Antoine Dubé

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the problem with the government's arguments. It refers to circumstances like these, to ask if we are against that on an individual level. Finally, we have to admit that, for instance, some women who could not benefit from UI before might benefit from it now. It is possible.

But what is more likely is that we will see again the inequity condemned by the parliamentary secretary. I would like to quote, for instance, a document from the department which says: "In 2001-2002, the decrease in women's benefits will reach 9 per cent and will represent a $560 million loss". In my answer, I refer to government's figures.

Here, the government admits that women will lose $560 million in benefits. It is in black and white, and the parliamentary secretary would want me to say that this is an improvement.

I invite him to read the reports of his own department; he will find the answer there. It is detrimental to women, to everybody, but mainly to women. I hope that this answer will satisfy you. I invite you to have a look at the document, on page 8, and in particular at Part A which deals with the effects on governments.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say. It is truly extraordinary that, each week-and the minister again complained about that today, as do people in his region-demonstrations are held every Sunday afternoon in his area, with some 2,000 or 3,000 people taking part.

The hon. member from Fredericton sat with us on the human resources development committee and we accompanied him. The three of us went to Bathurst last year and people, not just unions, made that point. I remember in particular four single mothers telling us that if what was being contemplated became reality, it would be terrible for the economy of the Caraquet region, Acadia in particular, but also the maritimes as a whole.

I know I will never convince the member opposite with this answer, but-and this is what people in these regions understand-that in itself should be enough to reconsider the issue. In fact, before he became parliamentary secretary, the hon. member said that he would ask the former human resources minister, who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs, to make these corrections. In other words, he recognized the situation.

In a recent statement, a colleague of yours, the member for Madawaska-Victoria, who is now acting speaker, said that if the bill was not changed, she would not be able to support it. I know that many government members have the same problem. Of course, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is now Acting Speaker. Because of this, she may not have to vote. But I do not wish to get into a debate on this matter.

I also object to the idea that taking into account the number of hours will improve the situation. The parliamentary secretary is saying that this will encourage those who have jobs to hustle to accumulate the highest number of hours. In other words, in the forest or tourism industry, for example, one would work two jobs at the same time in order to add up hours as quickly as possible.

As critic for training and youth, I say that this stiffens the competition for young people, women, part-time workers, and those who have a hard time finding what I might call "McJobs". Young people already have a hard time finding such jobs and, with this system taking hours into account, they will face even stronger competition against those who already have jobs, who are more experienced, and who have a better knowledge of their work environment, to add up hours of work.

In the so-called leisure-oriented society we have been promised for the past 20 years, we see exactly the opposite. People must work 60 or 70 hours for fear that their company will shut down in two weeks. Is that what the parliamentary secretary calls progress? I doubt it and I say that it is an unacceptable incentive for people to take on those jobs. This is another reason why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for this bill to be withdrawn.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

As my colleague for Lotbinière just said, this is unacceptable.

That is why our leader this morning brought forward a motion asking that the Liberal government withdraw this bill. I could go on; I could go into this more thoroughly. As the official opposition critic for youth, my special concern is the fate of our young people.

Since the Liberal government took office, it launced a youth employment sttrategy. The speech from the throne waxed eloquent on youth employment. I notice that when the Liberal Party came to power, the unemployment rate for young people under 24 years of age was 17.5 per cent. What it the present rate? It is 17.2 per cent. There has been a 0.3 per cent improvement, and the government wants us to find that acceptable. The government tells us it will double the number of federal summer jobs.

I looked at the statistics; $60 million were spent and the government raised it to $120 million. It is doubling it. The Conservatives had provided about the same amount, that is $104 million the first year. But when the Liberals came to power, they cut it in half. So, they are raising it a little higher than the level it was at two years ago. I do not call that a visionary strategy, but something that goes up and down. The only expression I can think of is a yo-yo strategy. The government is reinstating things it had abandoned last year and is coming back to the same point. But to whom is it offering that money? To students. Students are not unemployed people, they go to school and find summer jobs. That is quite all right. I have nothing against that. But does the government think this will change the unemployment situation for our young people? No, Mr. Speaker.

What does the government do for young people? It says to them: for new unemployed people, the reform has now done this. In some areas, the qualifying period for UI benefits was 300 hours, that is 15 weeks at 20 hours per week. What is the situation now, or rather, what will it be after the UI reform is passed? It will be 910 hours. And that will be not only for young people, but also for women, immigrants, all newcomers on the labour market. They will need 52 weeks of work at 15 hours per week to qualify for unemployment insurance.

