Bob Nault

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in so far as Human Resources Development Canada is concerned the reply is as follows:

Question No. 18-

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

That's the best you can do?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the hon. member for Quebec does not mention in her remarks that part II of the bill lays out very clearly the five major employment tools that will be used with the consent of the provinces, in this case the province of Quebec.

I want to ask her a very specific question relating to seasonal workers and part time workers. The member has said over and over again that part time workers are worse off.

Under this bill, some 18,000 people in Quebec who fall outside the old UI system will now be eligible for unemployment insurance under this system. For the first time in the history of this program these people will qualify because they are part timers. They are women, students and low income Canadians. If a person is working part time, they are not making a whole lot of money. These folks are eligible.

Why does the member continue to say that this bill excludes people under the system when the facts show that 18,000 Quebecers will benefit, going to the hourly based system from the week system.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Oh, oh.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to filibuster like my friend opposite.

I was going to raise a point of order and suggest that if he wanted to speak again we would let him. Some of us could ask questions of him rather than having him talk for five minutes instead of asking members questions.

However, I want to ask my colleague a question. The Bloc again has attacked the whole issue of the hours based system, which as the member has mentioned is supported by almost everyone who understands the system. I suggest that the Bloc does not understand the importance of going to an hourly system.

The reason there is support is that there are 90,000 individuals who do not get UI today who under the new system which will consider claims on an hourly basis will be able to collect EI for the first time. Half of those workers are seasonal employees. I want to focus on the other half, part time workers. It hurts me to think the Bloc is not supporting this.

There are 45,000 part time and multiple job workers. For the first time they will be able to collect EI under this new system. Why would the member think that any party, whether it is a party that wants to break up Canada, which spends more time trying to break up Canada than worrying about workers in its own province, would be opposed to something that is good for 27 per cent of the population who are part time workers?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Ontario puts a significant amount of money into the system. For every $1 working men and women in Ontario put in, we receive 76 cents back.

In 1993 Quebecers received $1.29 for every $1 they put into the system. Under the new EI system they will receive $1.32 for every $1 they put in. Based on how shameful the member feels it is, can he explain to me what is so disgusting that for every $1 Quebec puts in it gets $1.32 out of the system? Is that not fair? Is that not equitable? Is that not compassion?

That is an important question to ask because coming from Ontario where we get only 76 cents for every $1 we put in, we think we are being very fair. We are trying to make the system work for other regions that are have not. I would certainly like to know the response of the member when we look at the raw facts and the numbers. From 1993 to 1996 the amount Quebec is receiving has gone up, not down.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I would like to let the House know that throughout the rest of the day on third reading of this bill, members on the government side will be sharing their time equally, 10 and 5.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance system set out in Bill C-12 is not just another version of the old UI program. It is in fact Canada's employment insurance system for the 21st century. It supports the government's agenda for jobs and growth. It is a system that Canadians themselves have helped to define and shape for the future.

As we have mentioned in this House before, we have had extensive consultations not only on Bill C-12 but on the whole question of social security reform over the past year and one-half. Over and over again Canadians from all walks of life, from every possible kind of business, occupation or organization repeated one message loud and clear: the best form of security is a job.

We have listened to that message. Employment insurance first and foremost is about jobs. It is about jobs in a very simple and direct way. It will make it easier for people to work longer and encourage employers to keep people in their jobs longer. It will help employers hire more workers. It will create more work and more jobs for Canadians. It will help increase the earned income of Canadian workers. Every part of this bill is focused on that goal. Let me give some examples.

With EI insurance premiums, the tax on jobs will be lower. The premium cut and reduced maximum insurable earnings will save workers and employers over $1 billion in premium payments in this year alone. Streamlined administration and reporting requirements will save employers another $150 million and some 300,000 small businesses will get a special temporary rebate so employers can afford to hire more workers.

This system will support job creation instead of perpetuating unemployment. Income benefits are structured to make it easier for people to work longer removing the barriers that sometimes keep people from accepting the jobs they need. This system is pro

employment and makes work pay. Active employment benefits are there for those who lose their jobs and need help getting back to work.

We will be reinvesting $800 million in the tools which help people help themselves and create employment opportunities for Canadians. As well, we are investing another $300 million in a transitional jobs fund to kick start employment in areas of high unemployment. Some 15,000 jobs for Canadians will be created as a result of this initiative.

When the measures described in this bill are fully implemented, there will be 75,000 to 100,000 more jobs for Canadians. That is just part of the story.

Employment insurance is an integral part of the government's broader vision for jobs and growth in this country. It is a growth agenda that sees economic growth going hand in hand with the best social security system in the world. Our agenda is based on creating a healthy economic climate for growth. We brought inflation down to its lowest level in 30 years. We are meeting and exceeding our deficit reduction targets. Our agenda recognizes Canada can compete with the best in the world.

