Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief historic overview. Just from the name of my riding, which includes the four RCMs in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, it is obvious that we represent a large area.
My region is a resource region where seasonal jobs represent more than one third of all jobs.
For the benefit of the minister opposite, there are approximately 12,000 seasonal jobs in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, mainly in farming, fishing and forestry and the processing of these products, as well as the tourist industry, including lodging and food services. That pretty much describes our seasonal jobs.
The proportion of seasonal work in my region is three times that in the rest of Quebec. This means that, in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands, there are three times as many people on EI, 10.7%, compared to the Quebec average of 3.9%.
With a labour market characterized by seasonal variations in employment, my riding was hard hit by the EI reform.
Statistics from Human Resources Development Canada show that, since 1993, the number of EI recipients in my riding has dropped by 4,000, or one-third, but the number of jobs did not increase in the same proportion.
According to the HRDC figures, changes to the employment insurance plan have reduced by $30 million the funds generated in my region.
In addition to seasonal jobs, there is a high proportion of part time jobs in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. In fact, 70% of local jobs are either part time or seasonal, compared with 46% in Quebec.
But regions like the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands are particularly hard hit by the tightening of eligibility criteria.
One of the disastrous consequences of decisions made by the government opposite was that, as figures from the 1991 census showed, the average household income in the Gaspé was $34,800, compared with $40,800 in Quebec as a whole, a $6,000 difference.
Between 1987 and 1995, we experienced a 15% drop in jobs in the Gaspé. These jobs have not been replaced, as shown by the growth in unemployment, which went from 16.4% in 1987, to 20.2% in 1995, to 25.7% in 1997.
Another disastrous consequence of the blind decisions made by the people over there is that the people are leaving. In the past 10 years, 7,300 people have left our region, a 7% drop in our population.
With figures like these, we in the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands have the dubious distinction of being possibly the poorest region in Canada. It is not something we want to be known for.
The employment insurance program is a real catastrophe for regions where unemployment is rampant. Only one in two jobless people is eligible.
Would you buy life insurance if you had only a 50% chance of any death benefits being paid? There is only one thing that is certain, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we are all going to die one day, but if we count on federal government coverage, our widows will not live very high off the hog.
The employment insurance program is also catastrophic for regions with flourishing employment and a low unemployment rate. Employers and workers thought they were paying into insurance that would provide a measure of protection in case of job loss, but that is not the case. The workers in those regions are directly funding federal programs they never asked for, and on which they were not consulted in the least. All the foregoing was just a bit of an overview of the situation in my riding.
My colleagues have spoken before me, but I would like to touch on the various measures presented by the Bloc Quebecois as private members' bills. It would be nice if some of the hon. members over there, even those in government, would adopt them as their own and help them through. I am talking about relaxing the eligibility criteria.
The minister has told us about a lady from Sydney who, much to her credit, worked 14 hours a week for 30 weeks. But the minister is misleading the House in saying that the lady was not eligible for employment insurance before. This lady needs 910 hours. The minister does not know his multiplication tables, then, because in his example 14 times 30 is 420. Strike 1 for the minister.
He has also told us just now that there is a transitional job creation fund. I dare him to rise in this House and tell us how much money is left in that fund. Not money that has already been committed, but money that is left to be spent. He said that the program will expire in 1999. How many projects can be submitted? Is there any money left, yes or no?
Strike three: the same minister—and I hope he or his parliamentary secretary will have the courage to rise—told us that, as a second active job creation measure, he transferred $2.7 billion through administrative agreements with the province of Quebec. That is absolutely false on two points. The amount of $2.7 billion is not only for Quebec, but for Canada as a whole. The worst part is that they are thumbing their noses at us in this House.
Unless I am mistaken, in a memo that I have here regarding this $2.7 billion, the agreements provide that this money cannot be spent until 2002. The minister has knowingly misled the House on three points, which I have just mentioned.
If Minister Saint Peter ever has to face Our Lord Jesus Christ, well I just told you that the cock crew three times. He misled the House three times, and that has to be rectified.
If nobody rises on the other side in a few moments, I will take it as meaning that the members opposite are perfectly capable of saying anything they want but do not have the courage to right their wrongs. This is totally unacceptable.
I would like that the Prime Minister was there at the time, on the opposition side. I do not know if my colleagues read this letter in its entirety earlier, but it speaks volumes.
The letter, signed by the member for Shawinigan, is dated February 17, 1993 and was sent to a group called Action-Chômage from Kamouraska.