Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member would try to call into question the generous and compassionate immigration system we have.

Perhaps he is doing it for some ulterior political reason, but our immigration system is something we have always taken pride. We have been recognized internationally for our generosity, for our compassion, for our deep understanding of what the immigrant experience is all about.

The government understands also the family's disappointment. There is no question about that. However, in order to maintain a system that is credible and fair we need to absolutely make sure we respect the law.

The family has had the full benefit of Canada's generous refugee determination system. It has been found not to be refugees and must now leave Canada.

There are other options the family can exercise. We understand it has requested removal to another country. The department has no objection to removing it to another country as long as that country is willing to take it and legally admit it.

The other option is for the family to return to Moldova and apply through the normal process.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was taking notes while the hon. member was speaking. He can rest assured that the government is definitely committed to the principles of medicare.

The member should also understand that the reason we introduced the Canada social and health transfer was that we wanted to provide provinces and Canadians with the type of flexibility for which hundreds of thousands of Canadians called during our consultations on social security review. The hon. member is misguided in saying Canadians were not consulted. We undertook perhaps the most extensive consultation in Canadian history.

The carrying nature of that consultation was shown clearly with the tabling of the new employment insurance bill, which will allow Canadians to get jobs and keep their jobs. It will help the most vulnerable in society in a sustainable fashion; not to mention the great work we are doing on the youth portfolio under the leadership of the Secretary of State for Training and Youth. During hard fiscal times we have increased the expenditures and investment in young people by $43 million to $236 million. We have provided thousands upon thousands of young Canadians with their rightful opportunity to gain the type of skills required for the new economy.

I am glad the hon. member brings to the floor of the House of Commons some deep concerns, but he and his party can rest assured that we are on the side of Canadians, not against them.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion made by the Minister of Human Resources Development to refer Bill C-111 to the standing committee.

We have every reason to move forward with a thorough examination of this bill by a committee of the House. We have every reason to allow an early public review of its provisions. We have no reason to hold back and nothing to gain by preventing the broad consultations necessary with such an important piece of legislation.

All members of this House recognize that this is a very important bill. It has been the subject of vigorous debate and intense questioning from all sides, yet throughout the debate we have seen something very rare: the unanimous agreement on the central point of this legislation. We all agree that we need to reform the old UI program. Throughout all the debate and questioning, no one has suggested that the status quo is acceptable. No one has suggested that we can afford to leave things as they are. Everyone has spoken of the need to find a better way to help unemployed Canadians.

This rare unanimity reflects a broad consensus throughout the country. More than 100,000 people who took part in the consultations said we need a better jobs system for Canadians. Almost nine out of ten Canadians told us we need a fundamental overhaul of the old UI program to make it work. Provincial leaders, business groups, professionals and community organizations have spoken clearly over the past weeks about the need for change. Bill C-111 presents a clear and progressive agenda for change.

Now we have an opportunity to hear from Canadians about this agenda. Members of the House have an opportunity to subject the bill to the rigorous examination of standing committee hearings. We have an opportunity to use our time well over the coming weeks to make the debate on Bill C-111 more inclusive, to open up the process, to consult and to listen before we proceed with the legislative process when the House resumes.

It would be inexcusable to delay these consultations. Every day we delay we put jobs and hope for thousands of Canadians on hold. Every day we delay we are perpetuating a UI program that is not only out of date but is actually hurting the people it is supposed to help. We are perpetuating a system that leaves too many Canadians

stuck in the past when what they need is a springboard to help them change, adjust and adapt to the future.

The new jobs system, employment insurance, will make it easier for people at risk to work longer and encourage employers to keep people in their jobs longer. Think about what that means. Think about what it means to the 400,000 Canadians right now who find themselves stuck in a constant rut of getting from one benefit program to another.

If the new system can get those people just one additional work week, we will save the entire system $50 million, money we can plough back into the system to turn that one extra week of work into two, two weeks into four, four weeks into eight. Instead of a cycle of joblessness we can create a new cycle of employment and hope for almost half a million Canadians who want to work and deserve an even break.

That is what this new jobs system is all about. Think what it means for the thousands of people who can move into new jobs created by small businesses across the country. Right now the old UI program is killing those jobs every day. A survey of small businesses in Atlantic Canada tells us that employers just cannot compete with the UI system for workers.

