Francine Lalonde

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this bill which does not surprise my colleague on this side of the House and which was praised by the member opposite, to whom I will answer a bit later, contains some gems that we can smile at, once we get over our anger, which we can never do completely. It includes a very rare provision. When asked, before the committee, if such a provision was usually found in bills, the legal counsel answered that he did not remember ever seeing one like that, which was, in any case, very rare.

The minister now has the power to designate. He refused to let the provinces continue to exercise their power enshrined in the Constitution and reaffirmed in federal acts since 1964. The minister changes the whole process, but there is more. He is afraid that the appropriate authorities may be influenced by the provinces. So, he expects strict obedience from the appropriate authorities, as we can see in one provision which says: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".

There is a third issue here which is also very important: the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply in respect of directives given under subsection (2). Hence, these directives will not be published in the Gazette .

So, this provision shows you the spirit in which the bill was drafted. The minister is going from one extreme to the other in his relations with the provinces. We have here a situation where the province, under a federal act, is recognized as the appropriate authority since it has jurisdiction over education. Not only is the minister saying: "From now on, I am the one who decides", but he also intends to follow through. He says: "Not only will I be designating the appropriate authority, but it better not let itself be influenced by a third party, because my directives prevail". After all, his directives are binding.

You can see, Mr. Speaker, how the appropriate authority will be free, under these circumstances, to exercise its power, as long as it follows the minister's directives. There is something funny in this bill. In every other piece of legislation, the appropriate authority is defined. In this one, the legislator must have forgotten to do so, because he says the directives are binding on the appropriate authority. In other words, the appropriate au-

thority has now become merely an authority which is never mentioned in the bill, except under appropriate authority.

Thus, the fact that this appropriate authority has now become merely an authority speaks volumes about how they see the relationship with the provinces and one must have a great sense of humour or be generous enough to say, as does the hon. secretary, that this bill will "enhance co-operation". The provinces are left with a single right, that is the right to opt out. Otherwise, not only is the appropriate authority designated by the Minister, but the Minister's directives are binding on the appropriate authority which has now become merely an authority.

These directives apply to all the powers provided in there. There are well-known powers, but there is also a power to make regulations that I have not seen elsewhere-but I am not familiar with all the statutes. Also, to improve the act, they even had in some cases-and it is somehow contradictory, but this was the only way to proceed-they even had to try to increase this power to make regulations, since neither the provinces nor the students have any rights and the minister has no obligations, only some powers and an authority. This sums up rather well what this bill is all about.

Thus, when the parliamentary secretary says that hundreds of thousands of students are anxious to know the results of our work, he has got an absolute nerve! And there are several reasons for this. First, there is already a system in place. An act already exists. Second, they introduced this bill only two weeks ago although they have had it for some time now! Third, despite the minister's generous intentions, there is in the estimates, as I said, only $1 million more for all Canadian students this year. Wonderful!

So, how is the minister going to keep his promises? He is relying on the banks to make students pay back their loans-and we know that, depending on where they live, the new graduates have difficulty finding a job and are deeply in debt-so the minister is relying on this money to honour his generous commitments.

So, when the hon. member down the way talks about paranoia, I remind him that the opposition has a role to play. When the opposition sees what is in the legislation, notwithstanding-not the clause-the intentions of the present minister, the opposition can only object vigorously to those provisions which do not enhance co-operation with the provinces but enable the minister to make decisions without consulting them.

The minister will consult and listen only if he wishes to. A future minister of education could use those provisions to decide who should have a loan and who should not. If one area of responsibility in a democracy is important for a province, which is responsible for education under the Constitution, it is the issue of who has access to education. We will come back to that aspect because, in the opting-out provision, the minister paid a lot of attention to the conditions for repayment to the banks and to the repayment arrangements for the students, but did not care much about accessibility.

We hear a lot about increased access for single mothers or for the handicapped but the truth is that the real objective is to try to negotiate a better deal with the banks; I have nothing against that, but stop taking liberties with the truth.

