Subclause 125(9) stipulates:
(9) An affidavit of a person acting for the Commission stating that
(a) the person has charge of the appropriate records, and
(b) a document annexed to the affidavit is a document or true copy of a document made by of for the Commission or a person acting for the Commission,
- is evidence of the nature and contents of the document and is admissible in evidence and has the
same probative force as the original document would have if it were proven in the ordinary way.
I won't talk about the affidavit again, but we do have to check in various clauses of the bill whether the meaning it has been given in the definition doesn't somehow change the intent of the previous legislators. We have to determine, as new legislators, if we want to remain with that original intent, or if we want to come back to a more compliant meaning. Here again, there is some work to be done.
Now let's move on to clause 142, which stipulates:
142. All reports, recommendations and submissions required to be made to the Governor in Council under this Act, whether by the Commission or otherwise, shall be submitted through the Minister.
This is another provision stipulating that reports always go through the Minister. At some point, the Unemployment Insurance Commission might feel like telling us that delegating this to Quebec wouldn't be such a bad idea. It could report directly to Parliament, and if it were independent of the Minister, this would enable it to render much more neutral decisions.
Although it's not quite the same, there is a comparison to be made here: if the Auditor General always reported to the Minister of Finance, who in turn reported to the House of Commons, we wouldn't have the same kind of report we do today. The Auditor General might be a little inhibited in his comments.
So, here again, there's some thinking to do about clause 142. We should ask ourselves whether reports need to be submitted directly to the Minister.
I have talked about many clauses, including clauses 3, 4, 57, 58, 59, 72, 109, 115, 142, and 155, to which I'm getting around now. We have to engage in serious, in-depth debate so that we end up with a good bill, a bill we have considered intelligently.
Clause 155 is quite important. It deals with the issue of fisheries. Part VIII is where it says a self-employed person engaged in fishing... I'm sorry, it is as of clause 153. The issue of fisheries raises a number of questions. Often there is a lack of matching between the number of weeks in which one can fish a particular species and the number of weeks required for unemployment insurance. It is impossible for a fisherman to be eligible for unemployment insurance if he only fishes in a particular sector during eight or nine weeks.
We should come to some sort of agreement here. Shouldn't the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and the people from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development examine how this works? It would be important, because otherwise, we will end up with aberrations and after that, when people don't conform to the law, they will be considered guilty of fraud.
We must be sure that there is not a cause-effect link between an Act that is too complicated and the fact that there are people guilty of fraud in the end. This is another example that seems quite eloquent to me, and we must examine it in more detail. It says here:
(2) The scheme established by the regulations may, with respect to any matter, be different from the provisions of this Act relating to that matter.
We are talking about the scheme established for fishermen.
.0205
It is a complete scheme in itself, that deserves to be studied separately, that deserves to be handed over to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, that might find a more original solution and might avoid the aberrations that are found in the application of this scheme for fishermen.
I want to give one last example from the list of clauses that I mentioned. It is on page 129. There is a fairly complex table of weeks of benefits, where allusion is made to the number of essential weeks as opposed to the number of hours worked. There is an advantage to having an amended version of this table in order to take into account Mr. Regan's amendment in order to see what type of overall table this will give for the number of weeks. I think that we should have an amended table in order to compare the effects and to see if the effect is the same when we add two weeks in regions with a higher unemployment rate, where the division credit will become 14 as opposed to other regions where the division credit will become 22. We have to see if we're not creating a new distortion as compared to what existed before.
Therefore, there are many sections in this Act that show that the proposal that we have put forward is not functional. There is no way to study this bill by allowing only five minutes per section. It will take 15 hours to carry out a clause by clause study if we proceed in this manner. It will be very insufficient because there are clauses that alone might take 15 hours. If there is something that I would like to say to my constituents, it is that I have spent the necessary amount of time on the unemployment insurance reform.
We can also analyze the whole question of systemic discrimination.
Shouldn't we carry out an analysis to see if, in the reform as a whole, as have pointed out groups such as Fédération des femmes du Québec and the National Association of Women and the Law, there is discrimination with regards to women. The conditions have changed. Take the example of the 910 hours, that of the number of additional hours required in each of the categories in order to be eligible. Take the fact that people are going to contribute as of the first hour. In those groups, there will be more women, more young women on the job market, more women who have raised their families and are returning to the job market, more heads of single-parent families, etc.