With our new jobs system we will cut insurance premiums, the tax on jobs, to assist them. We will create a system that supports employment and job creation instead of one that perpetuates unemployment. Think of what it means to the hundreds of thousands of job seekers who will get direct help through new employment benefits, help that is more effective, that is more flexible, that will get results faster than anything they can get now.

With wage subsidies, each year we will be able to help some 65,000 people get off benefits and into jobs. Studies show that these subsidies can help each one of these people increase their income and gain an average of 17 additional weeks of employment each year.

With earnings supplements we can help make work pay for some 75,000 workers each year, people who deserve more than the old UI treadmill. We know from joint pilot projects with New Brunswick and British Columbia that these supplements get results and help people secure their place in the workforce.

We will help thousands of Canadians each year create their own jobs through self-employment, a key driving force for job creation and growth in the new economy. Studies show that by providing the right kind of support at the right time, people who were without work can create businesses that last and create new jobs by hiring employees.

We can create new job creation partnerships, mobilizing the resources of the provinces, community groups and organizations across the country to help people adapt to the demands of the new workplace, increase their earnings and gain the independence that only a job can provide.

We can work with the provinces to help individuals through skills loans and grants, giving more opportunities for people to make a real investment in their own future, to get the kind of skills required to enter the job market of the 21st century from a position of strength.

We can make this kind of assistance, all of these employment benefits more accessible to more people: to some 500,000 part time workers who are not even covered by the UI program; to people who have simply been abandoned by the old system, marginalized by a system that does not reflect the realities of the 1990s.

Employment insurance is not just another version of the old UI program. It is truly Canada's jobs system for the 21st century. It is part of this government's agenda for jobs and growth. This agenda for jobs and growth is on track and it is working. We are getting the deficit under control in reality, not just in rhetoric. By 1997-98 the government's new borrowing requirements in relation to the size of the economy will be at the lowest level since 1969.

We are matching deficit reduction with an all out drive for job creation. Over the past year we generated almost half a million full time jobs, more than in any year since 1987. That is what this government was elected to do. We were given a mandate to get Canada and Canadians back to work. Bill C-111, employment insurance, is part of our agenda to fulfil that mandate.

Canadians need the opportunity now to review Bill C-111 through the kind of forum that only a standing committee of the House of Commons can provide. We can give them this forum now. We have no reason to put this very important review of an extremely important piece of legislation on hold. We owe it to Canadians to move forward. I urge all members of the House to support this motion so that we can look to the future.

[Supply, December 8th, 1995]

What is your point?

[Supply, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member conclude her remarks by saying she had a lot more to say. That was certainly my hope because I did not hear very much that was worth noting.

I have a problem understanding how a member of Parliament who was a very active member of the human resources development committee in which witnesses continually stated to us that they wanted a change to the status quo, could comment to the House of Commons that she still believes in the status quo. She still believes in the system which Canadians from coast to coast, particularly those who are unemployed, have told us is not working. It is simply unbelievable that at this stage of the debate the hon. member would not come up with any proposals that would speak to the modernization and restructuring of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

It is also quite fascinating how the member and her party have spent the past two years advocating separatism. They have advocated the notion that Quebec on its own could actually be a more functional society but for some reason or other they have not mentioned that this type of political instability has resulted in job losses in this country. They do not talk about that because they are too busy trying to pretend they are the defenders of the less fortunate in our society.

The hon. member also does not talk about the fact that 100,000 jobs will be created as a result of the employment insurance changes the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled last Friday. She does not talk about that because it is good news. She cannot relate to positive change in people's lives.

There are also some things she omits, such as the family income supplement where people with dependents will be able to earn up to 80 per cent of average earnings. She does not talk about that because it speaks to helping people. It speaks to giving greater income security for people while at the same time providing them with the tools required to find work.

She also does not talk about the progressive measures that anyone can access. The five tools of the human resources investment fund were outlined by the minister. Those who have had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the past three years, UI exhaustees who were marginalized and were excluded by the unemployment insurance program, will now be part of that.

The hon. member does not want to hear the truth. She does not want to hear that we have worked very hard to build a better system. Bloc members do not want to hear the good news because their agenda is that they do not want success in this country. They want to break up the country. That is the reason.

