Bob Nault

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the debate on Group No. 5. It is important to put these amendments in context.

One of the problems we had in committee was with the opposition as it relates to amendments important for the improvement of the bill.

One of the things we asked at the very beginning of the process was that if members of Parliament were serious about wanting to see improvements to the bill, that they were given ample opportunity not only in committee but in discussions individually with members and through the department to have their improvements put forward and vetted through the department. It would do an analysis and come up with recommendations about whether the amendment we are involved with would be appropriate under the circumstances.

The amendment by the member for Mercier is a perfect example of the shenanigans going on in the opposition. Filibustering took place over the number of weeks as we tried as a government to co-operate with the opposition for it to be successful in bringing amendments forward.

Instead of bringing amendments like this to the committee, we get a nonsensical amendment like the one we are debating today. This motion removes from Bill C-12 the whole clause 5, defining insurable employment, thus removing the foundation for EI coverage and premium payments completely.

It also proposes to remove from the UI act all references to penalty or stoppage of benefits for quitting without just cause and being fired for misconduct.

If we were to approve and accept this amendment it would totally put in chaos the unemployment insurance system as we know it today or as we are proposing under the new changes.

I want to make it very clear that we are debating a motion that is intended to filibuster the very important work of the House and waste the time of members. This motion should be completely out of order because it is nonsensical. If a member puts an amendment to a bill forward, at least put one that is reasonable and has some merit. Obviously this one does not.

It does not surprise me. I refer to other statements the member for Mercier made on what the bill does or does not do.

Not long ago in the House the member for Mercier claimed the bill does not promote job creation because it reduces inter-regional subsidization, that it will make the poor regions even poorer. When someone makes comments like that, it suggests somehow there is a diabolical scheme that will hurt the poorer provinces.

I want to put on record today some facts as they relate to that issue to coincide with some of the other amendments the member is proposing to prove to all the people who are listening, particularly in Quebec, how ridiculous this situation has become.

Look at the numbers. This is even before considering the allocation of the $800 million reinvestment in active measures. This relates to every dollar paid into the program in the years 2001-02. Keep in mind it relates to promoting job creation and the inter-regional subsidization.

In the year 2000-01 for every dollar workers in Prince Edward Island put in they will receive $2.77 in benefits out of the program. Newfoundlanders will receive $2.73 for every dollar they put in. Nova Scotians will receive $1.52 for every dollar they put into the system. New Brunswickers will receive $1.59 for every dollar they put into the system. In Quebec, the province members are talking about as being so hard done by in this piece of legislation, workers will receive $1.32 for every dollar they put in.

Keep that in mind because here is a member from Ontario speaking on behalf of his province. In Ontario workers will receive 76 cents for every dollar they put in. As Ontarians, if we are not sharing with the other provinces, the ones I have mentioned, then what are we doing? If we are not distributing wealth, then what exactly are we doing when we look at the facts?

Quite frankly, as a federalist I expect and accept that is what we are doing. That is the way we make the disparities in the regions disappear over time. We do it by helping the have not areas, by lifting them up, by putting them into a position where they can create employment, improve their training apparatus, get involved in giving people a helping hand so they can achieve their goals in those regions.

When the member for Mercier says that we are attacking the poorer regions, it is not true, like so many of the other claims the hon. member has mentioned. I go back to the particular issue of section 5 which she basically wants to remove completely. When we look at that we have to ask ourselves what the rationale is for the opposition and what its motive is for making these very serious allegations that the government is not interested in helping Canadians.

As my colleague from Malpeque has said on a number of occasions, which I want to emphasize in my remarks this afternoon, this is a significant overhaul of the unemployment insurance system in order to put us in a position to help working men and women in the years to come in the country called Canada. In essence this is its first major overhaul in over 25 years. The intent of it is to look at the areas where we believe men and women will be looking for employment in the future, the non-conventional areas.

One of the major components of this bill is to bring part time workers into the EI system for the first time in history. As the House knows, part timers now account for 27 per cent of the workforce. That is a very serious problem which has to be addressed. They are individuals who until once this bill is passed have not been able to collect unemployment insurance. They have not been able to ask for help under the more active measures under part II, the five tools we have advocated under the $800 million which has been put forward, including the other billions of dollars we have had before. Up to $2.7 billion will be put toward part II and the tools that will be used to help Canadians get retrained and re-educated.