Yet, a change was brought in by the Reform Party. Before, those who worked less than 15 hours per week did not contribute to the

UI system. Now, they will contribute as of their first hour of work, but it is not sure that they will qualify.

There is another shameful measure that the government has introduced. It has reduced the benefit ceiling, that is the insurable income, from $42,000 to $39,000. By doing this, the Liberals will save $900 million as soon as the measure is implemented. Now, as I just mentioned, the fact that people who work 15 hours per week or less must contribute to UI also allows the government to save $900 million. So, the government saves in one area in order not to reduce contributions to UI for those who made $39,000 and more, but at the same time, it makes people who work 15 hours per week and less pay more. There is a social choice here.

When I was listening to the throne speech, I heard: "We will give more help to those who are in need". What is the first bill that is being introduced in this session? We are doing just the opposite. We reduce the contribution of those who earn more than $39,000 and make those who work less than 15 hours a week contribute just as much. This is unacceptable. It is another reason why we, as the official opposition, want the government to withdraw this type of reform.

The parliamentary secretary said a little bit earlier today that the opposition was not suggesting anything. I am saying this: Why change things and make low income earners, women working part time, young Canadians who are hard hit by the unemployment, contribute? The government recognized that in the speech from the throne, but at the first opportunity, in its first initiative, it does exactly the opposite. The government members say one thing and do the opposite. Members will recall that when the Liberals were in the opposition, they condemned Mr. Valcourt, the previous Minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act and now that they form the government, they do the opposite, they continue on the same path.

It is sometimes difficult to ask people to stop and explain to us their frustrations in terms of what is happening. This government is a master of contradiction. It announces the opposite of what it intends to do. Other examples were given during the last few weeks, the GST, for instance. But as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, the present government condemned Mr. Valcourt' cuts, then continued on the same path. Even after succeeding in eliminating the deficit in the unemployment insurance fund, it still continues on the same path.

Meanwhile, employer contributions are being reduced. I would have supported this. We did not object to a cut in employer contributions. But why reduce employee premiums from $42,000 to $39,000? To sweeten the pill, because the benefit ceiling is also falling. That is why I see this as a lose-lose situation.

People previously entitled to the $448 maximum benefit will now receive only $413 a week. For someone with a family to support, this is not much. Workers at MIL Davie and those working in construction, industry and big business are all affected by this. They will all be affected by the new minimum.

If they are unfortunate enough to be working for a seasonal or cyclical business like construction, they will also be affected by the so-called repeat claimant rule, that is to say, instead of receiving 55 per cent, their benefits will be reduced by 1 per cent for every claim. For example, someone collecting $448 will see his benefits go down, first, to $413 a week and, after the fifth claim he has to file because he works for a cyclical business and must go back on unemployment, to $375 a week. They are trying to sweeten the pill by telling us that this is a good reform.

At a time when people earning $100,000 stop contributing and banks, with record profits of nearly $5 billion per year, cut back their staff and make massive layoffs while at the same time making record profits, we are expected to grant the government its wish to have job creation now rest with large business, is that it? That is outrageous.

We in the opposition will not stand for it and we will do all that we possibly can to have the government withdraw its bill. I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and the parliamentary secretary can rest assured that I will spare no pains to propose corrections and amendments to make sure that the people of Quebec and Canada, the unemployed, the young, women, immigrants and everyone involved are not penalized. The 2.2 million people who received UI benefits last year can count on the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, to make sure it does not happen.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

The parliamentary secretary claims that the referendum had an impact on the unemployment rate in Quebec. So let us

see what happened in the other provinces. Did the referendum adversely affect Ontario also? Ontario will lose $400 million next year. This means 6 per cent less for Ontario.

Was British Columbia, which is far from Quebec, also affected by the referendum? There was no referendum in that province, but it will still lose $165 million next year, a decrease of 9 per cent.

The four maritime provinces together will lose $220 million. Newfoundland will lose $85 million. Was there a referendum in Newfoundland? Oh yes, there was one on the question of catholic or secular schools. Could that be the cause of unemployment in Newfoundland? There was a referendum so maybe the parliamentary secretary will want to repeat that the situation is due to the referendum. However, Quebec sovereignists have nothing to do with the Newfoundland referendum.

