Antoine Dubé

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The member's timing is perfect. I know that, in a speech she will be making soon, the hon. member for Québec will have the opportunity to give him this information. It is true that the majority of unsure part time jobs-70 per cent-are held by women, but some are also held by young people. What should be remembered is that, in theory, they will be able to qualify, but in practice, exactly the opposite will happen.

I will explain to the member who usually understands things pretty well. This is what will happen. It is true that some employers did as the hon. member said, but there will be a change of behaviour on their part. Before, they did not pay premiums for employees who worked 15 hours or less. Now that they will have to pay premiums, what will happen? They will prefer making permanent employees work overtime instead of paying premiums.

It must be remembered that the bill is a bit like Robin Hood in reverse. This bill lowers the ceiling of insurable earnings from $42,380 to $39,000, so that employers will be inclined to ask those employees to work overtime and there will be less work for part time employees. This is the opposite of what was intended.

As for the statistics, according to projections made by a number of experts in the field, 25 per cent of women working part time for more than 15 hours per week will be dropped from the system because the number of hours is being raised. In order to qualify, a person in my region would now have to work 17 hours and a half per week for 26 weeks. Before, the number of hours required was much less.

People are being eliminated. At least 25 per cent of people are going to be dropped from the system. Only an additional 5 per cent will be covered. The difference then is minus 20 per cent. This are real figures, these are the department's figures. These are not made-up figures, they are not juggled up. These are the figures from the department.

If this bill is so good, how is it that, last Sunday, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, said-after a thorough study-that it was discriminating against women and young people? They even wondered if they should not go to court to condemn the discriminatory nature of this legislation, given that the two groups most affected by these changes are the women and young people.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

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

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

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleague showed us the true objective of this bill. It is called the employment insurance bill, but as you have seen, there was an underlying concern to all her comments; the purpose of the new measures is to fight against abusers or pseudo-abusers.

The new Minister of Human Resources Development, when he first appeared before the committee, indicated that he wanted to ease the rules, but when he appeared the second time, told us about an extraordinary discovery he had made. He said there were approximately 120,000 cases of fraud in Canada. In fact, there are 116,603. He was asked if that was an increase. No, it represents a decrease because there were 131,081 cases of fraud in 1991-92.

I will be brief, Madam Speaker. Figures show that the last bill allowed the government to recover $272 million and they hope to recover an additional amount of $345 million with this new bill.

But, out of those $272 million, figures submitted by the parliamentary secretary himself show that only $93 million resulted from real fraud. Three quarters of the remaining $179 million were due to errors made by the unemployment insurance commission. These were errors.

So instead of passing legislation that is an insurance plan designed at fighting fraud, the government should have drafted legislation to prevent errors, which sometimes cause serious trouble, because the commission can go back five years.

Does the member agree that we should take more time and draft this bill in such a way that it will help public servants prevent errors, which most of the time are made in good faith simply because the legislation is not clear? Does she think we will improve the bill with last minute amendments? There were 42 in committee one evening. What does she think about correcting mistakes before we attack the pseudo-abusers, the pseudo-defrauders?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member for Malpeque may have tried to console me a little bit by reminding me that the Liberal majority had approved an amendment introduced by the members of the Bloc. As the author of this amendment, I only want to point out that this amendment was about adding the two words community agencies, omitted by the Liberal majority, as entitled to federal grants in order to create jobs. I only wanted to ensure that they would not forget this important aspect.

Despite this modest amendment, the only one they deigned to accept out of some fifteen that were moved, one fact remains. Since the member mentions it, I want to remind him that the Liberal majority introduced 42 amendments in Committee. Those amendments have been approved, of course, since they have a majority. Those 42 amendments were introduced in committee-I remember-by various Liberal members, sometimes by the parliamentary secretary. When questioned on the substance of these amendments, I must say that, most of the time, in 75 per cent of the cases, it was public servants who answered. Why? Because these amendments were obviously written by public servants. What type of amendments were they? Technical amendments to reinforce clauses of the bill, whether some members like it or not, aimed-forgive my language-at catching more people red-handed and at reinforcing penalties against those who abuse the unemployment insurance system, but this is not said.

They say that they have improved the bill. Granted, but they do not say that the objective was to eliminate such abuses. The three amendments improve the system, but the three amendments presented to the House could only be moved by the minister. Everybody in the House knows it, but it is something we have to say for the record because people outside the House do not know this. We, in the opposition, have been criticized for failing to propose any amendment. We were told that we were criticizing the bill but had no amendment to propose. There is a parliamentary rule that says very clearly that as soon as an amendment involves changes of a financial nature, it amendment must be moved by a minister of the crown.

This is why the opposition could not move such an amendment.

You will understand that, otherwise, we would have proposed quite a few amendments to eliminate the negative impact of the $2 billion in cuts which come on top of the $5 billion in cuts made as a result of the previous federal budget and Bill C-17. I wanted to make this comment.

