Paul Crête

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech most interesting. Although I am not in agreement with a number of his points, he has raised a fundamental question.

We are told that people must stay home and wait for work. Should they not be mobile across Canada? To that, I reply that people are not just economic beasts of burden. They are not just consumers, they are human beings with families who have lived in a region for several years, often several generations. They have the right, in my view, because that was how Canada was developed in the past, to economic development tools allowing them to develop their region. There is no region in Canada where employment cannot be developed, no region that cannot be helped to turn itself around, develop and take pride in its development.

The approach suggested by Reform members is essentially to go back to the situation that existed before 1935. In this connection, I would like to quote Prime Minister Bennett, who said at that time: "During the years of anguish you have just experienced-he is speaking about the Great Depression-you have seen the great weaknesses and abuses of the capitalist system. They have led to unemployment and misery. In order to meet the new needs, we must reshape the capitalist system so that it serves the people better, and distribute the benefits more equitably among the various classes and regions of the country".

When governments decided to distribute the benefits, was it not more with the idea of allowing a program that had shown its worth to be a good economic regulator and to ensure that individuals could develop in their own regions?

In closing, I would like to say that it is true that Quebec has long received more unemployment insurance than it paid in premiums, but that was linked to unemployment. Last year, in 1995-96, it was not one and a third dollars for a dollar, but a dollar for a dollar that was spent.

In the end, will the position that the hon. member is defending, which is to take away from the unemployment insurance system any role as regulator, not have a negative effect greater than the possible benefits to Canada?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this minor procedural imbroglio allows me to put another question to the hon. member. We are indeed making a major change for the 21st century, a change that will affect the whole economy, including the labour market.

Does the member feel that the changes made take into account the new reality of temporary and precarious employment, of how people will find work in the future? Unemployment insurance is meant to provide an income between jobs.

Are there not many measures in the reform that divert from its intended use the money in the UI fund? When workers and employers pay unemployment insurance premiums, is it not primarily to allow those who are between jobs to have an income to maintain their lifestyle, to make it through a period of unemployment? Under the reform, a lot of the money will be allocated to programs that maintain duplication with existing provincial initiatives, including in the manpower training sector.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for his good words for committee members. I think that we did do some very serious work while conducting hearings across Canada.

My first question for the hon. member is this: Are the results we see today in this bill in line with what we heard at those hearings?

Does having an intensity rule that will reduce seasonal workers' benefits among the wishes expressed during those consultations? Did any of the people who testified say anything to that effect? Did the committee on seasonal workers, which was set up by the minister, not tell us that seasonal workers were in no way responsible for the negative impact on their jobs, that it was not their decision to be unemployed, that there were simply no jobs available? I would like the hon. member to answer these questions.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest and surprise, especially since, this morning, the daily Le Devoir published the results of a poll on Quebecers' opinion of the unemployment insurance reform.

Let us look at a few results. The first is that 75 per cent of Quebecers support moving the unemployment insurance program to Quebec. Those opposing the reform account for 59.8 per cent; those in favour, 27.5 per cent. Some 79 per cent of Quebecers believe the reform will benefit the government first. The reduction in benefits to the unemployed is opposed by 72.3 per cent of people, and the reduction in the benefits entitlement period is opposed by 66 per cent.

How can the member ask the opposition to support the government's motion, when it is very obvious that it goes totally against the grain of all the people of Quebec? There is a clear majority. Furthermore, 73 per cent of people have heard about the reform.

We cannot assume today that this is the opinion of professional agitators. We cannot assume either that we are talking about experts in negotiations or union people. This is the public opinion of Quebecers in general, who are concerned about this issue, who have analyzed the reform, who have looked into the possible effects of the reform, who have seen that the reform will penalize seasonal workers and who are totally opposed to it.

Had the same poll been taken in the maritime provinces, I think that the Liberal members who are all set to vote for this bill would see the major impact it will have on the results of the next election. All the members from the maritimes who got elected on a platform of "jobs, jobs, jobs" and who, today, will vote in favour of this bill will come up against the same kind of disapproval on the part of their voters as the one clearly identified in the poll taken in Quebec.