Then we looked at something else which is very profound, something which shows that this government understands there is a changing environment in the workplace. We have now gone to first hour coverage, from weeks to hours.

In a region like mine, northern Ontario, which is very similar to northern Quebec, many Canadians work in seasonal industries. That is the kind of environment, the kind of country that we live in. Those individuals, especially in the summertime and in the fall, do not work eight hours a day like people do in other industries such as the auto industry in southern Ontario. They work 12 to 16 hours a day.

Under the old system it did not matter if people worked 70 hours a week or 35 hours a week, it only counted for one week. Now under the new system people are not going to be forced to work overtime. It is not called overtime in seasonal industries. It is called making a dollar when the sun shines, working when you can, making sure you make enough money in the period of four to six months to support your family.

For people to suggest that going from weeks to hours is driving people to work overtime, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious they have never visited northern Ontario or northern Quebec or places where people work in the mines, forestry and tourism. They are not in the labour force because they are unionized or non-unionized, they are there because that is where they make their living.

For example, people who work at tourist camps work 16 hours a day, as they do when the tourist camps are open in my region. They start at 7 a.m., sometimes 6 a.m., to get the fishermen out fishing and all the activities going and they work until dark. You know this, Mr. Speaker, because you know northern Ontario very well, that it gets dark around 9 p.m. so people are working from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Those are long hours.

Now every single hour that those people work counts. They do not have to work 20 weeks; they may only have to work 10 weeks to qualify for EI. Whereas in the past they did not qualify at all, now they will qualify. If that is not an important structural change for the good of many Canadians, I do not know what is.

What is frustrating me and many members on the government side is that the opposition continues to talk with rhetorical abandon about this bill without talking about the facts.

There are women who have worked part time all their lives. I have a sister-in-law who has two jobs and has never in her life been able to collect UI simply because she always worked less than that 15 hour ceiling. She would work 14 hours at the local grocery store and then another 14 hours or less in the same week at a local restaurant. Under these changes she will now have all the benefits whether they be maternity benefits, sick benefits, or regular UI benefits if she is laid off. That is a dramatic improvement.

I take exception to some of the remarks made by the members opposite that this bill is somehow going to hurt people. We can look at the numbers, and I will speak later about those when we go to a different group. Just look at how many more people in each province are going to be getting into the system versus the argument the opposition is making that this will shrink the system significantly.

As a labour unionist, I am very familiar with what the labour unions are saying. Quite frankly that is why they are so marginalized in this country. They cannot tell their membership something that is not factually correct. They have to tell them the absolute truth, whether they are of one political persuasion or another.

Because members opposite have a particular vision of what Canada should look like at the end of the day, maybe they are coming at it from a different angle. I also take exception to some of the labour unionists who are saying we are shrinking the system. In fact the numbers show that 52 per cent of people who are unemployed can get unemployment insurance now. With a 2 per cent or 3 per cent increase which is guaranteed in the next number of years we will back not too long from now to where as high as 60 per cent of the people who end up unemployed will be able to get UI benefits. People, the media and the labour movement are saying it is down to 40 per cent and that is not factually correct.

We have never had the opportunity in committee to see what the opposition would really like. We as a government held our hand out to all members. Members on the government side took us up on the offer and told us where they thought there were some weaknesses.

One was in the divisor. We changed the divisor. It cost the government a significant amount of money. We looked at the gap which is a major problem for employees who work in seasonal industries. We changed the gap. It cost the government $265 million to make that change. If that is not good work in the committee I do not know what is.

My colleague from Toronto worked very hard looking at what would happen to people at the low end of the scale, poorer people. The recommendation came forward from her that we would exempt from the intensity rule people with under $26,000 of family income. This is a significant change and worth some $24 million to the poor people who cannot afford to be targeted.

What kind of amendments did we get from the opposition? None. This place must work effectively and the government says it is willing to do business differently than in the past. I was here when the Tories were in power. When we went to committee we could forget it. We were there to obstruct; we were not there to put in amendments because we knew no one would ever take them seriously. However, with this bill amendments were put forward and they were accepted by this government.

I want to reiterate that if the members are going to say things that are factually incorrect we on this side of the House are going to get up time and time again and give the people of Canada the facts. It is unfair. This is a complicated bill. There is no argument about that. A lot of people, even people in the press are saying that the bill is not getting much attention because quite frankly, most people do not understand it.