Over the past 14 months the government's Team Canada approach to international trade has brought $20 billion worth of new deals for Canadian exports. Every $1 billion in exports means 11,000 jobs for Canadian workers. It can be seen that our agenda is beyond all doubt working. More than 600,000 new jobs have been created in this country since November 1993.

As jobs and our economy grow, we must ensure that our social safety net keeps pace. That is the fundamental message in the government's budget. We are taking action to ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on a strong social safety net that is affordable, effective and in tune with the future.

The bottom line is clear. This government is totally committed to bringing Canada into the 21st century with a strong and growing economy and the best social programs of any country in the world.

Bill C-12 is part of that commitment. We want to make sure that employment insurance is not only pro employment, but balanced and fair for all Canadians. That is why we have listened very carefully to the comments and advice from Canadians throughout the hearings on this bill.

We heard tremendous support for an insurance system that is truly focused on jobs and employment. We also heard some real concerns that the system would not be flexible enough to reflect the real job opportunities that exist in different parts of Canada. We listened to those concerns and we have taken action.

We recognize the need for a number of important amendments to the bill. For example, people from all parts of the country, from the New Brunswick Federation of Labour to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women to the Kativik Regional Government argued that the method proposed for calculating benefits was too inflexible.

The amended divisor used to calculate benefits fixes that problem. As a result, EI will be more responsive to monthly changes in local employment conditions. That is a change that makes sense. It is a change that deserves our support.

Many groups, especially those representing the concerns of workers in seasonal industries and students expressed serious concerns about the effects gaps in work would have under the new system. Under the amended system, EI claimants will have a longer reference period to put together the required weeks of work and gaps will not affect the outcome. For example, a person who needs 15 weeks of work to qualify can look back over 26 weeks and ignore up to 11 empty weeks if necessary. Again, this is a change that makes good sense.

Many people were concerned that the intensity rule which reduces the benefit rate for repeat users would be particularly hard on the most vulnerable and those in most need. In the amended system, people who receive the EI family income supplement will be exempt from the intensity rule. This will safeguard a basic level of EI income for low income claimants with family responsibilities.

We will also take steps to address concerns about potential fraud and abuse of EI with stiffer sanctions and penalties for claimants and employers who break the rules in order to get benefits they are not entitled to.

In all of these cases, we have listened closely to what Canadians are saying. The employment insurance system will be better as a result. It will be more flexible. It will be fairer. It will meet our savings targets. It will focus more effectively on our number one priority which always has been getting Canadians back to work.

Jobs, economic growth, a strong and affordable safety net: these are priorities every Canadian shares. They are priorities we are resolutely committed to as a government. Employment insurance is one part, an important part of the action plan Canada needs to achieve those goals and to move with confidence into the next century. I urge all members at the end of today to support this bill. The fundamental changes in it are going to be good for Canadians for years and years to come.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter this debate and speak on part II.

It is important to talk about part II because there has been a significant amount of contradiction by the opposition. The Bloc has been claiming on a number of fronts in the last weeks as we have debated this bill both in the House and in committee that it is a do nothing bill, that it is intended to reduce costs, that it does not create employment or that it is not intended to help create jobs. On the reverse of that, which is the intriguing part of this, the Bloc then criticizes the bill for having active measures to help people get jobs and the clear job creating measures it contains.

We all know and have heard this on numerous occasions. The member for Mercier has asked when the Minister of Human Resources Development is going to help people get back to work. He has asked when certain things are going to be done as far as the active measures are concerned. Then opposition members stand during this debate and say there are no measures to help people get back to work.

With the contradictions and the compounding of the confusion the member for Mercier is putting out to the public, I thought I would take the last 10 minutes I have today to set the record straight.

The confusion the members have is hurting their credibility and God only knows in this place we certainly do not need members' credibility to be affected by making contradictions. As an example there is the claim by the member for Drummond who said on May 6 at page 2374 in Hansard : ``There is no concrete measure for job creation in this unemployment insurance reform''. Then there is the member for Châteauguay who said on May 6 that this was an anti-employment measure because it has the audacity to cut a payroll tax that we know affects job creation.

How then do opposition members describe the job creation partnerships that are provided in the bill? How do they describe the transitional jobs fund of $300 million that will go to work to create some 15,000 jobs which, once this bill finally passes the House, will be available in the higher unemployment regions? Some of those areas are Quebec, northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada.

I can safely say that many of us in this place are waiting for that transitional fund to kick in so we can help people find employment. How do opposition members explain the fact that this bill will result in some 75,000 to 100,000 new job opportunities once it is fully implemented?