That being so, I would like the hon. member to tell us why we should implement a reform that will only have adverse consequences, resulting in drastic changes to regional economies, when no buffers have been put in place. There are no measures designed to boost the economy and to diversify regional economies. It is a bit like this guy who drove an old car that burned much more oil than it should have and decided to stop adding oil in the motor instead of having the motor fixed. This is exactly what will happen to regional economies with this bill.

I would like the hon. member to tell us what good he feels will come from this reform that all Quebecers have rejected?

[Petitions, May 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 11,250 people in my riding, demanding the total withdrawal of the unemployment insurance reform bill and the repatriation to Quebec of all powers relating to manpower and employment, along with the budgets that go with them.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the amendments discussed today are on the mandate that will be given to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.

We find in this mandate the whole spirit of the act. This is why we wish that it be modified. I will read you briefly a few lines that express very clearly how the government wants things to be done. It says:

3 (1) The Commission shall monitor and assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting to the changes made by this Act-

They take people for some kind of guinea pigs. "We will see how you will live with that, but, as a government, we will not take on any obligation. We do not assume any responsability". It is the whole spirit of the act that it expressed in the mandate given to the commission. "Give us your money, we will take care of it. The system is financed only by you, the employers and the employees, but it does not matter, we will put all the obligations on your side, and we, as a government, will make no commitment". It would have been a nice place to find a commitment by the government to say if the measures really have an effect on employment.

Will the unemployment insurance reform, in one, two, three years, have the impact expected by the government and help people find a job more easily? There is no obligation of this type in this clause. All that will be done will be to check how people have adjusted. It is truly the bureaucratic approach. Punitive action will be taken, the commission will see how people react to this action and, one year from now, the government will be in a position to say that there are more abusers than before because the act will have been made more complicated so as to produce more abusers.

This is an absurd way of thinking, because the unemployment insurance fund is fully financed by employers and employees. They are the ones who should have their say in the reform. There should be something about employment in the bill. Since the commission is asked to report to the minister, to produce an annual report of its assessment and the additional reports that the minister may request, do you not think that it would have been normal to say somewhere in the bill that the government will adopt unemployment reduction objectives, labour utilization objectives, that it will try to give people more jobs and that the commission will have to report on the effectiveness of the measures taken to meet those objectives?

No, according to the bill, the reports will deal with the success of the follow-up on people. It says, for example: "How the benefits and other assistance are utilized by employees and employers, their effect on the obligations of claimants to be available for and to seek employment".

The whole bill is based on the principle that people are abusers. In our society, it has been proved by statistics that only 4 per cent of the three million people having claimed UI benefits were abusers. Let us look at any other legislation, the Income Tax Act, for instance, to see if there is no more than 4 per cent of dodging. Is it normal to pass a bill imposing on all workers, in a deliberate and exaggerated way, rules that are specifically intended to deal with 4 per cent of Canadians? The government could have drafted a bill which looked at things differently.

The first thing it could have done is state that the commission is allowed to let employers, employees and all those concerned have their say. When the bill states that "The commission shall monitor and assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting to the changes made", why is the burden of proof not reversed to let people come to testify and share their experience?

Nowadays, when we hear accounts like the one we heard at the demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup, where a young woman told us that her brother and her spouse committed suicide because of a lack of jobs and of the insecurity created by the UI reform, I think there are questions we must ask ourselves. We are not here simply to manage millions and billions of dollars. We are also here to create systems which will make people as happy as they can be and give them the opportunity to earn a decent salary to support their families. This should be part of the objectives of any government. We are not only accountants. We are people who have to make sure that laws promote development for everyone.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to a new element the government is trying to slip through with this bill. It has decided that those who would refuse training programs would no longer have the right to appeal. Let us take the example of young people who have studied and graduated, then landed a first job, but now find themselves in an impossible situation. There are no jobs in their field. They must decide if they will accept another training program and find out if there will be programs offered in their region, if they will have to move and what exactly they will be offered. If they refuse, they are automatically penalized and cannot appeal against that decision.

We know that, in legislation as complex as this bill, many decisions are interpreted differently depending on the official, not because government officials are not skilled, not because they do not know their subject well enough, but simply because provisions can be interpreted in different ways. The 45 or 50-year old employee who just lost his job because of technological changes and who is offered training in an area he knows nothing about is told by the official that the training will help him find a new job.