New Brunswick will receive $65 million less, an 11 per cent decrease. For Nova Scotia, it will be $55 million, 8 per cent less. Prince Edward Island, which is sparsely populated, will still lose $15 million because of the reform proposed by this liberal government.

I can hear the member saying: "The opposition members is using figures that he manipulates". These figures come directly from the deputy minister. He presented some impact studies to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, but only because we had requested them. So I am quoting figures from that document. I am not inventing these data. I do not even read figures in the newspaper. These figures come directly from the Department of Human Resources Development. These must be good figures. I hope so, otherwise we are wasting our time.

I just reviewed the figures from a geographic point of view. However, I also searched these same papers by sectors. Let us start with the projections in the forestry sector, which is of particular interest to my colleague for Charlevoix and other areas. This sector will receive 21 per cent less, not only in Quebec but everywhere in Canada, 21 per cent less. The mining sector will get 17 per cent less.

In the construction sector-there is actually a strike in Quebec-cuts in unemployment benefits for construction workers will amount to 16 per cent. In agriculture, 15 per cent less, and in transportation, 12 per cent less.

Because there are cuts almost everywhere, government services will not be exempt. In Ontario alone-and the figures I have predate the announcements of the Harris government, which means that it will be much worse-at the present time it is already 11 per cent less. For hotel workers, 9 per cent less. In finance, 8 per cent less. In commerce, 8 per cent less and in all the other sectors, that I regrouped, also 8 per cent less.

I looked for one sector which would benefit from the changes. I took the document and I studied all the sectors, one by one, and I did not find a single one which would benefit from the changes. Everybody loses. All sectors of economic activity are losers, whichever they are. And the government would like us to believe that it is a good reform, when everybody is losing. If one group was a loser and another one the winner, while others would remain unchanged it would be fine. But no, all the sectors, according to the government's own figures, are losing.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise in the debate on Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance, which the government is trying to rename employment insurance. I think, if the name is going to be changed, it should be "deficit insurance" in order to reflect the real change.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary admit, in response to a question by a Reform member, that indeed it could eventually be used for the deficit. I think some information has to be provided on this point. Up to now, there has been an accumulated deficit. The unemployment insurance fund had an accumulated deficit of $11 billion.

Perhaps we need to understand the background of this accumulated deficit of $11 billion. Where did it come from? It dates from the time of the Conservatives. We cannot attribute it to the Liberals opposite, because it predates 1993. It dates from fiscal 1991-92. That is the very year that followed the government's withdrawal, when Mr. Valcourt was Minister of Employment. It withdrew and decided not to put a penny more into the UI fund.

Subsequently, surprise, surprise, there was a deficit in the fund, which grew to $11 billion. The Conservatives proposed a bill in the House, a reform, an initial reduction. I do not have enough time this afternoon to go back over all the speeches of the former members of the opposition, who are now across from me in the House.

The present Minister of Human Resources Development called it a scandal when Mr. Valcourt announced the cuts. However, what did this government do when it came to power? It passed Bill C-17, which led to a cut in eligibility. We must remember that it reduced unemployment insurance from 60 per cent to 55 per cent of insurable salary. It shortened the periods. This made it possible, in two and a half years, to recover the $11 billion deficit in the fund. In December, a few months ago, officials of the Department of Human Resources Development confirmed there was no longer a deficit in the fund.

It would have been possible to go on with Bill C-17, and it was to be expected that we would have a surplus similar to what the Minister of Finance had estimated last year, some $4 billion. The following year, the surplus would have been more than enough. But what is the Liberal government doing instead?

It is proposing a new reform, further cuts to UI benefits, limited eligibility, reduced benefits for a lot of groups-and I will show that it is so. But the government is going a step further.

Once the deficit has been made up, why does the government keep on cutting? It wants to pay down the country's deficit, the federal government's deficit. That is unacceptable, because the unemployed are not the ones who caused the federal government's deficit. There are various other factors. The unemployed should not be the only ones to pay.

We, in the opposition, are often accused of manipulating the figures. All these figures are in the last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance, who announced a surplus of at least $4.3 billion for 1995-96. In 1996-97, the surplus will be over $5 billion. Adding that amount to the $4.3 billion, we get $9.3 billion in two years.