As the Official Opposition, we have the responsibility and the duty to denounce nonsensical actions and measures that do not promote co-operation with the provinces. Even though some of the people consulted said that they had nothing against the measures, nothing guarantees that those provisions will not give another minister-supposing that another government is in office-excessive power that would allow him to avoid co-operating with the provinces.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr Speaker, I would like to say as an introduction to this bill-although it includes an opting-out provision that we shall discuss later in a third amendment and that has become extremely finicky and departs from what has been the spirit of this type of legislation since 1964-that as Official Opposition we worked very hard to keep one thing in this bill. Some people might say it is not the most important thing, or our business, but we wanted to do our job as Official Opposition. We wanted to stress the historic change of replacing appointment of the appropriate authority by the provinces with direct appointment by the federal minister, with no compulsory consultation of the provinces.

This bill was introduced late, and as a result the legislative process has been speeded up.

Although the hon. colleague who spoke before me said that he had consulted-and we know he carried out consultations; so did we-it is not all that clear that the provinces know their rights, for the plain and simple reason that in this bill they have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.

Aside from opting out, any initiative or power in this matter, which is extremely important to education, belongs to the federal minister, and we shall see in the second amendment that the minister has even been given an amount of latitude that is rare, not to say unheard of, in a piece of legislation.

Why, in order to establish the co-operation between the provinces and the federal government mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, must the federal minister take the place of or decide in this bill to take the place of the provinces? Some people in Canada may think-and we saw this in committee-that education must become an area of shared jurisdiction. Of course, everyone made an exception for Quebec, which would always oppose that notion with all its might. And it is understandable that, in light of economic imperatives and the importance of education to a country, some people might think that way.

But let us debate this issue for what it is. It does not concern only the provincial minister of education who is left dangling; I think it concerns Canadians, because -and maybe this is becoming the case-unless the provinces of Canada are just administrative authorities with no real power of initiative, education, their field, has to be of concern to them.

Why do we find it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister and not by the province? Because, elsewhere, this bill addresses only relations between the minister and the banks, in broad terms; but students-and I shall come back to this point later-despite the good intentions listed by the minister, nowhere does the bill mention any obligations to students. Nowhere! And if we look at the budgets, there again, nowhere is there any mention of students: between last year's budget and this year's budget, after all the terrific promises that were made to us, how much of an increase is there? A million dollars for the whole of Canada! Congratulations! What openness!

Where is the extra money, the stuff that promises are made of, going to come from? Where? The banks are supposed to go and get that manna from graduates, that is where; there is no money anywhere else. At none of the hearings did I hear that there was any money anywhere else; there certainly is none in the budgets.

So I come back to my question: why is it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister instead of the provinces? Because the appropriate authority has essentially two powers; including that of designating institutions, as my colleague said earlier. What does a designated institution mean for ordinary people? It simply means that Queen's University cannot accept students who qualify for scholarships unless it is designated by the appropriate authority.

So we can see the decisive importance of designation. We could say, "But does not that go without saying? Come on, what university could lose its designation?" Well, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that the Association of Universities, which may have the right to an opinion here, is extremely worried by the very next provision, which provides not only that the minister may appoint the appropriate authority to designate, but also that that appropriate authority, reporting directly to the federal minister, is empowered to revoke designation.

Now, the universities told us that they have been threatened for a long time that if they do not participate and do not know how well students actually pay back loans, if their rate of defaulting on loans is too high, they could lose their designation.

And what could the province do in that case? Nothing. It is the federal minister-as if that person did not have enough to do with that immense department that accounts for nearly half of federal government expenditures-it is the federal minister who, in the end, will consider the case.

There is another worrisome aspect to the bill. If I were speaking on behalf of another Canadian province, it seems to me that I would be saying exactly the same thing. Where designation is concerned, is it to ensure effective co-operation among the various provinces, which are responsible for education, and I shall speak-How much time do I have left? Three minutes?

Why is it assumed that the provinces cannot co-operate except under the appropriate authority? They will no longer be equal; they will be subjected to the authority of the minister. People may say, "Oh, but there is no bad faith on the part of the minister; the minister is going to consult". Sure. I can already hear my hon. colleague telling me that, with characteristic flair. But you do not draft legislation for the incumbent minister. You draft legislation for as long as it lasts. There have been two acts since 1964, so you can guess that this one, too, will last for some time.

The provinces have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.

I want to return to the appropriate authority. That authority can designate and revoke designation, but it also has an extremely important power, the power to determine which students will qualify for loans. That, too, is important.

Which students will qualify for loans? According to which criteria? We read:

12.(1)( a ) to have attained a satisfactory scholastic standard;

If the student has "attained a satisfactory scholastic standard" and, obviously, if the student needs the money. Whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard is clearly an institutional matter; but, what is more important, the use of this provision can have a decisive influence on all degree courses at every institution and every university.