Canadians need to face the facts. They need to face the truth about who is sitting in front of us: separatists who are not willing to accept the fact that the employment insurance bill means positive change to people's lives; it means people will be given the opportunities to acquire the skills to re-enter the workforce. Bloc members do not want to hear that.

In reference to sustaining the unemployment insurance program, a program that has grown from $8 billion to $18 billion in less than a decade, any rational human being will say that we simply cannot sustain the type of skyrocketing costs this program has put on the taxpayers, the employers and employees of this country. Those are the facts of life.

It is a real shame that the Bloc Quebecois separatists cannot come to grips with reality as we get ready for the 21st century. They do not talk about the premium relief that is being given to employers and employees. They do not want to talk about that because it is good news. They do not want this bill. They do not want the new employment insurance bill to work. That would mean that Canada works. They have no interest in telling Canadians we are improving their quality of life. It is a real shame they cannot intellectually cope with the type of positive changes that are being implemented.

My question is fundamental. Is the hon. member really serious when she says that the employment insurance bill is completely flawed? Why did she omit reference to the progressive measures which exist in the bill? Why did she do that? Is this part and parcel of the separatist plot?

[Mobility Rights, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It allows me an opportunity to update the House of Commons.

This morning the British Columbia minister of social services, Joy MacPhail, and the federal Minister of Human Resources Development met to discuss the issue relating to residency requirements. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice in this matter. The British Columbia government is contravening the act, particularly sections 5 and 7 of the Canada assistance plan.

As to the idea raised by the hon. member, he can rest assured that ideas such as the one he cited will be part and parcel of discussions that federal officials will undertake very shortly.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis for his question which deals with an interesting point. He is concerned about what is going to happen with training institutions and the independent studies.

The $800 million human resources investment fund that we have announced will target five areas. There will be agencies that will have to deliver this program. I also want to bring to the hon. member's attention, and I am sure it is good news he already knows about, the fact that it is not only $800 million. This will be added to a fund of $1.9 billion which means that we as the federal

government are investing approximately $2.7 billion on those five tools.

We are empowering individuals and local communities and provincial governments, if that may be the case. These programs will be delivered by organizations. Some of those organizations may be the organizations the hon. member correctly brought to the attention of the House.

We have to put this debate into its proper context. The federal government felt that the system which presently exists was not working, and the hon. member knows this because Canadians told us from coast to coast to coast. There were far too many jobs and skills mismatched, which thereby also increased unemployment.

What is positive about our program is that it is better targeted. It collapses 39 programs into five. They are five tools that we know actually work because over the past two years we have done experiments and pilot projects with these five programs.

If we look at the self-employment assistance, 34,000 people participated and 68,000 jobs were created. If we look at the wage top-ups and earning supplements, these have also increased the duration that people stay on the jobs plus their income, which is something we need to address as a federal government. We need to provide people with job opportunities and also good jobs that increase income levels.

Fundamentally I want to conclude my response by turning 360 degrees to the hon. member's question on my earlier comments. By that I mean, as we debate this in the House of Commons, Canadians are faced with the challenges of an ever changing economy. I spoke about the young people, the older workers, the multiple job holder and the part time employees who under the present unemployment insurance program are being marginalized and excluded. We will find that Canadians will respond well to this employment insurance bill. It brings people into the fold. It provides greater income security and opportunities. It recognizes that in an ever changing economy we need to do things better. We need to target things better.

From a fairness point of view there is the fact that low income Canadians with dependents will get a top up which will make them reach approximately 80 per cent of their average earnings. There is the fact that people who were excluded or were UI exhaustees in the past three years will have access to the programs. The only thing they have now is to go on social assistance.

People who were on parental benefits in the past five years will also receive the opportunity to access one of the five pools of the human resources investment fund. That may be a very important bridge to the workplace, to get them back to work.

Overall the reactions I have heard today have been balanced. The small business sector is applauding this move because it basically reduces its tax burden. Small businesses really believe they are benefiting because through the employment insurance active measures they are actually going to have better human resources available.

At the federal level we want to co-operate fully with our provincial counterparts to ensure we are doing this together, in partnership. In the final analysis, the employment insurance bill tabled last Friday is really about bringing positive change to people's lives and improving their quality of life.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When we debate in the House we often think about what the real people with real problems and real challenges are thinking as they see us exchange points of view. I wonder today what the unemployed Quebecer in Chicoutimi, Laval or Trois-Rivières would think about the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Mercier and the Bloc Quebecois.