The following year, he deposits only the contributions, not the surplus. Since more people contribute to the fund, the contributions are going to generate record revenues of $19.5 billion. And if the trend continues, you are going to have in 1997-98, a surplus of about $6.3 billion. This is quite a lot of money.

These three amounts added together make an enormous surplus. We know this is correct: $4.3 billion plus $5 billion plus $6 billion come to a total of $15 billion. Is the government going to keep that surplus in the fund somewhere? No. It is going to use it, and it is clear that it intends to use it to repay Canada's debt.

People may sometimes feel unemployment insurance is for others. Some say: "The unemployment rate is about 10 or 12 per cent in Quebec". A lot of people are not affected. At present, the unemployment rate may be 10 per cent but last year, 14 per cent of workers in Canada received unemployment insurance benefits-14 per cent. That is 2,124,000 individuals.

We are not talking of some small isolated village in Charlevoix. We are not talking about a village in the minister's riding. Two million recipients is the equivalent of the whole population of Montreal. Efforts are being made to minimize the figure, but the number of unemployed individuals will be 2,124,000.

On average, this represents $540 per capita, even if we count those who were not able to collect benefits. But more important, 3.2 per cent of the total income of all Canadians comes from unemployment insurance. The government wants to cut benefits for families, claiming that it will stimulate the economy; and yet we know, for instance, that, according to my calculation, at the end of the day this would represent for MIL Davie workers, in my area, $1.4 million a year over 5 years for 435 claimants on average. This is money they will not have for groceries and the rent, and money that will not be available to those who want to do business in this area.

Sometimes, people who talk about unemployment insurance are called socialists. The money I am talking about is money business people in a given area will not have access to. People do not see that, but afterwards, they realize that it makes sense.

This is a problem created by cuts, because what we have here are cuts. The unemployment insurance fund surplus is the result of cuts. If 30 per cent of the cuts are going to affect Quebec we, in the Bloc Quebecois, find this outrageous. Thirty per cent. We only represent 24 and some per cent of the total population. And yet, 30 per cent of the cuts will affect Quebec. As early as this year, 1996-1997, Quebec will lose $400 million. This is an 8 per cent drop since last year.

We are told this is insignificant. These are not cuts. But an 8 per cent drop is a cut. I will give you some figures for last year; in Quebec, some 754,000 individuals-right now there are 435,000 claimants-but last year they were 754,000 who, at one time or another, were on UI. This is a lot of people.

I am only talking about Bill C-17, I said nothing of the impact of the next reform. Within two years, Bill C-17 has resulted in a 25,749 increase of the welfare roll in Quebec. This means shovelling the deficit into the province's backyard at a time when Quebec is already in a predicament because of previous cuts. It should be pointed out that exactly 25,749 individuals are on welfare in Quebec.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Denis for her interest in social issues. Since she represents, as she put it so eloquently, a riding going through very tough times, I would like to ask her a few short questions, so that other members can also have the same opportunity.

She mentioned the youth strategy. She also talked about the youth service Canada program. She was pleased to say that 25 jobs were created in her ridings thanks to two projects. She is lucky, because many ridings represented by hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois have been unable, so far, to get anything from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I want to remind the hon. member that 17.2 per cent of young people between 15 and 24 years of age are now jobless. In Quebec alone, we have 143,000 young people under 30 who are currently unemployed. The unemployment rate in this age category did decrease slightly, by three-tenths of one per cent, but since Bill C-17 was passed, allowing the Liberal government to make the first cuts in the UI program, the number of welfare recipients in this age group has risen by 20 per cent.

I would simply like to ask the hon. member how she can say that the Liberal government's employment strategy has been successful in the last two years, when the evidence is to the contrary.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his speech, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce indicated one again that he favours maintaining social programs. He said so on many occasions during his long parliamentary career; he has always been very consistent on this point, even in the last few months. We have to salute him for this.

In the second part of his speech, which dealt with the Constitution issue, he showed the same consistency. However, I do not think that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, can agree with him when he says that, in the event of another referendum, a bigger majority

might be required. To start with, I have this question for him: In his opinion, what percentage would be acceptable?

On the other hand, he said that extensive consultations would have to take place. I do not have the same parliamentary experience as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but I have been in politics long enough to know, as many Quebecers do, that constitutional negotiations have been going on for 30 years and that they are leading nowhere. Let us remember 1982, Meech and Charlottetown. The member has witnessed many reports, the Spicer commission and hearings; all for naught. What does he expect?