A worker aged 45, 50 or 55 who has just lost his job and needs unemployment insurance, may not need specialized training but rather some training to face the labour market, to find out what is coming and what kind of choices he will have to make. If we tell him: "Well, you always worked in construction, but the area where we expect employment in the future is tourism, you must go and take a 52-week course in tourism", this person, who never worked in that sector and thinks he might not have what it takes and would rather think about it a little longer and find out whether there are other programs or other things which would interest him more, is going to face a situation where he will not be at liberty to refuse.

It is more and more the state that is going to move people about, like pawns on a chess board, to get them to take a training course. If we, in our riding offices, are not aware that a fifteenth person is needed to complete a group so the course can be given, could the counsellor, at that time, be faced with a situation where he must steer someone in that direction, to fill the fifteenth slot, even though that training course might not really meet his needs according to his abilities, simply to be able to go ahead with the course, so that the 14 others to can receive their training?

According to the legislation, that person will have no other choice because if he refuses, he will be penalized and will not have the right to appeal. Others will come knocking on our doors because of a legislation that will not have corrected this kind of situation.

In clause 3, when it says that

The Commission shall monitor and assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting to the changes made by this Act to the insurance and employment assistance programs-

it means the commission will have many things to monitor. There are many human factors, many variables in this bill. There will be significant secondary effects and numerous unforeseeable consequences.

Let us take just one example: the change from a system based on the number of weeks to one based on the number of hours. Will this change be good? Will it really make it possible for more people to qualify, as the government claims? Are there not secondary effects-for instance, the 910-hour requirement for new entrants, the increased number of hours compared to the old system-that will systematically force people onto welfare?

Will there not be increased pressure on transfer payments? Will this not gradually lead to an absurd situation, in which the UI fund runs a surplus while reducing training for claimants and providing fewer services to those who need them?

The mandate given the commission in clause 3 will not help us reach our goal. To do so, we must find a way for the commission to report directly to Parliament so we can get to the bottom of this.

One only has to remember the myriad studies-there is talk of 26 studies-that were done on the employability of seasonal workers. It was like pulling teeth. The government put on the table the studies it was interested in, but several of them were never released.

In conclusion, it will be very important to make sure the commission has a clear mandate that does not simply reflect the financial consequences of the reform, but really assesses its impact on employment. That is why we are urging the government to approve our amendment.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a disgrace that the government has decided to move a time allocation motion on such an important bill. Let me explain why it is a bad decision.

Under the definition provision, which is part of the amendments before us, insurable employment is defined. The definition of insurable employment has been a major problem for several years now: there is an incredible backlog of applications waiting for a decision by Revenue Canada. There are more than 20,000 applications on hold.

This bill had been under consideration for two years now, and we still have not found a solution to the problem; we have not come up with a way to deal with this very real problem. The government has only one goal, to recover $2 billion through this reform. That is its only goal. To get $2 billion in cuts. In the meantime, the problem is not going away.

Let me explain the problem with insurable employment. In some cases, employment can be considered non-insurable because the employee and the employer are not dealing with each other at arm's length, and the people concerned often file an appeal. It is true that sometimes the employment is proven to be non-insurable, but in thousands of cases, nothing can be proven and the people are successful in their appeal. The government has not dealt with this problem; it has not even come up with an amendment on this issue, even if we suggested some changes and mentioned the problem to the minister when he appeared before the committee.

By moving time allocation, the government is only prolonging these kinds of problems. The people affected by this issue are not the banks, nor the individuals who make billions of dollars in profits, but rather wives who work alongside their husbands on the family farm, for example, or spouses who open a business together or the sons and daughters who work with their parents. These are the kinds of situations we see in real life. No, the government is not ready to correct these situations, it is not ready to solve them. It will rather gag the House by skipping debate at second reading and limiting to ten hours consideration in committee.

As for the report stage, the government will also limit debate next week while there are concrete examples of problems that need to be addressed. The only way to settle these problems is to put an amendment forward or, ultimately, to send this bill back to committee so that it can do its job and solve these problems because this is totally absurd.

