new requirements set by the Minister of Finance, by the Minister of Human Resources Development, in fact, by the Liberals. A lot of people no longer have access to employment insurance because of the reform.

These are general figures. Only 42% of the unemployed qualify, which means the other 58% do not. More than half of those who are affected by the scourge of unemployment no longer qualify for EI benefits because of more stringent conditions and a longer qualifying period. In short, the unemployed have been thrown out on to the streets.

The Liberals are telling us they want to help young people, but 75% of all young workers who are unemployed, people who have graduated and are in their twenties, do not qualify for EI benefits. Some of them are less educated, but others have graduated and are out of work nonetheless. It can happen to anybody.

Last week, the finance minister was quite proud to tell the finance committee that we may have a budget surplus next year, not a EI fund surplus, which we know about. He is making fun of us. He laughs at people right under their noses. He is cynical and sarcastic, as we saw this morning.

In his last budget, he told us there would be no surplus and no deficit for the next three years. He is laughing at us. If nothing changes, the budget surplus will be more than $20 billion three years from now. He is cooking the books.

He was quite proud and he kept laughing when I told him that in 1989, there were 400,000 fewer unemployed and $3 billion more in benefits being paid out. The finance minister was laughing this morning, and his colleagues too. His colleagues from Malpeque and Kenora—Rainy River laugh when we tell them we have 400,000 more unemployed workers today and that they get $3 billion less in benefits. They find this very funny.

Last week, I asked the finance minister a question about this problem. I did not get any answer. I will ask my question again today. Perhaps, we never know, he is listening in a corner of his office, behind closed blinds because he does not want to meet anyone at this point. I have just one question for the finance minister: when he gets up in the morning and looks in the mirror, is he ashamed of himself? It is a real shame to have acted in such a way to put our financial house in order.

There are two major sources: the Canadian social transfer, that is federal transfers to the provinces to fund welfare, post-secondary education and health care, and the employment insurance fund, into which the minister has been dipping, year after year. He puts the money in his pockets and when the time comes to sign a cheque, he uses the money he has taken from workers and employers.

The finance minister did not bother answering me. He did not because I am convinced that he now has doubts. If he does not have any doubts, there is a lack of intelligence somewhere.

But one cannot undertake a reform in this hurtful way and say with one's hand on one's heart: “But what is happening to Canada? Poverty has been on the rise for five years”. I should say so. There are more poor children than before. Why? There is no need to be a rocket scientist to know why. One cannot cut billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund and welfare and then expect to get away with it by saying “What is happening? There are more unemployed people than before”.

These are the people responsible, the ones who are laughing this morning when they are shown the true face of poverty and unemployment. I hope that Quebeckers and Canadians will open their eyes and especially their ears wide. Such cynicism cannot go unchallenged.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, the last speaker certainly strayed some distance in terms of describing the attitude of a couple of members on this side of the House, myself included. I hope Canadians listen to what we are saying and not the descriptions used by the member opposite.

We on this side of the House take very seriously the situation of the unemployed. That is why we have tried to make improvements to the system. The reality is that the system had to be changed to ensure it will be there in the future for the unemployed and the workers who need it.

Is the member opposite suggesting that we take out the provision in the Employment Insurance Act that allows low income families with dependants to receive a higher benefit level than they did under the old legislation? Is he suggesting that we should do away with the hours based system? This has brought 500,000 people into the system who otherwise would not be entitled to benefits. Is he suggesting that we deny part time workers who work less than 15 hours a week? Is he suggesting that we take them out of the system? Two hundred and seventy thousand women benefit by that section of the legislation. Is that what he is suggesting? Is he going to bury his head in the sand and go back to the old unemployment insurance system? That system is an end run where people never try to maintain long term jobs.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we simply want justice and fairness. Currently, everyone, without exception, contributes to the employment insurance program. This includes young people, women, older people and middle aged workers. However, access to the program has been significantly reduced over the past 10 years.

Before 1990, over 80% of unemployed workers were eligible for employment insurance. Now, only 42% qualify, and only one in four young people qualife.

The member may claim he was not laughing earlier, but we have witnesses who can confirm that he did not stop laughing while we discuss alarming figures on poverty and unemployment. The Liberals are laughing in our face.

People, particularly the poor and the unemployed, should come here more often and watch from the public gallery. They would see the attitude of the members responsible for the cuts and the human misery. They would see the members responsible for the significantly reduced access to the EI program and for social inequity in Canada. They would see that they are dealing with members who are cynical and sarcastic and who do not care at all about their fate.

[The Speaker]

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

Forestry

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

Mr. Speaker, northwestern Ontario has been chosen by the Canadian Forestry Association as the forest capital of Canada for the year 2000.

The northwest's bid, led by Development Thunder Bay and Dryden Economic Development won out over rivals Calgary, Alberta and Haliburton, Ontario.

The Forest Capital Award is especially significant for the year 2000. Not only is it the millennium year but it is also marks the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Forestry Association.

This designation means that the region can go ahead with a series of legacy projects and a calendar year of events celebrating the economic, social and spiritual values of the forest.

Canada has much to celebrate.