I believe that, in this matter, he cannot claim naivety. It cannot be said that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is naive; he has too much experience. What I cannot accept is that he wants to increase the percentage needed in a referendum. Now that we know that the sovereignists needed only 0.6 per cent to obtain a majority, he wants to increase that criterion.

I would like to ask him what he thinks of the support received by the Maastricht accord in various European countries. In seven countries, I beliebe it was was carried by a majority of between 50 and 52 per cent. Is the hon. member questioning these referendum results which have led to the accession of some countries to the European union and which, by the same token, forced those countries to give up part of their sovereignty? Does he find that inacceptable?

I really would like to appeal to the democratic principles of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and ask him to tell us what he thinks of what I have just said. Also, while we are at it, could he tell us what he thinks of plan B which is being promoted by a certain Liberal candidate and which talks about the fragmentation of Quebec. I would like to know what he thinks of it because of his long parliamentary experience. I await his answer.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, our traditional position, Quebec's traditional position on job training, the one that was taken by all parties and all members in the Quebec National Assembly, is that the funds now allocated to job training by the federal government should be transferred to Quebec so that it can take on full responsibility.

Among the topics I have not covered, there is one area I would like to address in the minute I have left. Some people may feel it is only in the Gaspé region and the maritimes that the UI bill will have a noticeable impact. I would like to point out that, according to the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development, agriculture will be cut by 12 per cent as a result of the reform. Forestry will be cut by 14 per cent, manufacturing and construction by 9 per cent, transport by 8 per cent, the hospitality industry by 8 per cent, government and other services by 7 per cent, trade and real estate by 6 per cent, education by 4 per cent, and health care by 3 per cent.

This is in addition to the cutbacks that the provincial governments will have to impose, again as a result of the even deeper cuts that the Minister of Finance will probably announce tomorrow.

Everybody loses in this reform. What is the government waiting for to set this bill aside and start over with a new, real one?

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

First a word, Madam Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker. I would like to wish you the best of luck and, for our part, we can assure you that you can count on our full co-operation.

My speech will have two parts. I will start off speaking as the official opposition's critic on training and youth and then simply as the member for Lévis, to share with you what my constituents think of the speech from the throne.

First, with respect to youth, let me just say that, in a nutshell, last Tuesday's speech from the throne is a tacit admission of the fact that the Liberal government's youth strategy is a failure. Much pomp was displayed in introducing this strategy on April 15, 1994, and the then Minister of Human Resources Development promised it would resolve the unemployment problem, especially for young people. What is the youth unemployment picture today?

I heard my hon. colleague from Newfoundland mention earlier that, in his province, the rate of unemployment among young people under the age of 24 was 28 per cent, as compared to a

national rate of 17.2 per cent, as of January 1996, or about two tenths of one per cent less than when the Liberals came to power. We might as well say there was no change. At first glance, statistics do not appear to be any worse, but that is only at first glance because, when you take a closer look, you realize that, in many provinces, in almost all-three out of four-maritime provinces and especially in Quebec, the number of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are on welfare has increased.

Statistics vary from province to province, but according to Statistics Canada, there are currently 143,000 young Quebecers under 30 on UI rolls, that is to say, who are receiving UI benefits. But what Statistics Canada data do not say is that, in the same age group, there are 52,000 Quebecers on welfare. And these figures do not include young people who are still living with their parents, perhaps because their parents' level of income is moderately high. But they are nonetheless jobless, out of school and living in their parents' basement-this is more and more common-while looking for work. Yet, because of their parents' income or their own previous income, they do not qualify for UI benefits or welfare. They are not included in the statistics because they are not on the labour market. Statistics are very dangerous things.

What did the government say in its throne speech to remedy this situation? It too saw that its Youth Strategy had failed, so it told us "Now, we will ask business, big business in particular, to do its part and to try to do something especially for youth in future." As we know, big businesses are more likely to be unionized. The hiring standards in those big businesses would have to be changed if young people were to have any chance of being hired without seniority.