However, the members who have been on the committee, like myself and the hon. member for Malpeque, have spent lots of time in order to understand the bill thoroughly. We will stand in this place to put the facts on the record. Members like the hon. member for Mercier will not get away with total rhetoric. We expect her to argue the points based on the facts. If they are not there, we will certainly call her on it.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In group 3 there are three other amendments you did not ask for a recorded vote on, Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 200.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have heard a great many wild claims from the members of the Bloc Quebecois about the negative impacts of Bill C-12.

Members of the Bloc have made no secret of the fact that they do not like the legislation. It is rather disappointing to see a party allow its ideologically driven aspirations for a separate Quebec completely override a fact driven interpretation of the bill.

What seems very clear is that members of the Bloc cannot possibly support changes that will improve a federal program to help more Canadians get and keep jobs and that will, in fact, create up to 100,000 new jobs for workers, both in Quebec and across Canada. It would be an admission that Canada can be made to work better for all Quebecers and all Canadians.

They have not looked at this legislation on its merits. They simply make a series of outrageous claims which bear little or no relationship to the reality of the bill, claims which I believe must be responded to so that all Canadians, including Quebecers, understand the true nature of this very progressive and very necessary piece of legislation.

The member for Mercier, for example, said that the lower revenues of $900 million resulting from a reduction in the maximum insurable earnings will be made up by those: "who currently do not pay unemployment insurance contributions". The member for Louis-Hébert says: "Making part time workers, students and so on contribute will bring $900 million into the unemployment insurance fund and what makes that measure so pervasive is that it will allow the government to give the money to the richer workers".

What are the facts? Of the 500,000 workers who will have their work insured for the first time, 76 per cent or 380,000 will have their premiums refunded. The remaining 120,000 new premium payers will pay a total of $14 million and they will be eligible to claim benefits if they become unemployed.

That is not all. Nine hundred and twenty thousand low income individuals who are paying premiums today will have about $30 million in premiums refunded. Also, while more part time workers will be insured under EI, fewer of them will actually pay premiums. As a group they will pay $6 million less in premiums than they do today.

The biggest impact of moving to first dollar coverage in terms of premiums payments will be a lifting of the weekly maximum. This will mean that individuals with high weekly incomes will pay their fair share of premiums for the first time.

What is more, 350,000 low income claimants with families will now be eligible for a supplement which will increase their benefits to up to 80 per cent of weekly earnings from the standard 55 per cent rate. On average, this means an increase in income of some 12 per cent. In addition, they will be exempt from the intensity rule by which repeat users will see a modest reduction of benefits. As well, people will also be able to earn up to $50 per week while on claim without having their benefits reduced.

The facts are the opposite of what the Bloc members have been saying. Low income workers are not financing the reduction of the MIE. Low income workers will see their situation improve under this legislation.

The member for Mercier also claims that by reducing the MIE the government is giving a gift to major corporations and workers earning between $39,000 and $42,000. First, reducing the MIE to $39,000 means that it will be about 17 per cent above the average wage in the year 2000. Left alone it would have grown to about 47 per cent above the average.

While some high income earners and their employers will pay a bit less in premiums, which works out to about $150 a year, it also means high income workers will receive substantially less in benefits; nearly $2,340 less. As the House can see, what the member for Mercier is saying and what are the facts are two very different things. That can hardly be categorized as a gift to high income workers.

I want to bring a matter to the floor of the House. The member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans adds that women will not be able to meet the requirement as it will mean 910 hours of work a year. First, the 910 hours to qualify for EI benefits only applies to the first year in the labour market for a new entrant or a re-entrant in order to establish a reasonable attachment to the labour market before being eligible for insurance benefits. By the second year, provided the person has at least 490 hours of work in the first, they need only meet the variable entrance requirement of 420 to 700 hours. It does not go on year after year, as has been suggested by members opposite.

The reason for this change is very obvious. That low first time entry requirement can encourage young people to take temporary, unstable work rather than completing their education. The message to young people is clear. Do not drop out of school with a plan to work in a low wage job for a few months, then live off EI benefits. You will have to work longer to qualify and the new rules will also require you to do a lot more to find work.

Members opposite should also be aware that there are special provisions for women re-entering the labour force. They will be eligible for the new re-employment measures for up to five years after leaving the labour force rather than the three-year limit for regular claimants.

