Francine Lalonde

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member was unable to answer, or even to defend what is in the document which is supposed to be a discussion paper, because the provisions which the member for Quebec has referred to are totally unacceptable. That the government even thought that unemployment benefits for women could take the family income into consideration is totally unacceptable and a step backwards that the entire population, for that matter, would certainly not let happen.

Since January, the government has been trying to convince us that there was an emergency in this country. It did not talk about that during the election campaign, but suddenly, in January, the minister of Human Resources Development announced that what was most pressing, most urgent for the development of Canada and its future was a social program reform. A wide reform which should extend to the whole country.

What has happened since that time? The committee on human resources development was given a mandate to consult Canadians on their views. The committee was expected to table its report quickly, on March 25, so that the minister could put his work plan on the table as early as April and the legislation could be passed swiftly in the fall, in order to finally address that urgent problem.

Surprise! The committee on human resources development started its work and had only two weeks to rapidly consult a number of groups and experts. But during that time, the government, without any consulting, decided to cut unemployment benefits and to include in the budget cuts totalling $7.4 billion over three years and affecting social programs, i.e. unemployment insurance, the Canada Assistance Plan and established programs financing.

But that was not all. Bombarded with questions, Mr. Martin, the minister, said that he expected additional cuts in the reform undertaken by his colleague. The cat got out of the bag yesterday morning, just in time to colour what is not an action plan any more, but rather a pale green discussion paper, as some reporters have said.

So, the cat that got out of the bag is that over and above the $7.4 billion cuts already voted and included in the budget, the government would cut at least another $7 billion by the year 1999. And yet, there is no rush now. We now have plenty of time to consult the public. There is no action plan any more, only a discussion paper. Why? Because what was urgent was cutting without consulting, without caring about who would be brutally affected, including those children who are said today to be the biggest concern of the government. What a shame! I have to use parliamentary language.

The point I want to make this morning is that this discussion paper, which is supposed to launch a sweeping reform, this discussion paper called Improving Social Security in Canada , does not augur well, either for the people who need it or for the provinces, which are now responsible for all of these areas except unemployment insurance.

It should be said loud and clear, and we will say it again, that this is not a program for people, whether they are unemployed, about to lose their jobs, need an income, are on welfare, or are first-time job seekers. It is not a program for people in need, for

the poor and destitute. It is a program for a government that wants to cut spending, a government that does not have the guts to introduce tax reforms-my colleagues will elaborate-a government that is afraid to tell Employment and Immigration Canada that it cannot ride roughshod over Canadians. The program aims to centralize, and generous though the minister may seem, his idea of decentralizing is travelling around the country and signing programs himself.

This reform is definitely not for people. Let us consider very briefly some of the most frequently quoted reasons for proceeding with this so-called urgent reform. One word we hear constantly is backlog. Programs have a tremendous backlog. Backlog of what? They do not really say, but the impression is that there are too many unemployed for UI to handle. The government calls this a social security program, but everyone will agree that the best social security for people who are able to work is a job. This program has no employment plan, and whenever it refers to what it will do for people who need jobs, it says it will give them the means to look for one.

We are going to turn the unemployed into job seekers. This is not job creation but job search. They say there is a backlog because the economy is changing. Yes, it is changing, and it is changing very quickly. What kind of work does this new economy produce? It produces work that is less permanent. All industrialized countries agree that market globalization, technological change, and changes in family patterns are phenomena that have a major impact on society and employment.

Are these dynamics understood? Hardly. Does the government realize that the main problem-and we do not know how long this will last-is that except for the lucky ones with steady jobs whose numbers are decreasing, jobs are becoming less and less permanent and are held for increasingly shorter periods? Does it realize that there is pressure to reduce the number of unions and thus lessen pressures on the labour market?

The fact facing most people who are employed and all those people who are looking for work is that, in most cases, the jobs available are short-term jobs, either by their nature or because it may be difficult to stay in a particular job. When people say the problem is the backlog, it seems to me there is a backlog in the thinking of those who produced this document, a failure to realize that spending cuts and the old programs the Liberals were never able to implement after trying to do so on so many previous occasions are not the answer. A new approach is needed to deal with these problems.