So, there will be a higher proportion of women there as compared to the population, and the effect of the reform as a whole will be to push a greater number of women towards social assistance. The effect could be that of preventing women from entering the job market. We might end up, despite all the goodwill and public speeches on equity, in a situation where there are fewer women in professional jobs, in positions of responsibility, because they were faced with economic choices that prevented them from continuing to function within the system.
.0210
Therefore this is a complex issue that requires a detailed analysis. It can certainly not be resolved in five minutes. It includes a number of aspects to be taken into consideration and it is difficult for us to measure the effects. We must ask serious questions, all the more because the government, maybe not out of ill will but rather out of oversight, has come to a conclusion that stems from the systemic discrimination based on maternity leave. According to the bill, women become less eligible for maternity leave. A decrease in birth rate might result from this, which might have a serious negative effect, given the birth rate in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.
In my opinion there is another important analysis. It has to do with all the information that we received this morning, not on the fraudulent overpayments but on another issue. From 1991 to 1992, the value of non fraudulent overpayments doubled as the result of errors made by the Commission, the claimant, or the employer. It has increased from $90.2 million to $179 million. At the same time, the value of fraudulent overpayments increased only from $70 million to $93.4 million over five years.
If we were part of the private sector and we wondered where we should put our energy, there's no doubt that it should be in the non fraudulent overpayment category where there's a greater amount of savings to be made.
As legislators, as we can't know everything, we must be able to obtain the expertise of senior level public servants. They must tell us how we can decrease the amount from $179 million to $90 million. How can we ensure that there will be a decrease in the non fraudulent overpayments? A number of hypothesis could be examined and submitted as amendments to members of the committee. These members, with their vast common sense, could surely find interesting solutions.
One key issue would be simplifying the Act. I would be ready to put forward the following hypothesis: we should carry out an analysis to verify whether this increase is mainly due to the fact that the Act has been made more complex. People acted with goodwill and realized later that the claims should not have been made in that manner. There were however no fraudulent intentions. I have very clear examples of this in my riding. People made claims that were accepted by the Commission. Suddenly, in the second or third year, when they held a similar type of job, they were told that this practice was not exactly acceptable.
Take the example of the insurability of people who are shareholders in a company and who have been asked to only keep a certain percentage of the company's shares. For quite a long time, this rule was not applied uniformally throughout the network. As a result, certain regions were tighter than others. The directives changed and an important part of these sums is included in the 179 million dollars.
The other part of the simplification is the fact that we allow someone who gets unemployment insurance to not be penalized for other earnings. At present it is $50. Would it be possible to evaluate what percentage of the overpayments would disappear if it was $100? The government has already made notes, and we could analyze them.
In this area, there are a number of issues that are only a matter of accounting. What percentage could we eliminate? What operational costs could be eliminated? These frauds and bad interpretations are often due to the fact that standards are very restrictive and that there are a number of details to be taken into consideration. It would be in the interest of this committee to see how the Act could be simplified. How could we ensure that it is more efficient and that we stop bothering people with details?
.0215
With regards to fraud, there is the whole question of the appeal process. One interesting issue in the documents tabled by the department is the increase in penalties for employers who are in a fraudulent situation. There is certainly something to study there. The point is not to punish people who have not acted in an acceptable manner, but if there are cases of fraud among employers, there should therefore be greater training. The amendments proposed by the minister on this issue are interesting. We must see if these fines are sufficient. This is an issue that can be examined in greater detail when we get to that amendment.
I have listed some 15 clauses and it seems obvious to me that it is in our interest to discuss the Act and each of these clauses in detail, because many of the points are linked together. We must not create a legislation with loopholes, an Act that in the end would go nowhere, that would not allow us to attain concrete objectives.
We live in a society that is undergoing serious change and the work environment is affected by phenomena that did not exist beforehand. Today there is economic growth, but that does not necessarily translate into an increase in jobs. There's therefore a need to uncover new tools. Should the employment insurance scheme, as the government calls it, or the unemployment insurance scheme, be a tool for development or simply an unemployment insurance fund that allows people to draw, at a time when they are not employed, an income that will allow them to continue to live? With regards to measures allowing for real job development and that allow us to better use people's potential, should we not have a real debate on the right to use the unemployment insurance fund for these goals?