The member for Ahuntsic claims that the reform is an attack against seasonal workers. This is very close to my heart and to many people in this place and to part time workers. He states that eligibility requirements have been tightened. What the member does not say is that about 90,000 individuals who become unemployed today and cannot qualify for UI, will qualify for EI benefits. This includes 45,000 seasonal workers who have long hours of work but not enough insured weeks to qualify for benefits. It also includes about 45,000 part time workers and multiple job holders who have none or only certain weeks of their work insured today.

The member should also know that the amendments presented in the committee to address the issues of gaps in income of workers in seasonal jobs plus the new divisor rule will greatly help workers

in seasonal industries by providing them with a longer period to access eligibility for benefits.

When we look at the facts versus what is being said by members opposite it is obvious that this is very good legislation which will help a large number of people.

I want to use this opportunity to set the record straight on part II of Bill C-12. The member for Mercier criticized Bill C-12 for not contributing to getting the unemployed back to work. She said: "We claim, and we have every evidence to support our claim, that not only does the bill not guarantee a job, nor promote job creation, but also that it is anti-job". This is false and I want to set the record straight.

Employment insurance is a full employment system. It provides the framework for providing practical, proven measures which will help Canadians get back to work quickly and keep working. Of the $2 billion in savings achieved by EI, $800 million or 40 per cent will be reinvested in active re-employment measures. That will be added to the $1.9 billion the government already spends out of general revenues. A total of $2.7 billion will be going to address structural unemployment.

The active employment measures designed to help Canadians get back to work quickly include wage subsidies, income supplements, support for self-employment, community job partnerships and skills, loans and grants. They will help up to 400,000 Canadians to find work and get back to work. On top of that, a $300 million transitional job fund is being put in place to stimulate job creation in high unemployment areas.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the Government of Canada is working closely with the provinces to better co-ordinate support programs for unemployed Canadians, the member for Quebec still claims that unemployment insurance is funded by the provinces and that it is the federal government that tells the provinces what kind of programs and what kind of measures must be implemented to help those who cannot find a job. That statement is wrong on two counts. First, it is employers and employees who fund the program through their premiums, not the provinces. Second, the bill sets out a framework for new federal-provincial agreements on labour market arrangements aimed at eliminating duplication and overlap.

The bill permits a variety of flexible delivery methods for employment measures. I want members opposite to realize that people in Quebec are not going to buy into the rhetoric. What they want are the facts. What I have laid before the House are the facts. I wish members opposite would take the time to read the bill.

[Merit, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to bring my colleague and the House back to the speech from the throne, a very important speech. I want to assure my colleagues from all provinces who are here in a dual capacity, not only representing their constituency but in some cases representing their province.

The intent of the government is very simple, Madam Speaker, if you have read part II of the EI act which is in front of the House today and has been debated for over 140 days since its introduction.

The intent of the federal government in part II is to negotiate with the provinces a withdrawal of manpower training within three years or earlier. At the same time it intends to look at the responsibilities it has to the unemployment insurance system and the fact that we have constitutional guarantees that relate to its role in that area.

The government wants to make sure before it gets into negotiations with the provinces that there are some safeguards. This is a national fund and it is important to make sure that when it gets involved in negotiations that there are assurances and guarantees of results. This is one area where the government would like to receive assurances from the provinces.

At the same time an appropriate monitoring system must be in place to make sure that the funds that are transferred to the provinces and the agreements that are signed give the government the results it is looking for.

What are the results? The only reason why the government thinks this is an acceptable process is this. It wants to remove duplication because it is a factor and it is a cost. It will create efficiencies. The results of the system have to help men and women get employment and at the same time upgrade their skills and put young people into the system in areas where they believe they will best be suited in the changing environment.

That is the answer to the question. All the member has to do is look at part II of the EI bill and he will know that the government is not going to be entering into provincial jurisdiction without the approval of the provinces.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-12.

I would like to make some comments at this stage on the changes proposed to the original bill and in particular to the costs associated with the changes.

It is important to focus on the amendments which were made in committee. They are based on all the hard work that the committee has been involved in, going back two years when the committee of human resources development was sent across the country to hear the views of Canadians, then when the bill was introduced in its

first phase to where we find ourselves today. It is some 140 days since we have had hearings and went clause by clause in committee. We find ourselves in the House today dealing with amendments at report stage of this bill.