I must say that there has not been much of an uprising in Canada in the face of that provision, although Canada is a big place for an uprising. People have not read it carefully; they have not looked at it carefully; they trust the minister. That provision is eminently dangerous.

To the fact that the minister has been given latitude to appoint the appropriate authority-and of course we would have liked to retain the former wording, the wording of the present act, which-not this new wording- until it is amended, is still the current act and the one we shall defend-I add the fact that the minister can also appoint a bank, a financial institution. In committee, it was very clear that a financial institution could decide whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard.

People may say, "No, no, that is not the ministers intention". But there is nothing in the bill to prevent that from happening.

We could not ignore this extremely important provision. It is easy centralization because it is about student loans; however, it indicates a worrisome trend, not just for Quebec, which I hope will settle that problem once and for all, but for the provinces in general.

I suspect that, even without Quebec, Canada will be talking about the Constitution again.

[Social Program Reform, June 15th, 1994]

What the provinces want, Mr. Speaker, is to be consulted all together, not individually and one pitted against the other.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that the provinces have taken the legitimate stand that they have because they refuse to bear the brunt of a reform that would result in lower federal transfer payments and enable Ottawa to off-load once again part of its deficit onto them?

[Social Program Reform, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today, the provincial social services ministers gathered in Halifax will issue a joint statement to warn the Minister of Human Resources Development not to make his action plan on programs reform public without first consulting them and more importantly, without having addressed their concerns. So, the deadlock between Ottawa and the provinces persists because, as the Nova Scotia Minister of Community Services put it: "I do not think that we have backed down. We will stand very firm. We are not wimps."

My question is as follows: Will the Prime Minister recognize that this stern warning from the provinces is an indication that social programs reform, the only major project initiated by this government since coming to power, is stalled because of his government's obstinacy in imposing its views on the provinces?

[Human Resources Development, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude that the government's job creation policy, inspired or not by the OECD, basically consists in cutting social benefits, as in the case of the Unemployment Insurance Program, in order to force the unemployed to look for non-existent jobs?

[Human Resources Development, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development. In his speech to the OECD on Tuesday in Paris, the Minister of Human Resources Development promised to build a new program aimed at putting Canadians back to work-a new program-while guaranteeing income security for those who need it.

Since his statement is completely at odds with what the government has done about job creation, which so far has been limited to temporary jobs under the infrastructures program, are we to conclude from the minister's speech that the government will at last implement a pro-active job creation policy?

[Seniors-Reduction Of Age Credit, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 1994, I put the following question to the Minister of Human Resources Development, which was preceded by the following comment: "Yesterday, this minister clearly indicated to this House that the Atlantic fishery workers unions had been consulted about the individual contracts that workers must sign, thus committing themselves to undergo training or do community work in order to receive their benefits. We checked and the unions were never consulted on this".

My question to the minister was: "How can the minister reconcile the statement he made yesterday in the House with the confirmation that was given to me afterwards by the head of the fishery workers union, who said he had never been consulted on the issue of the individual contracts?" I later met the president of the fishery workers union who again confirmed that he had never been consulted about this matter.

My question was: How can the minister reconcile his answer with my information? I expected an answer that would at least address the question, but that is like trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. What I got was a model of political rhetoric, not from the Minister of Human Resources Development but from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

I therefore want to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the lack of openness of the government and the ministers. Some explanations are in order about the issue of obliging workers who participate in the pilot project to sign a contract in exchange for the benefits promised by the minister, something people find disturbing.

If this pilot project leads to further projects, people certainly had the right to know whether there was any consultation. The answer was no. This government will have to learn to be more open, because otherwise, how can it proceed with its reform of social programs?

I have a very good reason for raising this issue again this evening. There are communities all over Canada where workers, like the fisheries workers, have lost all hope, except that their numbers are not as high as in the fisheries industry.

So how can we help those workers? Can we help them only by making this help compulsory, when in many cases they are older than average? There is a very large number-24,000-between the ages of 25 and 49, but many, in fact more than 6,000, are at least 50 years old. Now workers who are between the ages of 35 and 49 need to know what they will get in the end, because we cannot pay them a pittance for a few years and oblige them to take training that is a dead end. We have to ensure that the community has the resources to create jobs, to help them create businesses and to attract businesses, so there is some hope for the future. Compulsory training, clean-up programs and com-

munity assistance programs as such are useless if workers and their communities are not helped to find real jobs.