Shouldn't the government ask itself if it has the right to examine a part of the fund, if it should put money into it and, based on the money that it will put into the fund, be a member of the organization that will be responsible for the unemployment insurance fund? Let's suppose that it puts in 10% of the total amount. It would then own 10% of the shares. Employers and employees represent the other part. A choice will be made there.
The majority will probably say that they want an unemployment insurance system and that the division of wealth is not its responsibility, but that this can be carried out elsewhere in the government. This must be specified in the right place. Above all, we do not want our surpluses to be used for just anything. In my opinion there are issues such as these that must be questioned and examined. We are told that over the past few months we had the time to look at this and that we should know where we stand.
I have to admit that, up until last Thursday night, I hoped that the amendments tabled by the new minister would respond to the concerns of the coalition opposed to the reform, that said that the bill is unacceptable. We can only ask that it be withdrawn. Last week the minister could have presented much more important amendments. He could have tabled amendments that would focus on eliminating the intensity rule and seasonal workers would not be any more penalized because they use unemployment insurance more often.
.0220
We would have recognized that this isn't due to ill will on the part of workers, but rather to the job market situation. This would have been an interesting issue to put forward and might have made us take different positions.
I was also expecting the minister to react to the issue of 910 hours.
What today allows us to ask more hours of a young person than of someone who is already on the job market? If we had done the math and we had said that it was 20 weeks at 35 hours, this would have made 700 hours. But instead we required 910 hours. These 210 extra hours are not justified. I even wonder if this clause should be submitted to the Human Rights Commission to see if there is age-related discrimination against this category of people.
We know that there cannot be age-related discrimination and we showed this very clearly to the committee today. It should not be possible for this to be reflected in this piece of legislation. I was told that I had the time to put forward amendments, to propose things. I say to you that we are in politics and there is still a very clear message from the people, that is that the reform as it stands, even with the minor amendments that were made, is still unacceptable. It does not meet the standards that existed in the past in Canada and in Quebec with regards to the compassion required for the present economic situation.
Over the past 20 or 25 years, we have developed a system recognized as the best economic regulator during a recession and, overnight, we want to tear down all the elements that were regulators during a recession and undergo a completely new and different experience. Whole sections of Canada are now in a very difficult situation and we believe that, through labour force mobility, we will resolve all of those problems.
It is important to reflect on this because there is a basic choice that has been put forward by the people who thought up the bill: we don't have the courage to say directly that people must go live where there are markets. We really want them to move a bit more and we say that it's their fault if they don't move.
We penalize seasonal workers, but we don't carry through with our thoughts. This is what we must focus on. When we get to the clause on the intensity rule, we will have to examine it very carefully to see the real effect of removing 1% from every 20 weeks of unemployment insurance. Do we have studies that prove to us that this might have a positive effect on labour force mobility?
We would do better by putting forward a policy that would allow people to develop their resources in the areas where they live and to not start saying that there are regions that have more economic advantages than others. I think that each region has its economic advantages. We must promote what belongs to a region. In this manner, we will manage to develop the economy of each of these regions.
It would have been interesting to find in the Act specific clauses on local development. It would allow us to see if an area were capable of being responsible for its own development and would provide examples of proposals that we could have studied.
We said that we would set aside the surplus of the unemployment insurance fund for regions that were the most affected by the reform, regions where we want to diversify the economy. One amendment might have said that a certain percentage of the fund would be the responsibility of the Conseil régional de concertation de développement du Bas Saint-Laurent et de la Gaspésie and this organization might have added this amount to the money it had already obtained from the government of Quebec.
.0225
We would have thus created a fantastic lever in economic terms. In five, eight or ten years, it would have allowed us to give back to Atlantic Canada the self-sufficiency it once had.
We must not forget that when one is 40 or 50 years old today, one thinks that the world began some 40 or 50 years ago. But there was life before that. There are regions in Canada that were self-sufficient and are no longer so. This is not necessarily the result of unemployment insurance, but the result of management that took place in this country.