The increased costs of the three main amendments to Bill C-12 that have been accepted by the government will be offset by adjustments in other areas. The amended bill will still mean that a total of $1.2 billion will be saved by the year 2001-2002 which is a gross savings of $2 billion minus the $800 million that will be reinvested in re-employment measures.

Hon. colleagues should by now be familiar with the amendments proposed because the members who have proposed them, at least from the government side, have been very up front with them, have sent them across the country and to their own constituents.

The first amendment is the provision to lessen the impact on workers in all industries who have gaps in their work and earning patterns. The fixed period for calculating benefits under the original proposal was considered to be too harsh for workers in this situation.

Now all claimants will be able to use a full 26-week period prior to making a claim to calculate average earnings. Average earnings over this period, excluding gaps, will determine the level of benefits. What it means is that workers could have several weeks of breaks in employment during this 26-week period without having their benefits reduced due to these gaps in employment. This change will increase benefit payouts by about $246 million for workers with unstable work patterns.

The second amendment changes the way the average is arrived at and the way the benefit is calculated with those with only the minimum number of weeks. My colleague in the Liberal Party spoke to that issue which is what we call the divisor.

Under the original proposal the divisor was set at three or four weeks above minimum entrance requirements in high unemployment regions and between zero and two weeks above in low unemployment regions. Therefore, individuals in high unemployment regions with the least opportunity for finding additional work exists would have been greatly penalized by these measures.

However, the purpose of having a divisor that is higher than the minimum qualifying requirement is to encourage people to take extra employment and try to work more than just the minimum required to qualify.

However, a balance between providing incentives and ensuring fairness had to be found. With the amendment of my colleague which is supported by the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development, I believe we have been able to do that.

Consequently, the government has agreed to an amendment that will set the divisor at only two weeks plus the minimum number of weeks necessary to qualify in all regions, that is, a minimum divisor which ranges from 14 to 22 weeks depending on the unemployment rate in the region. It will thereby retain the incentive to work, but will be fairer for those in truly difficult situations. People will have a 26-week period in which to find the weeks needed to maximize their benefits. This proposal will have a positive impact on benefit payments for workers in high unemployment regions and little impact elsewhere across the country. The new divisor will increase benefit payouts by about $95 million.

The third main amendment is the new intensity rule. Under this rule people who draw on the system year after year will see a modest reduction in benefits. All future claimants who have received 20 or more weeks of regular benefits within a five-year period, beginning with the new bill when it is passed into law, will have the weekly benefit rate of their next claim reduced by 1 percentage point, from 55 per cent for every 20 weeks they have been on claim. The maximum reduction will be 50 per cent of weekly earnings for someone who has received more than 100 weeks of benefits over a five-year period.

The amendment the government has accepted is to exempt from the intensity rule those individuals with very low incomes who have children. That threshold has been set at $26,000 or less. Approximately 350,000 claimants qualifying for the family income supplement will not be subject to this rule. We should keep that in mind when some 2.4 million Canadians collect unemployment insurance each year. This exemption of the intensity rule for some 350,000 people is a significant improvement. It is a way for the government to ensure that the poorest of the poor are not affected. Quite frankly, they do not need an incentive to work. Being poor, I am sure, is enough incentive for anyone to try to find a job.

While the intensity rule will reduce weekly benefits somewhat for those who use the system frequently, those with the lowest incomes who are most in need are protected. It will increase benefit payouts by about $24 million for 188,000 claimants in low income families who otherwise would have been affected by the rule.

Taken together, the three amendments will increase the payouts to individuals under the employment insurance program by roughly $365 million over what was proposed in the unamended Bill C-12. That shows how important committee work is. When members make proposals, even though they have a significant cost factor, when proven to be fair to the people we are trying to help and protect, the government has reacted very favourably.

Now for the other side of the ledger, the changes that will be made to tighten up the system to reduce expenditures to offset the

increased payouts I have just mentioned. Those have to be put in perspective.

The scope of potential cost reductions is very wide. For example, if 50 per cent of EI claimants collect just one week fewer benefits the savings would be $300 million in one year. Think of it. One week with no benefits for individuals who happened to find an extra week of work would save the system some $300 million which could be used in other areas.