My question was: How can the minister reconcile that? There was no consultation, and that is really too bad.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat that the day Bill C-17 passes will be a sad day in Canadian history. Of course, it is much easier for the party in power to talk about anything but this bill, because this bill shows a bias to attack the unemployed, welfare recipients and public servants and carefully avoids touching the wealthy, family trusts and tax shelters.

We agree that something absolutely must be done about the deficit, but we disagree when those opposite attack only the unemployed, the poor and public servants, as we see in this bill. It attacks unemployment insurance and social assistance at a time when unemployment is extremely high, when few Canadians feel their jobs are safe, even and I might say especially small and medium-sized business owners because of recent incidents that have come to my knowledge, incidents that happened not in faraway places but in my own riding, where small businesses have gone bankrupt. I know that a great many small businesses are having a very hard time right now. I will address this issue as well.

The Liberal government decision to cut as much as it has in the unemployment insurance program is an historic one on the part of people who cloak themselves in the Canadian unity flag and claim to be promoting national unity. If they have done their homework and taken a good look at what they are doing, then they should know how much of an impact these cuts to unem-

ployment insurance will have on the various regions of Quebec and Canada over the next two years.

I have quoted these statistics on several occasions in this House, Mr. Speaker, but they are at the heart of this bill. In fiscal years 1995-96 and 1996-97, cuts in that area alone will total $630 million in Atlantic Canada and $735 million in Quebec. Is that what Canadians have to hope for?

This means that together Atlantic Canada and Quebec will bear 60 per cent of the cuts, while only one third of the total population of Canada lives in these two regions. The situation is even worse in the case of Atlantic Canada. That region alone bears 26 per cent of the cuts, with only 8.5 per cent of the population.

Besides the Bloc Quebecois, who has risen in this House and denounced loudly the fact that the Maritime or Atlantic provinces are made to pay the largest share? The other side may refuse to hear, but we did point this out. We have not heard the hon. members from Western Canada complain about how hard Maritime workers were hit either. We, from the Bloc Quebecois, are the ones who have made this regional disparity public. It was no big secret and it should not be, but the information had to be leaked out just the same. Then, the government was forced to provide explanations.

I am pointing out for the first time in this House the extent to which the Maritimes and Quebec are indeed targeted by these cuts. Why is that? Just because they raise UI eligibility requirements from 10 to 12 weeks. Is the effect achieved a surprise? No, Mr. Speaker. If we in this House could show the very nice charts compiled by Employment and Immigration Canada, the people watching us would see that the great majority of UI recipients with short periods of employment are in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It is known fact.

More surprisingly, it is even a known fact that the number of recipients with 8 to 19 weeks of insurable employment fell from 610,000 in 1975 to 250,000 in 1990.

This means that when we "improved" unemployment insurance, recipients generally had a short period of employment behind them. Since that time, however, the number of unemployed people with a long history of employment has increased. That is no reason to reduce benefits for those unable to find longer-term jobs in their local economy, as I will demonstrate.

In a document based on the data available, Employment and Immigration Canada tried to predict how many people would be affected by the fact that, in these regions where seasonal employment is very important, the minimum number of weeks of work required to qualify for UI will be increased from 10 to 12. So how many Canadians will be affected by this provision, according to Employment and Immigration Canada's forecasts which are likely very conservative. Forty-four thousand people. Where are these 44,000 people? Newfoundland, 16,000; Prince Edward Island, 2,960; Nova Scotia, 3,575; New Brunswick, 11,535; Quebec, 8,000.

Of course, some may find it strange that people cannot find longer-term jobs. It may be strange that the East has a different economic structure but history explains it. However, so far, Canada's unemployment insurance has taken these different economic structures into account. And I could go on, Mr. Speaker. How many will be affected in Ontario? In all of Ontario, how many will be affected? That is an interesting question. We could hold a lottery with that. According to Employment and Immigration Canada's estimates, 305.

How many will be affected in Manitoba? Two hundred and five. This is 205 too many. In Saskatchewan? Zero. Alberta is also a winner: zero. In British Columbia? Eight hundred and fifteen.