Now, for my question. In her speech, to which the member for Malpeque listened, the member for Mercier reminded the House of a statement, to my knowledge the only statement, by the economic development minister of his own province, Prince Edward Island, who said how bad it was going to be for the economy of Prince Edward Island, which is a top performer in the area of job creation. I would say that in Prince Edward Island, apart for government services, jobs are only seasonal.

There is no farming in winter. He pointed that out. Fishing too is only in the summer. And as far as tourism is concerned, people who like PEI come mainly in the summer. Does the member agree with the statement made by the economic development minister of his own province, who said that this bill was bad? Also, does he agree with the government's figures according to which, from now on, Prince Edward Island, with a population of only 170,000, will lose $11 million every year?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, who is true to form, since I got to know him in the human resources development committee, and I know that he was sincere in what he just talked about. He seemed even to move you, Madam Speaker, because the points he made related to an area that you come from too.

In spite of all that he had a somewhat easier task today since he was speaking after a Reform Party member who was obviously attacking the unemployment insurance system head on. He found himself in a somewhat awkward position, almost in the opposition, and I would say to my hon. colleague from Fredericton-York-Sunbury that I think he would feel more at ease with us on this side of the House than on the other side.

Things being what they are, however, he is still sitting opposite, on the government side. I know he made some efforts, and he put forward a particular amendment. I am giving him a chance to talk about his amendment because we are in the House and, after all, are here to inform people. I know beforehand what he will say. I know that the three amendments he put forward for the Liberals do seem, at first glance, to soften a little the blow of the $365 million cuts, but nevertheless the budget goal remains the same: to find $2 billion.

In order to compensate for the $365 million forgone because of his three amendments, the government will have to go after abusers and repeaters even more relentlessly, and the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury knows it. Abusers are abusers, and all members agree that abuse should not be tolerated. But repeaters, according to the government, will be those who are on UI for five consecutive 20-week periods. They will get a one percentage point penalty each time.

People who will be affected are seasonal employees in the hon. member's area and in the Acadian peninsula we visited last year. People asked us not to do that. I remember it vividly. Both the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and I were deeply moved by these representations.

Today is a sombre day, because this bill provides for $2 billion in cuts, even after amendments to soften the blow. Benefits will be cut because the basic principle is still there. The one-week waiting period has been abolished, but the reduced earnings week principle remains. That will encourage more people not to report those reduced earnings. Obviously, this is a golden opportunity for abusers.

I have a question for the hon. member. He stood for the unemployment insurance plan, and he fought tooth and nail to have the minister make his bill less drastic. The hon. member managed to get a few amendments in to soften the bill's impact, but despite these amendments, this bill will take millions of dollars out of the economies of the maritimes and of eastern Quebec. Is the hon. member comfortable with this bill, sitting as he does on the government side?

[Petitions, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition that was sent to me by the workers of MIL Davie. It reads as follows: "Since 1990, the federal government has not contributed a single penny to the unemployment insurance program, which is funded entirely by workers and employers. Following legislative amendments made in 1990, 1993 and 1994, benefits paid have decreased, which has resulted in a large surplus in the UI fund. That surplus will reach an estimated $7 billion by the end of 1996. Ottawa wants to reduce benefits paid by a further $2 billion a year and use the UI fund surplus for its own purposes. We say no to drastic cuts in the unemployment insurance program and ask the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to withdraw this bill".

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

There have been lots of filibusters on other occasions, but for the first time since Confederation and the second time in this Parliament, the government has curtailed the proceedings of a committee. So much for that promise. The hon. member for Malpeque was a member of that committee. He says that they will hold more consultations and that they will avoid holding consultations behind closed doors.

I would remind the hon. member for Malpeque that we proposed that consultations on the Unemployment Insurance Act be held in the field, but the Liberal majority refused, preferring to hold them in Ottawa. However, they agreed to hear witnesses, but through video conference, not in the field. We asked the Liberal members if it was possible to hear several groups at a time through video conference. They said: "No, only one group at a time, and only two people". They do not want them to be in a room where people could hear and see, even though in the Gaspé peninsula and in many other areas people do not have access to the TV channel broadcasting committee proceedings.

In spite of that objection, they said no and they curtailed debate. Was that the red book promise, to start holding consultations and then ask the House to first gag the committee, and second to limit debate at report stage and allow only one day of debate on third reading? We have to remember that second reading was skipped because we supposedly had had a pre-study in committee.

I would rather judge people after what they do and not after what they say or even what they write. The red book was prepared three years ago, and it is only this year that things get done.

In previous comments, I spoke about the unemployment rate. I have here a Canadian Press report published by the daily La Presse . Here is what it says: ``The unemployment rate is underestimated, Scotia says. A study by the Bank of Nova Scotia says that the real unemployment rate in Canada is higher that the official monthly figures. Two economists at the bank have estimated that the real unemployment rate in March was not the 9.3 per cent reported by Statistics Canada, but 13 per cent. The study offers a depressing view of an economy unable to generate enough jobs to keep up with the number of people capable of working''.