Again those are contradictions members continue to dismiss as irrelevant in their debate. They say that no jobs are being created, that there is no help for anybody. At the same time they argue asking why we are entering into provincial jurisdiction and why there are these five employment measures. There are all kinds of these arguments which for some unknown reason we cannot square no matter how hard we try.

The simple fact is that employment insurance is about jobs. It focuses on helping people get back to work with the right kind of support, whether the help is financial through income benefits or through employment benefits which is part II of the bill.

Let me quote the contradiction that pops up with the BQ again. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot instructs the government to ensure that people who find themselves in this unfortunate situation are able, in the short or medium term, to re-enter the job market with lasting results. He is absolutely right. That is exactly what the government is attempting to do with part II of this EI reform.

That is the point that members have been trying to make. Bloc members are contradicting themselves again. Active measures are a way to keep insurance costs down by keeping people employed and employment up. That is the whole intent of transferring another $800 million into active programs, to help people get retrained and get back into the workforce. At the same time, added to that is another $300 million, which is a transition fund to help those high unemployment areas adjust to a very large behavioural structural change of EI.

I want to mention something to members because we are having great difficulty with this issue. The Government of Canada has recognized that labour market training is the responsibility of provincial governments and linked to the responsibility for education. We have said this over and over again in the House but for some unknown reason it is not to the benefit of the Bloc to say its members have heard what we are saying.

In Bill C-12 it states very bluntly that these measures, which include wage subsidies, income supplements, support for self-employment, partnerships for job creation and skills loans and grants, are all in line with the government's commitment on training. Skills loans and grants will only be implemented with the consent of the provinces concerned. In fact, we have said over and over again that we will get the consent of the provinces to enter into areas that we know are within their jurisdiction. However, our number one objective in part II is to help people through these kinds of programs to get right back into the workforce. If it is a training component other than getting people back to the workforce very quickly the government has to get the consent of the provinces. I think the Bloc finally recognizes that that commitment is a solid commitment.

I want to stress that point because the BQ members have claimed that the government is still in the training field. The Prime Minister, the minister and Liberal members have said over and over that the federal government is getting out of labour market training. I want to continue to focus on that particular point.

Let me add to this murky mix the Bloc position on expanding eligibility for employment benefits. Let me quote again from the member for Châteauguay: "Not only does the federal government interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction"-which we have said we are not willing to do-"such as manpower and social assistance, but it does so with money collected as UI premiums". Can anyone imagine this? That comment would have made good sense if it had come from a member of the Reform Party. However, members have to agree that the federal government, if it does not do anything to help people who have slipped from unemployment insurance to welfare, then what is the point?

A significant portion of this bill deals with helping people. It is estimated that 45 per cent of the people who are on welfare or social assistance can apply for the five major components under part II of employment insurance. The Bloc members, who are the great defenders of the poor so they tell us, are objecting to that. They say that should not be the case. The federal government should not try to help people who are on social assistance. It should get its nose out of it and not help those people get back into the workforce.

The Bloc members are the authors of their own contradictions. They demand that the government create jobs. They demand that we follow a do nothing course on employment insurance that would prevent us from achieving the first goal. They also demand that the government do less for people on social assistance, the most vulnerable in our labour market. I want to disappoint the Bloc.

We are going to meet the very important obligation that was made in the speech from the throne by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development. Part II of the bill contains clear job creating measures. Those measures will be consistent with the policy that has been part of this program since the very beginning. The measures are linked to our specific area of jurisdiction and bring in a new level of collaboration. They expand eligibility for benefits to a wider group of people. The result of part II will be that people will get back to work.

All the juggling of claims by the opposition cannot ignore those essential facts. The most enjoyable part for the hon. member for Malpeque and myself is that we have had the pleasure of dealing with the contradictions which Bloc members have brought to this place in the last number of days as we have debated the report stage motions. They criticize us for not doing anything, but they do not want to talk about part II and the importance of helping people get

back to work. Whenever we do that the only message they want to send to their constituents is that we are entering into provincial jurisdiction.

Again we lay the facts on the table for my friends in the Bloc who desperately need to understand that this will be a structural change for which Canadians will thank us.

A witness who appeared before the committee a number of weeks ago has a reputation for being an individual with vision. His name is Alice Nakamura. He said that our children will thank us for these behavioural changes and the restructuring of this program because they are the most far-reaching behavioural changes which the country has ever seen. The changes are being made because of the new marketplace in which we find ourselves. Quite frankly, I feel very comfortable standing in this place and saying that I agree with Alice. When we look at the changes in the years to come through the monitoring system we will be proven correct.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have a member who is ready to speak. The Bloc just finished so I would assume it is our turn to start. Which motion is leading off?