These figures are telling. Why have UI cuts been made in this fashion? The government wilfully targeted those who live in an economy based on seasonal employment and who try to survive by doing odd jobs. These are economies where, unlike in Ontario, there are fewer good jobs, that is permanent jobs. This is the truth. Perhaps those who drafted this legislation do not realize that it is not out of laziness, carelessness or contempt that a very large number of Canadians have short-term jobs which, from time to time, force them to rely on UI benefits, never knowing if they will be able to find another job the following year. Well, now these people know; they know that they will not be able to work next year.

According to this very interesting study, the number of those people who will eventually have to go on welfare is not known. Yet, social assistance estimates for provinces are established on that basis.

There are two other types of cuts which will particularly affect people who use up their UI benefits. Again, the big losers will be those living in eastern provinces.

Some, including members of this House, may laugh. Let me tell them what Alain Dubuc wrote. Mr. Dubuc is an editorial writer in La Presse , an economist by training, and he is certainly not a spokesperson for community groups. He wrote: Axworthy is making a mistake-'', the expression hon. minister is missing because this is a quote,-because he is cutting before helping. I too deplore the fact that so many people, in Quebec and in Canada, have to rely on that program. But it is a mistake to think that we will succeed by depriving them of UI benefits, without programs and a policy to give them hope of finding work-''. We can talk about hope but in reality there is more

despair than hope for these people, and this is something which can also trigger instability.

This morning we were told that the UN is starting to make a parallel between the resurgence of trouble in the world and the rise of poverty. Those who enjoy job security for five years or who, in some cases, are sheltered from financial setbacks forever cannot imagine, from the comfort of their homes, that there are people who depend solely on UI benefits or welfare, whose lives are in the hands of a civil servant who will decide if they are entitled to UI benefits and for how long, people who keep submitting their resumes and hoping for training programs that are not available.

The truth is not what we are hearing here today, that Parliament should ensure that all Canadians have access to training. The truth is that there are a great many people waiting to take part in training programs which are not accessible to them. That is the truth. We are in the middle of a psychodrama here with, on one side, all of the lazy people who do not want training and, on the other side, the Liberal government acting like a saviour and saying: "First, we will reduce you to poverty and then we will urge you to get some training and go back to work".

To think like that, you cannot be living in the real world. You must, however, have a vision of what development and hope should be. As far as I am concerned, this bill deals a severe blow to the Atlantic provinces. The vast majority of the people in Atlantic Canada voted for the Liberals. And with no warning whatsoever, from what we can tell, they will now end up with an economy in worse shape than ever, because the infrastructure programs also included in the budget will not begin to offset the economic impact of cuts to the unemployment insurance program.

The Atlantic provinces stand to lose $630 million. This shortfall of $630 million will not be offset by the Groundfish Adjustment Program. This is a very sad day indeed, because it seems to me that ideology is taking precedence over the real needs of ordinary people. The government is proceeding with cuts without having a real employment policy.

An hon. member opposite said the Bloc Quebecois never made a single constructive proposal. Well, from the very beginning, in committee and in the House, we mentioned the need for a genuine job creation policy. In Quebec, we call that a full employment policy, a pro-active employment policy.

In the committee on which I sit, I had to make a big fuss before they would invite someone who is an expert, not on mini-measures, mini-reforms and mini-programs but on the kind of pro-active employment policy that involves a large number of components and instruments and whose chief characteristic is the basic and abiding concern of the government for job creation; not employment created at the cost of productivity but an employment policy that would require taking a closer look at all the measures taken by the government, in the light of the need to deal with unemployment.

Last night I read a very interesting document by one of the advisors on the task force of the Minister of Human Resources Development. It started by stating that, in Canada, governments have not been concerned about employment. Incidentally, the same advisor was deputy minister at Employment and Immigration Canada for a number of years. I think that is an interesting point. And I think he underestimates an aspect that we in Quebec have developed, perhaps because we were hit harder by the first recession, and I am referring to the need for consultation between companies, workers represented by their labour organizations, regional interest groups and governments. Consultation has to be learned, and let me tell you, from what I have seen of the government opposite, it has yet to realize that consultation is necessary.

I wish, and I consider this another constructive proposal, that the government in its search for a job creation policy would realize that consultation is essential. What does Bill C-17 do? It starts by destroying the trust that is a necessary part of the consultation process. The government starts by saying: Cut unemployment insurance, and cut in the Maritimes and Quebec, before our social reform and before we consult people, and freeze public service compensation before starting a genuine discussion but do not touch corporations, the tax treatment of the rich, tax shelters or trusts. And then they say: Let us consult!