They were not able to negotiate or legislate any solution, and I will give one example. Parliamentarians who-

[Immigration, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a question I asked in this House on May 25, I mentioned a warning given to the minister in a communications strategy paper whose contents were leaked-there have been other leaks since. This paper referred to "UI cuts seen by the population as evidence that the government wants to fight the deficit on the backs of the poor".

My question was this: "Under the circumstances, will the minister tell us if the delay in tabling his action plan is the result of a split among cabinet ministers regarding what is at stake?" That was on May 25. This question is still relevant today because, since May 25, we have learned that the minister's action plan, following which a bill will be drafted and action will be taken, has been postponed until the spring and perhaps until the fall. It will be a discussion paper on which Canadians and Quebecers will be consulted.

The question I asked pointed out that the delay in tabling the action plan was no doubt the result of a split among cabinet ministers. This question is still relevant and I would say that it is even more relevant today. We must keep in mind that the only thing the government has done since the election to help the needy is to cut access and UI benefits except for a small number of cases which, as the minister reminded us today, had positive results.

But for one thousand or so recipients to get enhanced protection at 60 per cent, all other claimants will see their UI benefit rate reduced to 55 per cent. More importantly, there is all those who will no longer qualify for UI, those who will be entitled to fewer weeks of benefits, which means more families and single parents ending up on welfare and increased poverty for children.

We could read in the papers this morning that in Canada, one child out of five is poor and their numbers have increased dramatically since 1989.

I repeat forcefully and will continue to repeat it as long as it takes: apart from talking -it bursts with generous, compassionate words- all the government actually did was to make matters worse on the whole for families and individuals in need.

[Child Poverty, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about children's health. My question is: Does the Prime Minister realize that his social reform, which is designed to cut into these programs-and that is the only measure announced-will in fact impoverish families already living below poverty level, in very difficult conditions, and also have harmful effects on children?

[Child Poverty, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In its report released yesterday, the Canadian Institute of Child Health says that one child out of five lives in poverty in Canada. The Institute, which conducted a similar public study in 1989, concludes that child poverty and its harmful effects have increased.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that, beyond all the nice rhetoric, the only measure taken by his government was to contribute to the impoverishment of Canadian families by substantially reducing UI access and benefits, thereby forcing the unemployed and their families to rely on welfare?

[Canada Labour Code, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given the intolerable situation faced by Ogilvie Mills workers, does the minister not agree that he must urgently table an anti-strikebreaking bill so that the workers who are covered-I should say who are unfortunate enough to be covered-by the Canada Labour Code have the same rights as those covered by 75 per cent of provincial labour codes, including the one in Quebec, since 1977?

[Canada Labour Code, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. In a very surprising statement last Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment announced that the government would present a comprehensive reform of the Canada Labour Code and that the matter of anti-strikebreaking legislation would be looked at within this reform. It is the first

time such a reform is announced, although anti-strikebreaking legislation is sorely needed.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that the government will undertake a reform of the Canada Labour Code as a whole and, if so, when?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the figures are higher, it is certainly not because there are fewer beneficiaries.

Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the reduction in UI benefits is due in very large part to the reforms, the exemptions voted not only by the former government but also by the current government, that this is a tragedy for individuals and that it simply means a heavier burden for the provinces?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The latest figures from the finance department show a significant reduction in UI benefits from April to July. However, these numbers also show a significant increase in social assistance costs-and that applies only to the federal government's share and does not include the increased costs in the provinces.

Given these figures, how can the Prime Minister take pleasure, as he did last Sunday at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City, in saying that a growing number of Canadian households no longer need to rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance?

[Starred Questions, September 20th, 1994]

What effect do the new unemployment insurance measures contained in the Budget have on the accounts kept for the Unemployment Insurance Account, and what impact will they have on balancing the books for the Account?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to explain to this House why questions No. 33 and No. 38, listed in my name on the Order Paper, have not been answered within the 45 day period prescribed by Standing Orders? I do not know the meaning of the word "stand" but if it means that I will not get an answer, I object. Question No. 33 dates back to April 14, and question No. 38 to April 21.