It goes on to say: "-the number of employed people has grown at only one-third the pace of people old enough to work during the 1990s. Officially, the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.9 per cent in 1992 to 9.3 per cent in March".

The study says that some people are now being left out of statistics. This is a serious study by the Bank of Nova Scotia.

Since we are dealing with figures, let me point out another thing, that is the unemployment insurance fund surplus. When the government took office in 1993, the deficit for that year was of $1.208 billion. The following year, that is the first full year the government was in power, there were cuts-Bill C-17 was enacted and its effects are still being felt-and there was a $2.283 billion surplus.

The preliminary data for 1995 show a $4.313 billion surplus. Because of the measures the government is expected to take, the surplus should reach $4.805 billion and we know it will go up to $5 billion. As the hon. member for Mercier said, in a surplus situation, why was the government in such a hurry to go ahead with this initiative? Also, this year, we are forgoing something like a billion dollar in premiums. Why? What was the hurry?

According to the government's own documents, the repercussions in each of the provinces are as follows: for 1997-98, we have 13 per cent less: $43 million for Newfoundland; for PEI, the province of the hon. member for Malpeque, it is 10 per cent less, $15 million; for Nova Scotia, 8 per cent less; for New Brunswick, $65 million, 11 per cent less; for Quebec, $400 million, 8 per cent less; for Ontario, $300 million, 6 per cent less; for Manitoba, $30 million, 6 per cent less; for Saskatchewan, $20 million, 6 per cent less; for Alberta, $80 million, 6 per cent less; for British Columbia, 9 per cent less.

I would like to remind those who believe that some economic sectors will be winners that all of them will be losers, according to the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development. In agriculture, it is 12 per cent less; in forestry, 14 per cent less; in mines, 7 per cent less; in manufacturing, 9 per cent less; in construction, 9 per cent less; in transports, 8 per cent less; in communications, 3 per cent less; in wholesale trade, 6 per cent less-and I am mentioning the highest only; in the hotel industry, 8 per cent less; in other services, 7 per cent less; for an average of 8 per cent less. All economic sectors will be losers according to the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development.

Amendments were moved. The three would add up to $365 million, of which $345 million will come supposedly from savings made because of a better fight against fraud by the government. It is hoped that $345 million will be recovered. Right now, fraud recovery is estimated at a total of $90 million. How can we recover four times that amount? We would need to catch four times as many cheaters to get that amount. That is what the bill is all about.

I repeat, despite its name, this is not a reform aimed at creating employment opportunities, but a reform aimed at imposing more control on potential unemployed persons. As the hon. member for Malpeque said, the reform should be a reform aimed at eliminating bureaucratic errors. About $300 million were lost because of errors and three times out of four these errors are made by the Department of Human Resources Development.

I would like to mention the administrative errors contained in the numbers given by the bureaucrats. The last evening of our work in committee, I myself spotted two errors in a computer produced table distributed by the government. One of them concerned Quebec and, listen to this, it was an error of $4 million made by the computers.

It was the same thing for B.C. I cannot give you the total picture, but the real impact for Quebec was a loss of about 6 per cent of the total-and a loss is a loss. With the three Liberal amendments, there are possible savings of $365 million. I do not say that it would be the best solution, because the $2 billion in cuts will remain, but at least, it is not as bad.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and say that I also observe the rules that members must speak in turn.

I heard the comments made by the Reform member. I share many of her views, especially about the broken promise concerning provincial repatriation of manpower training. But I am more critical of the hon. member for Malpeque who, once again, decided to correct the facts given by the hon. member for Mercier. I think he got his figures all wrong when he said that the government announced a $315 million allocation for young people.

As the critic for youth and training up to last month, I can say that, according to the press release issued by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the amount was rather $160 million. I will not make an issue of it, but it is very important.

I do commend the hon. member for one thing: his amendment should limit the power of the Minister of Human Resources Development by forcing him to report to the House. I recognize that as a good point. At the same time, this suggests a certain degree of mistrust in the overly centralized power of ministers of Human Resources Development, present and future.

The hon. member referred once again to the red book, when he talked about transferring powers from bureaucrats to committees and to the House. He should not have mentioned that, since we were gagged in committee. For only the second time in this Parliament and the first time since Confederation, a committee got gagged by the House.

[Quebec Bridge, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question if for the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday morning the minister, appearing before the transport committee, again refused to commit to funding part of the repair work to the Quebec bridge. His excuse was that the federal government has already done its share, transferring lands to the CN for one dollar, the estimated value of which is in the millions.

Is the minister aware that the transfer of the lands concerned will probably not be completed before the year 2000? In the meantime, is the minister going to finally recognize that the federal government cannot shirk its responsibilities with regard to repairing and developing the Quebec bridge?