There are words to describe this, but they would be unparliamentary.

Oh, and another thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am very disappointed that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the amendments one by one in the House. And I also want to mention a point that is very important, and I am referring to the negative impact on the economy. I will be brief, since my colleagues will get back to this later on.

I wanted to say that the money that will not go to the provinces is money that was used to pay for basic necessities, including the rent. This means small landlords will be affected because it will be harder to collect the rent. The money was used to pay for food and for all those basic necessities that are often produced locally and are in fact part of the economy of each community, of my riding, of your riding and of the regions. It is money that will not go into the economy. It affects the most vulnerable members of our society. It affects those who already have no security in their lives. It affects those who often make seemingly irrational decisions. It affects people on welfare who, once a month, receive a cheque many members here would spend in less than a week-end, and people who depend on their unemployment insurance cheque, but do not know how long they will keep on getting it.

The number of people who may have to rely on unemployment insurance is growing. I met one of them this week, he is not young, although many young people are affected too. He is a teacher with 20 years of experience, who has never enjoyed job security and is now unemployed in spite of having 23 years of schooling. He is extremely angry because when you are unemployed you feel as if society has no respect for human beings.

Right now, how many people are in the same situation? Do not tell me that the budget as a whole gives Canadians hope for the future. In what way, may I ask? First they cut, and them they ask us to believe them.

My colleague opposite who, a while ago, mentioned instability, reminds me of a pyromaniac who starts a fire and then bemoans the fact that it is burning. With its measures, this government is not rekindling hope for all those who live in a precarious situation, a situation many know nothing about, a situation so precarious that they end up with no self-respect, that they cannot have a family of their own, and that they do not dare look at people straight in the eyes. Unemployment insurance is a lifeline, and when it is taken away, you drop quite a few notches.

People come to my riding office, in a panic, because their UI benefits are about to end and they may have to go on welfare. They feel as if they were falling into a big black hole. Obviously, we try to encourage them, but what is there to tell them except that the situation is extremely tough and that there are few opportunities?

One wonders what kind of social and economic model forms the basis of this bill. By reducing the payments from 57 to 55 per cent for 85 per cent of the unemployed, and by reducing the number of weeks ever closer to half a year, we are moving towards the American model. Whether we like or not, this is a fact. The truth is that the Canadian unemployment insurance program resembles more and more the American one.

A few days ago, a member from the opposite side was saying: "Even with today's globalization, a country remains the master of its social and economic organization". In reality, the Liberals are pursuing the policies of the Conservatives. Or, putting it another way, the Conservatives, while in power, followed a Liberal policy. Everybody is following the policy of the McDonald report.

I remind members that the McDonald report was produced by a commission chaired by Mr. McDonald who was appointed by Mr. Trudeau. The Conservatives implemented its recommendations and now the Liberals are implementing the last part, the one concerning income security.

We cannot ignore the facts and keep on saying that the new Canadian jobs will be provided by China.

The pretext, heard several times in this Chamber, was that we have to give small and medium-sized businesses a chance. On that point I would like to say to my colleagues opposite that they are stretching the truth a bit. First, I should point out that we were the first, before January, to say that UI premiums should not increase. They were at $3 and they should have stayed at $3. We had proposed to freeze premiums. The government did not listen to us. It increased them. Now, it is bragging about the fact that it will lower them to $3 next January. And it adds-again stretching the truth-that this will create 40,000 jobs.

The fact of the matter is that by raising premiums to $3.07, the government has made it more difficult to create jobs this year. With Bill C-17, it should at least have had the decency to reduce the UI premium rate to $3 immediately, if this move could have created jobs.

There are other ways to continue funding unemployment insurance without reducing the benefits of the least fortunate and creating in the process social and economic problems for those regions hardest hit. There are countries that have found alternative solutions. For example, why will the government not consider increasing the average industrial wage through contributions? Such a move would help to fund UI by getting large companies, even those with few blue-collar workers, to contribute without the government having to resort once again to lowering the benefits of the least fortunate and, in the process, creating additional social burdens.

When a government drives people onto welfare and then is forced to invest money supposedly to convince them to leave it behind, then its policies are illogical. Such policies cannot, ultimately, create jobs.