What the government is planning to do is tackle three longstanding problems of the old system in order to reduce costs and to make the operation of the system fairer for all those who contribute to it. One of the major problems is that there has been an inefficient early use of all means available to help claimants get back to work as quickly as possible. In too many cases there is a tendency to simply fill out the forms and mail out the cheques without a concerted effort to ensure that the individual claimant has help to find other employment. That will no longer be the case in employment offices across the country. Now the question will not simply be: "Where do we mail the cheque?", it is going to be, "What do we need to do to get you back into the workforce right now?"

In addition to other services provided to those who are looking for work, a new and ongoing series of group information sessions will be provided to claimants in specific categories. These include claimants in demand occupations. For example, those who have skills that employers are looking for, repeat claimants, past fraud claimants and those affected by structural changes who may face long periods of unemployment.

At these sessions claimants will be informed of all the services available to help them get back into the workforce rather than remain on benefits. These include the electronic hiring hall, which we have all heard about, and will include the computerized job search system which was introduced in the last number of years.

Approximately 400,000 unemployed workers every year will qualify for a very flexible and innovative series of new measures which will help more people get jobs. These include wage subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance, skills, loans and grants and community job partnerships.

These changes in the bill are intended to save a significant amount of money. It is estimated by the year 2001-2002 if we get more proactive in helping people find a job, we can recoup the finances put back into the system with the three amendments that the members have made and the government has accepted.

That is the rationale for these amendments at this point. I hope to speak more on those amendments as the day goes on.

[International Day Of The Worker, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a trade unionist myself, it gives me great pleasure to rise on this the day we celebrate the International Day of the Worker. On this occasion we should think about the situation facing working men and women on the verge of the 21st century.

Production methods and changes in the workplace present Canadian workers and governments with new challenges but also with new opportunities.

As a federal government, our role is to ensure that Canadian men and women have the opportunity to find meaningful, satisfying work and contribute to society. Through initiatives like employment insurance and our youth task force, we are meeting that challenge.

I am sure all members of this House join me in recognizing the contributions made to Canada every day by working men and women in a countless number of occupations.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 24th, 1996]

The figures quoted from public accounts represent the value of overpayments established during the reporting year related to suspected offenses. The reported increases from 1993/94 to 1994/95 for both old age security and the Canada pension plan are due to the following factors:

Increased awareness of the potential for fraud and its subsequent detection by regional and headquarters program integrity officers-there were 11 more cases of suspected fraud found in each program in 1994/95 than had been found in 1993/94, a total of 22 more cases than were found the previous year; detection of some older cases, which tend to have higher values because benefits have been in pay for an extended period; detailed review of benefit files in preparation for the conversion to income security program, ISP, redesign system, which revealed eight cases of suspected fraud with an associated value of $154,000; enhanced reassessment activities related to CPP disability which resulted in an increase in the number of cases detected in which fraud was suspected.

To maintain the integrity of the OAS and CPP programs, many methods are used for the detection of abuse: quarterly fraud profiles, random and directed samples, disability reassessment, third party complaints, computer matching with Revenue Canada and with the unemployment insurance program, and the vigilance of income security programs staff. Increases in the value of overpayments related to suspected offenses reflect enhanced detection, not necessarily an increase in the overall incidence of fraud.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will not spend a lot of time on these two motions because they are exactly the same as the last grouping we considered.

These are again just technical amendments. I want to read for the record what they are and give a short explanation of Motions Nos. 9 and 10. That will explain to opposition members what they are for. If they would like a discussion a little more far ranging than these two motions, I suppose that is their prerogative. However, I do not want to delay the passage of the bill any further.

Clause 50 is being amended in order to take into account a change made to a section of the Children's Special Allowances Act due to the passage of Bill C-54.

The House will recall that Bill C-54 is a technical amendments bill passed in the last session which amended the Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Bill C-54, adopted by Parliament in the last session, already incorporates this wording change. This is another instance of pairing. When we get there, clause 104, which contains conditional aspects of this wording change to the HRD bill, will be deleted. We did that under the previous group. We have already done that.

In Motion No. 10 clause 76 is being amended in three places. It calls for the addition of a subclause to clause 76 to reflect the fact that there will now be two sections to clause 76 rather than a single clause.

Proposal (b) incorporates a change made to the section of the Old Age Security Act due to the passage of Bill C-54, the same technical bill I mentioned earlier.

Proposal (c) incorporates a further change to the Old Age Security Act due to the passage of Bill C-54 as well. Since Bill C-54 predates the HRD bill, this proposal also updates the title of the responsible minister to reflect the title of the Minister of Human Resources Development.