What would the single mother think as she struggles to hold down two part time jobs, scared to death that her family will end up on the street? What would the older worker think who sees his job disappearing while all the new jobs required better skills? What would the small business owner think who wants to create jobs and hire new workers but cannot afford to compete with the UI economy? What would the young student think as she prepares to leave school and sees her older friends already collecting unemployment insurance for the third, fourth or fifth time at a very young age?

These people are looking for a decent chance at a good job with a good income. Instead the Bloc Quebecois has unfortunately resorted to this motion, a motion I believe has nothing to do with reality. It has nothing to do with the real challenges real people face in Quebec and outside of Quebec or with the real thrust of the employment insurance bill.

Instead, unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois wants to pick a fight. It wants to pick a fight where there is really nothing to fight about. Is the Bloc truly concerned about provincial jurisdiction over training? Perhaps it should listen to the Prime Minister, to the minister who wrote this bill. Bloc members must read the bill itself.

The federal government is saying loudly and clearly that we will do nothing in this area without the express consent of the provinces. We will get out of any activities that might be seen as interfering with provincial responsibilities.

Is the Bloc truly concerned about overlap and duplication? Then listen to what we are saying. We are saying loudly and clearly to the provinces: If you want to deliver the employment benefits under this new system, we can live with that. If you have your own programs that do the same thing, let us use your programs. If you want to find better ways to co-ordinate programs and get rid of overlap and duplication, then let us do it.

The minister has extended an open hand to Quebec, to all provinces by saying let us build a new and better partnership. Quebec was the very first province to respond and the response was yes, let us talk. The Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to enter into talks with the federal government on the very same day the legislation was tabled.

It is time that members of the Bloc Quebecois realized that time and reality have passed them by. Quite simply, the motion they have brought forward is out of date. It was made obsolete by the very bill they are trying to condemn. Let us stop. Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or outside Quebec, are tired of what really are imaginary battles.

What Canadians want us to do as responsible members of this Chamber is to get down and do the job that needs to be done. They want us to create a climate where people feel secure, a climate where jobs are created, where people are given opportunities and are empowered to make the best decisions possible for them, for their community and indeed for their nation.

As a federal member of Parliament, as a member of the Canadian government, I know we have made every effort possible to reach out to the provinces in the spirit of co-operation and goodwill. We have extended our hand to anyone who wants to sit down, to get together in a very meaningful partnership and implement the changes people are asking for.

I respect the hon. member for Lévis as a very hard working member of the human resources development committee. Of course, I do not share his point of view in reference to the issue of separation and many others. Now is not the time to throw up our arms; it is a time to roll up our sleeves.

There are people out there who depend on legislators to bring about positive change to their lives. It is for this reason that I get up in this House convinced that the employment insurance bill the government tabled is a very good bill. It is worth supporting and takes into consideration the very sensitivities that the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and Canadians in general have brought forward during the debate on social security review.

What are we trying to achieve with the employment insurance bill? The employment insurance bill recognizes two fundamental things. One is that people during time of unemployment require income security. It is provided in the bill. It also recognizes the fact that there is a different economy out there. Long term unemployment since 1976 has tripled which speaks to the structural changes of unemployment.

People are staying unemployed for a longer period of time. Why is that? Because they do not have the skills required to get the new jobs. We need to have an active measure introduced which is referred to as a human resources investment fund.

The $800 million human resources investment fund has five tools which include a target income supplement, wage top-ups, skills and loans grants. There are job partnerships and self-employment assistance which has been working extremely well. There have been 68,000 jobs already created. We have lowered premiums to generate job creation which benefits not only small business but also individual Canadians. We have reduced the maximum insurable earnings which again reduces the premiums.

We have taken all those steps because we believe that the system needs changing. We are doing this also with a great deal of fairness.

Low income families will be able to get up to 80 per cent of their average earnings. The 500,000 people who were excluded from unemployment insurance are brought into the system. UI exhaustees who were shut out of the past system are now brought in if they have had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the past three years. Anyone who was receiving parental benefits over the past five years will be able to access one of the re-employment tools which means they will be given opportunities for re-employment.