This bill which unfortunately will be adopted shortly is a total disaster. I would like to think that my hon. colleagues will be convinced by our comments directed to all of Canada and to all Canadians of the importance of equity and job creation in Canada.

The government claims to be concerned about child poverty. However, child poverty begins with poverty in the home. Thousands of people are being forced into poverty and, later on, the government will shed crocodile tears regarding their sad fate.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to point out that one of the many provisions in this bill has not been given a sufficiently high profile-not that we have not tried to focus on it-is the total discretion enjoyed by the minister as far as pilot projects are concerned. Allow me to explain myself.

Pursuant to this bill, when the minister designates a region to be the focus of a pilot project, he alone can decide whether the provisions will not apply to a particular group of citizens, to whom no recourse is available.

One could even wonder if that is not "unconstitutional" under the Charter. The minister selects pilot projects and, because of this, legislation, the application of which is usually general, no longer applies to a prescribed group.

Of course, we can argue that the idea is always to improve on the existing legislation. But the fact of the matter is that it is not the case. It is not. Various conditions may be added that do not apply to other employees, as was recently the case in the adjustment program for ground fishermen.

So, this measure in itself would have required that we take a closer look at it and ask ourselves if Canada really wanted to introduce such a discretionary measure, and give a minister-incidentally, a minister whose department is so large that one cannot help but wonder if, as in the case of the British Empire, the sun never sets on it, and how the minister can keep up his fences-that much power, without any possibility for ordinary citizens, except perhaps through constitutional remedies not provided for by the act, to protect otherwise recognized rights.

As you know, in the context of unemployment insurance, there is always a tribunal where, among other parties, workers are represented. I would have much more to say, from the bottom of my heart, on this bill which affects all Canadians, a bill that divides Canada, a bill that abandons Atlantic provinces. We will discuss the adjustment program for groundfisheries, but you are not going to come and tell me that this program alone will revitalize the economy of that region. As I said earlier, Atlantic Canada and Quebec are hard hit, savagely hit, while this government blows its own trumpet, boasts, brags about being a national unity government.

Yet, among the political parties represented in this House, only the Bloc called attention to this problem. I am pointing this out because I noticed it and I would like the hon. members opposite to notice it as well. They are of course bound by ministerial discretion. The Reform Party failed to do its job as the national party that it claims to be. Let me assure you however that our vision in the Bloc is not to destroy Canada.

We have tried to find our place within this Canada and the response we got was "no". So, yes, we want to leave this confederation, but not destroy Canada, quite the contrary. All our action in this place, whether on cultural, social and even economic issues, is fundamentally constructive. Yes, we want to leave Canada, but we want our future friendly neighbour to be a strong one as well.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the day Bill C-17 is passed will be a sad day in Canadian history. Let me say to my hon. colleague who just spoke that it will be a sad day because of this bill which has the support of his government and, for the most part, of the Reform Party.

Unlike my hon. colleague who spoke before me, I would hope that my comments will be guided by intelligence rather than emotion. You will understand, however, if occasionally I do get emotional. It seems to be much easier to attempt to discredit members of the Bloc Quebecois who were democratically elected by Quebecers than it is to rationalize Bill C-17, an outrage for this party and for this government, which calls itself liberal but will soon have to find a new name, much like the Progressives became the Progressive Conservatives.

Before moving on to the heart of my presentation, I would like to focus on one point that has been troubling me ever since my hon. colleagues began talking about the instability that the Bloc Quebecois is creating with its sovereignty plans. Those responsible for the demise of Meech are sitting on the other side of this House. They are the ones responsible for the movement that has grown in Quebec, although neither I nor many of my colleagues felt that Meech would be the agreement to settle Canada's fate once and for all and to clearly satisfy Quebecers. It is a certainty.

However, Meech was an attempt, an open door, and that is why even sovereigntists could not reject it. Those responsible for the death of Meech and for creating permanent instability are not sitting on this side of the House, but rather on the other side.

Instability was a problem during all those years when French Canadian Quebecers were withdrawn, docile and poor.

Getting back to my prepared text-

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated more time in order to address the amendments we proposed one by one. However, since according to our procedure, we can speak only once, addressing all the amendments to this clause which deals with unemployment insurance, I will keep my remarks fairly general.