Pursuant to the appeal process, people who are not satisfied in the first stage must then deal with the revenue department. Across this country, Human Resources Development Canada has employment centres providing first line services. These centres are close to the people and can give advice, interprete the legislation. However, the government could not find a way to give them the authority to make the decisions in this process. No, they wanted the revenue department to do it, although it must deal with a mind-boggling number of cases, more than 20,000 cases, like I said. This is utterly unacceptable.

At the same time, on the subject of definitions, they tried to pull a few fast ones on us. First, they decided to give the definition of an affidavit. Do you know what an affidavit is? It is a statement which you make when you lost a document or when you witnessed an event that you have no proof of other than to swear it is true. Affidavits can be made in all sectors of life. But a definition is added here in the legislation to limit its application. And I can assure you that, when going after persons guilty of fraud and offenders, this legislation is a regulatory jungle.

The Unemployment Insurance Act can be compared to a highway on which there would be ten or fifteen different speed limit indications on a two-kilometer stretch and police everywhere making sure you are not over the limit. Often, it is not a question of being dishonest, it is just a failure to understand. The definition of affidavit will be a means to catch people, to ensure that we will be able to catch them. It is unacceptable and we have asked the government to withdraw it.

The same can be said of the word document. They put in a catch-all definition of what a document is for the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act. They did this to reinforce again the principle that people who receive unemployment insurance are trying to abuse the system. To consider that Canadians are neces-

sarily trying to rob the system is an unacceptable basic element of the government's bill.

According to statistics we have received, it is proven that fraud amounts to no more than 4 per cent. Four per cent of 2 million UI claimants-last year's figures-is not much. If we submitted businesses and taxpayers to such an inquiry, I believe we would discover a higher rate of fraud. But they decided to go after these people because they are less organized, less resourceful. That is where the government wants to go.

This time allocation motion will prevent us from doing an in-depth study of this bill. It is an important piece of legislation that will govern unemployment insurance for years to come. There will not be such a reform every year. The government has enough trouble as it is dealing with the impact of this reform on workers. You can be sure that it will not impose another reform on the maritimes because if the Liberal members from that region vote for this bill here in the House, they will certainly pay the political price for it in the next election.

What is the impact of this reform? It is a one-way street to poverty. One of my constituents told me on the phone yesterday that the Liberals argue that changing the system from weeks to hours worked will improve the situation, but we need concrete examples to support that. Here is a concrete example.

Previously, to become eligible for unemployment insurance, a person had to work 20 15-hour weeks, a total of 300 hours. Now, a new entrant on the job market will have to work 910 hours, or 26 35-hour weeks. So the government has dealt a fatal blow to CEGEP graduates who work in seasonal industries such as tourism, recreation and applied ecology. All those who have seasonal jobs or even those who just started their first job will be systematically forced onto welfare. And the present government has the audacity to use the term employment insurance to refer to a piece of legislation that will do nothing but send people on their way to the welfare office.

Because that is what awaits those who went to school, who attended primary school, high school, college, university. If they do not work 910 hours the first year, or 26 weeks at 35 hours a week, that is 26 weeks of full-time work, they will not be eligible. There are a lot of seasonal industries where it is impossible to work 26 weeks. Just try working in a peat bog or in the forest for 26 weeks to see what it is like. Just try working 26 weeks in the woods.

Yesterday, a Liberal member said that this legislation would motivate people to work a little more. I can tell you that, where I come from, the problem is not motivation but finding jobs. Things will be a lot more difficult for people who, even now, must keep two or three different jobs to accumulate the 12 weeks presently required.

True a system based on the number of hours may be interesting for some people. However, it is totally false to say that the government has tried to improve the situation. Besides going from weeks to hours, the government raised all the system's criteria and standards to make unemployment insurance less accessible. The savings give us an example of that.

The UI program will produce surpluses averaging $5 billion every year. It is not an underfinanced program, but a program used by the government to reduce its deficit. Since it was unable to get that money from foreign markets, it decided to penalize UI claimants without raising taxes.

It is a sad thing to see because, in the past, Liberal governments showed from time to time that they cared for the regional economic development by putting in place a good regulating system in periods of economic downturns, but the present government is killing it. Unemployment insurance plan is supposed to help alleviate the overly severe effects of recessions and prevent depressions like the one we had in the 1930's.