Above all, we are not only modernizing the employment insurance system, but the net result of these measures through the various measures including a $300 million transition job fund will be the creation of over 100,000 new jobs for Canadians. We are doing this for the people of Canada who throughout the hearings told us that they wanted a system that would help Canadians get jobs, keep their jobs, a system that would help the most vulnerable and do it in a sustainable fashion. They too understood that the program as it is today could not be sustained when in 10 years it has gone from $8 billion to $20 billion.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform Party, the human resources development critic. At a time of constant change in our society, we welcome the meeting of minds and any exchanges that can take place between legislators and other individuals who are willing to propose new ideas. Although I may not agree with the concept prescribed by the hon. member, I certainly congratulate her on making at least the effort to come up with a new employment insurance plan.

I have some fundamental questions in relation to a couple of points. One deals with the issue of federal-provincial relations, which is preoccupying the minds of the Reform Party members and of course the Bloc Quebecois as well. Other questions relate to the employment insurance package as it relates to small business.

On the issue of decentralization of federal-provincial relations, members of Parliament who have followed this file attentively would probably find that the federal government has made many efforts with all the provincial governments to come up with a plan of action that speaks to the reality of the various provinces. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources Development has met with many of his counterparts. Part and parcel of this employment insurance legislation speaks to the fact that when we are talking about the tools, namely the self-employment assistance, the skills and loan grants, the top-ups in earnings, the federal government is co-operating with the provinces.

Second, on the definition of decentralization, local empowerment, and the redefinition of the relationship among the individual, the community, and government, it is clear to me that if we are to give vouchers or give the opportunity to an individual to make up his or her choice, that is the ultimate form of decentralization. May I add, it speaks to the confidence the federal government has in the people of Canada.

We believe the people of Canada can make the best choices for their own lives. They understand that in a changing economy they need to upgrade their skills, they need training opportunities, they need the types of vehicles that will ease their transition from the unemployment rolls onto the payrolls of our country.

Talking about payrolls, the issue of job creation is extremely important for the people of Canada. As a result of the measures taken in this bill, 100,000 to 150,000 jobs will be created. Who will create them? Small business, which is responsible for the creation of 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all new jobs in this country.

What have we done to enhance the opportunities for small business? We have lowered the premiums. The hon. member from the Reform Party says it is only a nickel. The reality is that if the hon. member were to calculate the reduction that occurs, not only to premium rates, and include the fact that maximum insurable earnings have gone down from $43,000 to $39,000, business also incurs that saving.

Equally important in this discussion is that it is not only business that gets the tax break, it is also individual Canadians who pay into the fund. That is a very important point to underline.

Another issue is that we believe in building a strong entrepreneurial spirit in this country. I think our actions speak to that. One of the five tools we have outlined in the human resources investment fund is the self-employment assistance program. Since we formed the government, 34,000 people have participated in this program, creating 60,000 jobs. That speaks to job creation and it also speaks to empowering people and giving people the opportunity that is required.

How else is small business being helped? The five tools will enhance the human resources potential of our country, which means we are going to have a better skilled workforce. A better skilled workforce means we can set as a goal high-paying, highly skilled jobs that produce high value added products. That is extremely important to underline as we modernize our economy.

When we talk about modernization, what about the new labour market information system that is going to connect business and people from coast to coast to coast so we may match people and also reduce the time people spend on the unemployment rolls of our country?

These are extremely positive measures, not to mention what we have learned from the past government's error in reference to reserves. By building up a higher reserve we are going to make sure that the next time there is a recession, hopefully not for a long time, or the next time there is a downturn in the Canadian economy, we will not be taxing small business and employees at a time when they need tax relief. This reserve will make that transition from economic downturns to better economic times a lot easier.

This will create stability in the premium rates. It will create jobs. It will create confidence. It will generate the type of confidence that is required so employment opportunities can be increased.

I would ask a simple question to the hon. member. In the employment insurance package the Reform Party introduced to the media a few months ago there are some fundamental flaws. One flaw is that it excludes more people than it includes, unlike our package, which brings in 500,000 people, including 44,500 seasonal workers who were excluded by the old unemployment insurance package. Why does the Reform Party, whether it is on the pension reform package or the employment insurance package, continue to practise the politics of exclusion?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Breaking the law.