Good deals were made. I don't think that Ontario lost out. It made some good deals. If, in the unemployment insurance reform, there was something that said that we would ensure that regions who are lacking employment would profit from research and development investments in a significant manner, I would applaud this tomorrow morning. I am ready to exchange research and development money for unemployment percentages. In the transfer, we are ready to do this at any time.
We must be able to analyze these things, to put them forward and see what would happen in these circumstances.
Why is it that the Liberals do not want us to intervene on the substance of the bill? This is a problem that bothers me a lot. Since this morning, why are we systematically trying to ensure that we don't discuss for the necessary amount of time each of these clauses? Why were we warned that there would be a closure motion, probably Thursday or Friday? In the end, it's like owning up to a weakness. It is saying that, if we continue the debate on the substance of the bill, we will lose as compared to the bill that we had at the start.
We are not trying to create winners and losers. Why can we not study this from a win-win point of view, and why can we not write up a report to the minister on a real unemployment insurance reform, on something that would allow us all to go back to our ridings and say that we have carried out real good work?
We have put forward a challenge, that is to say that in five years we will have reduced the unemployment rate in Gaspé to a more reasonable level; we will have put an end to the exodus of young people and families will move in; we will have touched on entrepreneurship; we will have ensured that it will be possible to use new technologies in such a manner that we are proud of the results.
Certainly all of this is not contained in the unemployment insurance reform. There must be government action elsewhere, but we must act where we can. We can do this in the context of the unemployment insurance reform.
Why aren't the Liberals capable of doing this? What interests have caused them to have this closed attitude? Are there economic interests behind these situations that ensure that they want to show quite clearly that they want to reduce the costs of labour force, to the point that they would do this by reducing the benefits available to unemployment insurance claimants?
A comparison can be drawn with the Americans. For a long time now, Americans have tried to find a health insurance system that would allow them to provide a quality of service that is similar to that in Canada and, paradoxically, the American system, even if it privatized, has greater cost control problems than the Canadian system.
Would it not be a serious mistake on our part to believe that we could be competitive with the Americans and the Mexicans by levelling down, by reducing unemployment insurance benefits, by reducing social welfare benefits, by ensuring that the minimum wage be as low as possible? Do we believe that this is the way of the future, or shouldn't we see things otherwise?
.0230
For this we come back to another problem that is very present in our society and that is in this file here: where shall we get the money to be redistributed?
At present, important surpluses are accumulating in the unemployment insurance fund. There are some $5 billion per year: $1 billion before the present year and $5 billion in 1995-96. So, we are progressing exponentially and, at the same time as we make these profits, we are giving up $900 million that we collected from people who are earning between $39,000 and $43,000. It is hard to understand.
I have a hard time understanding why we are paying for this reduction in income when we could have done very interesting things with this $900 million. We could have even made political choices. Some people might have said: ``We are going to keep this money for the people that are presently in the system and that need it.'' And there are others who might have said: ``No, no, we are going to take the money to diversify our regional economies in order that they be as independent as possible, as quickly as possible, of the economy as a whole.'' We could have debated these issues.
But today there is no debate. There is no money. We decided that we are going to put this $900 million in the reserve and that it would allow us to show that the deficit has been reduced. It's a bit of a paradox. But we see that everything is linked. If we had not made the necessary operational cuts I think that there would still be some housekeeping to do in that area.
It is not completely the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, but there is still something to be done in that area. For example, there are still efforts to made with regards to embassies, defense, and overlap between levels of government. This is our business.
We have a very concrete example of overlap between levels of government with regards to manpower training. Every year, it's as if Quebec and Canada took $250 million and threw it out the back window in the hopes that someone would pick it up. This is because of overlap between the two levels.
At present, the two levels of government, the government of Quebec through its responsibility in the area of culture and the government of Canada in its will to intervene on industrial and economic levels, are in the process of developing that exact same overlap. We are in the process of setting up two Internet networks, side by side.
Have no fear, in Canada we have the means. The accumulated debt does not seem to bother us, but for the International Monetary Fund, for lenders, we need to speak well and show that we can control our deficit. We have found that the easiest way is through the tap of employers and employees in the unemployment insurance fund.