I would like to start by commenting on what was said by the hon. member for the Reform Party. I was amazed he did not know how much he paid into the unemployment insurance fund and how much he received. You have to know both figures to do your income tax return.

This unemployment insurance reform has split Canada in two, and the people who support a united Canada and a great Canadian federation are now the first to attack-that is the term we must use, under the circumstances-the economy of the Atlantic provinces and the economy of Quebec, with no warning to all their supporters who voted for them in the Maritimes. On the whole, these proposals will bleed more than $1.3 billion annually from the economy in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. The members opposite have not heard the last of this from us, believe me. It is going to take a lot of infrastructure programs to make up for that.

We in the opposition are convinced that the government failed to consider the economic impact, because budget measures do have an impact on the economy. At a time when the economy is very weak and growth is slow and is not supported by an increase in employment, taking this kind of money out of the economy of the eastern provinces which are already in poor shape merely undermines what the government is trying to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to two of the amendments we proposed. My colleagues will address the others, but since not much has been said about this aspect, I want to address the provision in clause 22 which reads as follows:

"(1.1)For purposes of paragraph (1)( b )'',-

It sounds confusing, but it is about making sure that claimants with dependants will receive 60 per cent of their insured earnings, and we want to ensure that the onus is on the Commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to application of the rate of weekly benefit provided.

Let me explain. Claimants with dependants and insurable earnings of up to $390 per week will be entitled to this 60 per cent. Three hundred and ninety dollars per week for someone with dependants is not much, but by introducing a form of assistance in an insurance program, the government may be faced with resorting to some kind of inquisitorial means test in the case of individuals who receive this kind of assistance instead of straightforward unemployment insurance benefits.

The purpose of our amendment is to allow the claimant who would receive the 60 per cent to establish a prima facie entitlement, and to put the onus on the commission to establish that the claimant is not entitled to this rate.

I would like to make a few comments regarding another provision, which we are also proposing to amend, and which may appear rather innocuous, in spite of the fact that it gives the minister all latitude to suspend the application of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act in the case of workers who have lost their jobs in areas where a pilot project is being conducted.

If you are lucky or unlucky enough to be involved in a pilot projet, the usual provisions of the act may not apply any more, if the minister so decides. We believe that it does not make any sense at all and that is why we want the House of Commons to give its approval by resolution, to make sure that we have a public debate and that each pilot project is examined on its own merits. As I said before, being involved in a pilot project may be worth it, but you never can tell, and it is important to ensure that the minister cannot change, at will, the provisions of the UI Act.

The minister may say that he would never do such a thing, but the legislation is there, regardless of who is responsible for it. That is why it is very important for us to convince our colleagues opposite to accept this amendment. They may not have realized how enormous the powers they are vesting on the minister are. By giving him full latitude to deprive anyone, anywhere, of his or her legal rights to unemployment insurance, they are indeed giving the minister discretionary powers.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill is a shame. As we said many times before, we do understand that the government is in a serious financial situation and that it must deal with the deficit.

We strenuously object to this being done on the backs of people who are not only becoming vulnerable from loosing their jobs but living in regions in which the economy is the most vulnerable.

To wrap up, those who cloak themselves in the Canadian identity are in fact engaging in a shameful cover-up because the proposed measures affect directly the economy, and even more so in Atlantic Canada than in Quebec, although Quebec's economy is also hard hit. Only 8 per cent of the total population of Canada lives in the Atlantic provinces; yet, they are hit with 26 per cent of the cuts. All the adjustment programs for Atlantic fishermen practicing ground-fishing will not make up-it will not even come close-for these drastic cuts.

Seeing that I have a couple of minutes remaining, I will say this. The government probably did not think about the depressing effect these measures would have on the economy. It is important for every citizen to bear in mind that when governments reallocate money taken out of our pockets to unemployed persons, this money is immediately pumped back into the economy. It is not used for speculation purposes or to buy luxury items which are generally imported. It is pumped directly back into the economy. It is used to pay rent which would otherwise be more difficult to collect, assuming that someone needs to collect rent. It makes life easier for small businesses which derive their livelihood from it and, of course, it makes life easier for families which depend on these provisions.

Some will argue that there may be people who will use or abuse the system in the sense that they will apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance. Let me say that any one of these people who apply repeatedly for unemployment insurance would gladly trade places with someone who has been paying UI premiums for 25 years and always held a good, decent job.