Today, we can say without a doubt that if the measures proposed by the government are allowed to stand, in the next recession we will find ourselves facing situations that are going to aggravate the economic crisis, which will have the effect of driving people from the regions to the cities, where there will not necessarily be any jobs. We are in the process of creating a model seen in certain developing countries, but that we never thought we would see here. The present government is creating this type of situation.

Another thing I find completely unacceptable is keeping the intensity rule. Under this rule, someone who draws UI benefits for 20 weeks loses 1 per cent of his benefits, another 20 weeks, another 1 per cent. At this rate, within three years, anyone who regularly draws UI benefits will drop from 55 to 50 per cent.

I will conclude my remarks with this. Twenty-five dollars a week is perhaps not much for people earning $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000. But people getting $500 a week will end up with $25 less, which now can be used to buy things, to keep the economy going, but especially to help people put bread and butter on the table. Canada's present government, with its reform, will bring all this to an end. I think it should be made very clear that gagging us will not solve the problem. This problem will dog them for many years to come.

[Federal Harbours And Airports, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is wary of Greeks bearing gifts. We need to know the conditions and repercussions of decisions.

Does the minister intend to make the necessary repairs to federal harbours and airports before privatizing them, or to make financial compensation available in order to ensure the viability of these privatized facilities?

[Federal Harbours And Airports, May 3rd, 1996]

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

For a number of years now, the federal government has been trying to privatize several regional airports. Last December, it also announced its intention to turn over harbour management to

regional bodies. However, the Government of Quebec rightly maintains that several of these harbours and airports are presently in need of extensive repair that could result in costs to the provincial governments.

Can the Minister of Transport assure us that he will respect the opinion of the Government of Quebec in the process of privatizing federal harbours and airports?

[Merit, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on April 24, 1996, I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning manpower training. The question related to an old issue which, hopefully, will soon be settled.

In Quebec, there is a consensus that the whole issue of manpower training should be the sole responsibility of the Government of Quebec. This consensus includes people from every sector. It is rather unusual to see the Conseil du patronat du Québec, unions, the education sector and the government all agree on something.

Manpower training, including employment measures, must come under the responsibility of a single government, so as to put an end to the annual waste of $250 million, which will persist as long as the current duplication by the two levels of government is not eliminated.

Also, following the unemployment insurance reform, these activities will be totally funded through the unemployment insurance fund. Let us not forget that the unemployment insurance program was established almost 50 years ago so that people could have an income between jobs.

However, with its unemployment insurance reform, the present government now wants to use that money to fund training programs in an area that is not under federal but rather under provincial jurisdiction. It is unable to give this responsibility to the provinces and makes the argument that, since unemployment insurance contributions are paid to the federal government, it cannot transfer these funds to the provincial governments because it is responsible for that money.

I think there are two possible solutions. The first one is to ensure that contributions are really used to pay for unemployment insurance and for the federal government to withdraw from the area of manpower, leaving this responsibility to the provinces. In other words, that it get out of this tax field and let the Government of Quebec, or any other interested province, take it on.

The other possibility, as we have already seen with other programs, is to ensure that there are agreements that are followed up by audits, and that leave the province ample room to manoeuvre. The question of manpower training therefore needs to be clarified, it seems.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us whether it is the government's intention to waive the requirement for an agreement with the province in order for people to be eligible for loans and grants. Somewhat perversely, the present reform says that the federal government may not provide funding unless there is an agreement with the province concerning the adult loans and grants programs.

This measure has the opposite effect as well, because the province is caught in a bind. If it does not sign an agreement with the federal government or if, for instance, it does not accept the national standards the federal government might want to impose, its citizens may have to do without training programs. In my view, this is totally unacceptable.

I would like to know if the government intends to simply withdraw from manpower training and let the provinces that wish to do so have full control over that area and develop effective programs to reduce the sectorial unemployment situation we are now facing in Canada and in Quebec, where we have about 500,000 jobs available and almost 1 million workers unemployed but we cannot seem to match people to jobs.

As the OECD, a renowned international organization, pointed out, we do not have effective training programs to help our workers adjust to the technological changes, because of all the various people involved in this area. Let me ask the parliamentary secretary if he can assure me that the government will reconsider its position on this issue.