These are not very interesting results. Coming from the Liberal Party of Canada, it is surprising. I can say that, today, if the Conservative Party were in power and we had to deal with the reform that is before us, I would probably be forced to swallow hard and say to myself that they were elected on that platform. These people chose the platform that they wanted. Therefore, let's respect the democratic choice made by voters.
In the present case this is not true. Nowhere have I seen, in documents or in the Liberal Red Book, that they would carry out an unemployment insurance reform that would save $2 billion thanks to the people who contribute to the scheme.
This is also quite significant. We ask people to contribute up to a limit of $39,000, and we make everyone contribute as of the first hour. The people who will contribute the most to the unemployment insurance fund surplus will be people with salaries that go from $0 to $39,000. They contribute 100% of the money with this reform. As for other people, they will no longer contribute.
A measure such as that one is very paradoxical for a Liberal government. Some Liberals must be turning in their graves, and I am sure that even some of the ones who are still alive must have been surprised. I'm thinking of Mr. Allmand, for instance, who is here and who must be very surprised by this approach.
.0235
Aside from the debate on form, I hope that the Liberals' position will reflect their former vision, although I am inclined to strong doubts about that when I see the three minor little amendments that have been accepted by the Minister. There really are no members who came to defend the interests of the regions they represent.
I'm very anxious to see how the Liberal members from the Maritimes will vote on those proposals, those same members who were elected to prevent the Conservatives from bringing in this reform.
Today, one would think those people are counting more on the fact that there will be no one to oppose these measures. But in matters like these, one always has to be careful. We saw that in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, which did not exist some four years ago, was elected because it stayed close to the needs of the population. In the Maritimes, the Liberals should be careful. The fact that the NDP has been in the shadows for a few years does not mean that there cannot be a swell of opposition that might decimate their ranks in the next election. And even if not for electoral reasons, there are too many things in this bill that should stop you from voting in favour of this reform.
There will be a caucus tomorrow morning. I don't know if the members of the committee will be able to be there, but I am sure alternate members could replace them here. I think that the Liberal caucus should consider this matter very seriously tomorrow morning. Liberals should ask themselves: ``What can we put on the table with regard to this reform? Can something be done to make this a real reform, one which will meet the needs of our citizens?'' Then they could go back to their ridings as Liberal members and be proud of what they have done rather than being forced to protect themselves against angry crowds. There is an important piece of work to be done in this regard.
The Liberal members should put moral responsibility above the party's interest. It is true that we heard solemn warnings yesterday as they expulsed Nunziata. The message was clear enough. For Liberals, no salvation is possible unless you toed the official party line. You must absolutely echo the tenants of the High Priest, or you will get nowhere.
If political maturity leads you to make a gesture and if you express your thoughts clearly, as did Mr. Nunziata... I don't share all of his opinions, but no one from his riding was calling him to berate him for wanting to keep his promises. No one called him to tell him that he was wrong to want the Liberals to respect their commitment on the GST. People did call him, and I can bear witness to that. There is a member of the Bloc Québécois called Jean-Guy Chrétien; his name is almost identical to that of the Prime Minister. This morning, he received several phone calls from people who are absolutely outraged and wanted to dress him down for having fired Mr. Nunziata. People thought they were calling the Prime Minister's office.
I understand that the Liberal members who are here may have some concerns about the treatment they may be afforded by their government. If fear is the only thing stopping you, think of how your constituents may respond to you in the next election. If I were you, I would choose the lesser of two evils. The decent thing to do here is to choose dignity and defend the people who elected you. You could then be able to look at yourself in the mirror and be pleased with yourselves.
So, we are faced with a proposal that prevents us from talking about the substance of the issue. We absolutely must convince government members that it is not appropriate to limit the debate to five minutes per article. This has been amply demonstrated, although more so since the Liberals presented no arguments in favour of their proposal. They're marking time, as we say. They are there to make sure that the closure motion is introduced sooner or later.
.0240
Even if several arguments were raised about a number of sections, I would prefer that the debate be on the substance of the issue and that we obtain answers from government members. We keep knocking on the door, but no one will answer. This isn't very interesting. Nor will it be very interesting when the act is implemented, if we have not taken the time to examine it carefully and determine its consequences.