And what is the situation in our big businesses? On March 4 Michel Vastel reported that the five biggest banks in the country managed to make record profits of $4.9 billion in 1995 with 2,800 layoffs. GM Canada recorded a $1.4 billion profit while terminating 2,500 employees. Bell Canada made $502 million while doing away with 3,200 positions. Is this making employment opportunities available for young people? Even if all of these are unionized employers and if jobs were created up to the previous level, not one more young person would be hired. Far from it, the ones hired would be the people on the union call-back lists, so this does nothing to solve the problem of our young people.

Small businesses do what they can, but they too cannot create jobs when times are very hard for them as well.

Following along somewhat with what the hon. member for Gaspé has said, I say that the government will not help our youth by reducing access to unemployment insurance. They will not be helped by what is proposed in bill C-111, which triples the minimum number of hours worked, from 300 to 900, for new unemployment insurance recipients. That is not how our young people will be helped. Nor by deducting from them as soon as they start working, whereas in the past they had to work 15 hours before deductions were taken. Of course, they can get the overpayment back when they file their income tax, but they will in a way be lending money to the government for a year.

Neither will they be helped by cutting back on transfer payments to the provinces for post secondary education.

In this second portion of my speech, I will restrict myself to discussing a situation more specific to my riding. Even if the federal riding of Lévis is below provincial unemployment levels, less than 10 per cent last year, the two manpower offices in my area paid out $122,138,000 to UI claimants. With the planned cuts, which will be on the order of 12 per cent, as we all know, $14,656,000 will be lost to the economy. As regards the former workers at MIL Davie alone, it has been estimated that for the 435 UI claimants who return periodically, after the reform takes effect, the cut would be $1,400,000. Is this how we help the economy? I do not think so.

Some might think there were no federal officials in the Quebec City region. In my riding of Lévis alone, 600 people work for the federal public service. What did we do last year in the Quebec City region? The federal government cut 950 jobs. Did it help the economy in the Quebec City region or in the riding of Lévis? No.

Worse than that, to add insult to injury, they announced recently the closure of the Department of Human Resources' information centre, which served people receiving old age pensions and unemployment insurance in Quebec City. Where was it transferred? Not where it could be amalgamated with another, but, rather, to the riding of the Prime Minister, in the city of Shawinigan. This, on top of the closing of the regional manpower centre in Trois-Rivières last year. Where was it transferred with its 108 employees or maybe slightly fewer, because some positions were cut along the way? To the Prime Minister's riding.

People always say it pays to have a Prime Minister in your riding, but when they take things that belong to a riding and move them to the Prime Minister's riding, this is not creating jobs for some, it is deleting jobs for others. This is not normal.

The famous speech from the throne and the red book talked of funds for defence industry conversion, but none of it went to MIL Davie. There was talk of a ferry, but we still have no ferry. The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who had promised one to his constituents, does not dare return to the Magdalen

Islands, because his constituents wrote in the papers: "Do not come back until the ferry has been replaced".

The situation is worse for the marine industry around Quebec City. There was talk of cuts, but people objected so much they decided to wait. They talked of increasing coast guard fees and reducing services: four icebreakers instead of five. That would have cut another 50 jobs. But they also wanted to increase fees. It would have had an impact if implemented, and yet, they are still threatening to implement it, 80 cents a tonne more, which would mean that the ship owners will change routes. They will use the port of Halifax and especially American ports.

Is this sea traffic policy? Is this merchant marine policy? No it is quite the opposite. The aim is to get ships out of the St. Lawrence and send them to the United States. This is a long way from what the Liberals promised in their red book.

They talked about the CN. They privatized it, but did nothing to help the SLRs. The bill is still on the table and there is nothing in it for the SLRs. The former Minister of Canadian Heritage announced two days before his demotion-I will close on this because it is very symbolic-finally acknowledged that the old Quebec City bridge was a national heritage construction. It has to be more than a symbol; there has to be money involved, because the Quebec City bridge is coming to symbolize the decrepitude of Canadian federalism.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member discussed several issues, but what really caught my attention is the fact that the government wants to reinstate, without amendments, the Unemployment Insurance Act. I sense that the hon. member did not have enough time to say everything he wanted to, regarding this issue. He told me about it on other occasions. I want to ask him what has been going on in eastern Quebec over the last few months, since Bill C-111 was first introduced, and to tell us about how satisfied people are regarding this measure.

I am sure his answer will be of interest to you, Madam Speaker, since, as we all know, you come from Edmundston, in New Brunswick, where the issues are the same. So, I ask the hon. member to tell us more about the unemployment situation in his area.