All of the above proposals reflect an instance of pairing again. The conditional aspect of this change is included in section 104 of the HRD bill. Section 104 will be deleted when we get there.

There we have it, the very dry and somewhat complex discussion of why we have had to make some changes. In defence of the government as it relates to the comments of my colleague from the Reform Party, it is pretty difficult to give her these amendments too far in advance because when the House prorogued it took time for the bill to be looked at technically by the experts in the department to make sure it reflected the new reality.

It is not our intention to be secretive or to be undemocratic. These things take on a life of their own. I assure the member that she can take my word for it and the word of the government that these are just technical in nature and do not have any implication with regard to the solid content of the bill and what the department will be all about.

I take this opportunity to thank the House for taking the time and being patient in listening to the explanation of these amendments, which are necessary to make the bill reflective of reality.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are now on Group No. 4.

I would like to give everyone in the House an explanation and general remarks as they relate to the amendments to Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development now being considered at report stage.

Bill C-11 had a life before prorogation. It was Bill C-96 which was introduced during the first session of Parliament on June 7, 1995. The bill received second reading on November 28, 1995 and was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The committee studied the bill last December and January. Then, as we all know, the House prorogued.

The HRD bill was subsequently reinstated and on March 7, the bill received its new number, Bill C-11, which we are debating today. Reinstatement of the bill means that it is at the same stage and contains exactly the same words it did in the previous session. It also means that it was necessary for the bill to be reviewed by its drafters to determine whether amendments were required due to prorogation.

That review was done and it was determined that amendments are necessary because Bill C-11 must now take into account the fact that certain pieces of legislation which were proposed in the last session are now law. In other words, the conditional clauses in the HRD bill, for example those that indicate "if this bill passes before that bill" must now be changed to reflect actual laws and not proposed laws.

In this context 11 amendments are being proposed to the HRD act. All the amendments relate to the fact that Bill C-11 must be updated to take into account the passage of certain bills in the previous session.

In some cases this means that the amendments will work in pairs. One amendment will update the HRD bill to reflect passage of a previous bill; another amendment will delete the reference to the HRD bill to the conditional "if this bill passes" clause to reflect the fact that the bill passed where appropriate. If any of the members in the House are interested in the very technical and somewhat complex and dry issue of just what those particular changes are, I would be willing to relate that to them in this House. That is the general gist of the different motions; it is very much a technical nature and is very general.

Based on that I want to make some remarks this afternoon about the bill itself. We are getting down to the end of our discussion at report stage and all the different motions that were put before the House. At the same time I want to try to put to bed some of the myths that have been debated in this House especially by the Bloc members who have spent a lot of time talking about what is not in the bill versus what is in the bill. I thought it would be nice if we spent some time talking about what is in the bill.

We are not talking about new organizational changes or new statutory powers or changes in federal-provincial relations. We are dealing with a simple housekeeping bill to create the legislative foundation for a department that has been hard at work since 1993. That is Human Resources Development Canada.

Some people will bend themselves right out of shape trying to describe Bill C-11 as some kind of elaborate ploy hatched with the intent of robbing provinces of constitutional power. Believe me, the government has no such plans up its sleeve.

Bill C-11 does just one thing. This bill assembles related functions that used to belong to several different departments into one department which is now known as Human Resources Development Canada.

I urge all members to recognize Human Resources Development Canada as a streamlined, efficient organization focused on service to its clients. After all, Canadians need and deserve the most highly integrated focused human resources efforts this House and our public service can muster. The old system worked against this type of innovative action plan.

For example, Labour Canada handled workplace relations and standards while Employment and Immigration Canada took care of providing income support to unemployed workers and matching job openings with available and qualified people. At the same time, the Secretary of State dealt with equity issues and Health and Welfare Canada handled long term income security. That means four large complex organizations working in different and sometimes conflicting ways on interrelated issues which touch on the very fabric of the working and home lives of Canadians.

This bill consolidates all of those roles into one streamlined department. Let us not forget that this department already exists. All this bill does is it simply and clearly sets out what HRDC already does every day.

Bill C-11 also means that it will cost less to develop the flexible, imaginative and innovative approaches we need. We cannot afford to delay the reorganization any longer. We owe it to Canadians to find new approaches to jobs and training that will help them in these difficult and unpredictable times.

As an example, years ago factory workers generally needed much less knowledge and skills to do their jobs. Today however, relatively higher knowledge and skill levels are required for many factory jobs. In fact, higher knowledge and skill levels are an integral part of a growing number of jobs in all sectors. In response to this new reality, the new HRDC brings together the pieces we need to flourish in a global knowledge economy. The new HRDC takes a holistic approach to social, economic and training issues.

This bill has another exciting dimension which will serve to enhance Canada's ability to deal with the challenges of the modern economy. Bill C-11 builds new structures that the federal government can use to work in partnership with the provinces on resolving some of the issues that have bedevilled us all in the past.

Although HRDC has yet to be officially legislated into existence, it is already working on using these co-operative structures to provide in partnership with the provinces innovative and effective services to Canadians across the country. I will share a few examples with my hon. colleagues.

In Newfoundland and Labrador a program is providing training vouchers to allow disadvantaged youth to continue their education. So far, nearly 3,000 young people have taken advantage of this assistance, about one-third of whom were previously receiving social assistance. Many of these young Canadians would have been unable to continue their education without our help. By "our" I mean both HRDC and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the past two years HRDC has helped 300,000 students pay for their education. It has assisted 24,000 young people in finding jobs that pay decent living wages and have some potential for the future. With provincial help, another 60,000 marginalized Canadians have learned new skills and have landed jobs. These programs help Canadians prepare for the new economic realities which affect so many of us today.

HRDC is also intent on providing improved service and has already achieved some very impressive results. Seniors can now get personal service at four times as many places as they could have before 1993. It takes half as long to process some claims and there are almost twice as many points of service.

That is the kind of service and those are the kinds of programs which HRDC is offering and which Canadians want and need. Bill C-11 and HRDC do not concern new powers. They are new ways to use the familiar established powers to provide in conjunction with our partners highly integrated and cost effective services in the most efficient way possible.

HRDC is the sentinel which protects the fairness, equity and opportunities that everyone in Canada treasures. Bill C-11 will keep that sentinel on the job.

In one form or another, this bill has been under intense scrutiny for some time now. It is time to recognize that any and all lingering concerns have been addressed. It is time to move on. I suggest it is time to pass Bill C-11. We have had a long afternoon. We have talked about a lot of Russians and moles under the rocks and all the paranoias of the opposition.

I want to assure the House that this is a revamped department with one function in mind and that is to make sure that we deliver services to Canadians to the best of our ability, as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of debating an amendment by the Reform Party which is Motion No. 5 under the third group. What the member is asking in this motion is that we go back to the old process of the issue of annual reports to the House.

I would like to suggest to the House that the proposal put forward by the Reformers is somewhat bizarre in that they located this particular amendment in part II of the bill. Part II of the bill refers to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. I am not quite sure of the rationale of why it is in part II. Nonetheless, we find it a little strange.

Members will be aware that annual reports are generally being eliminated due to the fact that the information is contained in part III of the estimates. Members will also be aware that one of the most important parts of this whole reform we are dealing with as it relates to part III of the estimates is that in most cases by the time we get the annual report it is outdated and not applicable to what we are doing in this place.

The member for Mission-Coquitlam mentioned the reason for putting this in place. However, as opposition members they think there is a Russian spy under every rock, that the Government of Canada cannot be trusted and that it will renege on its promise to improve the estimates. They feel they have to protect themselves

by having annual reports which nobody reads and which are so outdated that it is a waste of money for the Government of Canada.

Again that is another motion Reform has put forward. On the one hand the members of the Reform talk about trying to save money and then they present a motion that will cost us money. We can do it better by revising the process to better reflect the needs of parliamentarians and by making part III of the estimates more applicable.

I want to end my remarks by saying what I have said about some of the other more unique proposals of the Reform Party. This government has very little choice but to reject this proposal which only serves to duplicate information readily available from other sources. Just how much information do these folks need? Either they can read or they cannot. We cannot just continue to give them document after document and they still say that somehow all these Russian moles are running around spying on us and the Liberals are part of the problem.

I would suggest to the Reform members not to be so paranoid. I can say from experience that most people in the House are here for good, solid reasons. They care about the country and they want to keep the country together. There really is no conspiracy theory necessary. The sooner they get used to the fact that we are all very interested in helping the country, the less nonsense we will have with motions like this one.