Clause 1 of the bill which we have not yet studied, cites the title of the Employment Insurance Act. This is the whole title: An Act respecting employment insurance in Canada. You may be sure that after an in-depth study of that bill, that title could no longer stand. Provisions would have to be added to it, or it would have to be transformed in such a way that it would really become an Act respecting an employment insurance system. Then we would have done our duty and more. But we would have had to begin sooner. Be that as it may, I think we still have time, in the course of the next few days, weeks or months.
Very few people would suffer from the delay if we took the time we need. Even if the reform only could come into effect next July 1st, the UI fund would continue to accumulate surpluses.
Then the argument put forward by the Minister of Finance that the purpose of this is to accumulate surpluses would be invalidated; this is already happening. Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development insist, although this matter was only handed to him a few months ago - and all the more so since he represents one of the Maritimes regions - on maintaining thatMr. Axworthy's reform is not really his? To make sure no one lost faith, he could have asked the committee to submit a project to him, on condition that this be done freely, and not with our hands tied behind our backs.
We need to be entirely at liberty to make all kinds of proposals, and to verify, with models, how these proposals would play out, and to take the advice of experts into account. These experts should fall into two categories: we would hear from the department's experts, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, I know some real ones.
I know people who must apply the Act on a daily basis, people who work on cases, who file appeals, such as the ones filed by Action-Chômage, for instance. They could make a proposal that would not necessarily inconvenience the government, but would be advantageous for the system, or the Canadian economy and the Quebec economy.
We can't seem to manage to give that kind of experts a hearing in our system. There was a first round of consultations throughout Canada two years ago, one in which I took part. I think we could state that at least 80% of the briefs came out against a two-tier unemployment insurance system. They deemed it unacceptable: this is the one that was proposed in the initial document.
Afterwards, the minister's committee on seasonal workers came to the same conclusion and said so. I was quite naive in some areas, and I continue to be. I thought, at the time, that that was the end of the two-tiered system. Since all of the arguments came to the same conclusions, I thought we had heard the last of it.
Mr. Brien: But like the phoenix, the bill rises from its ashes...
Mr. Crête: Then, all of a sudden, like a whale coming to the surface to breathe, one sees emerging a proposal stating that seasonal workers who claim unemployment insurance every 20 weeks will be penalized by 1%.
You see what this means? Someone who works during the summer, from May to September, begins to receive benefits, and after 20 weeks, in February, he is cut by 1%. Then, since he is missing a little to make it to the next summer, he does what he can, and immediately thereafter, the next fall, he looses another percentage point. So, that year, he will lose 2%; he was cut by 1 percentage point in October, and he will suffer a further cut in February or March.
In that way, we may reach the objective which is to avoid major changes to the elasticity of the product. One percent is not seen too painful and perhaps he will be less frustrated at the time. But at the end of the road, after three years, his cheque will be reduced by 5%, simply because he works for a seasonal industry.
[Translation]
Hopefully, by giving 5% less, the person will find an extra job.
.0245
The problem is that people who hold such jobs have not necessarily all had three years of computer training or are unable to head in that direction. Often the people in question only have eight or nine years of schooling, have worked for 20 or 25 years, often in the same sector. In my region, people harvest peat moss or work as seamsters for the île Verte textile company.
I met a couple during a demonstration. Both told me the reform would hurt them; the man would immediately be penalized 5%, he would aslo be penalized because of the requirements and the divider, and his wife would be penalized by the number of ``dead'' weeks.
Some of the impact will be corrected through the amendments, but not all of it, partly because of the divider. Even if someone manages to squeeze out 12 weeks of work where I live, even with the amendment, the divider will still be 14 weeks. So that means two weeks lost.
When you divide the cake by 14 instead of 12, you don't have the same number of pieces. Two fall into the void. That isn't very appealing. That's what people will have to live with when collecting unemployment insurance.
There are other parts of the legislation that will have serious negative impact. For example, the federal government now plans to send cheques directly to those taking courses, as long as the province where the recipient lives has signed an agreement with the federal government. In other words, people have a gun to their heads.
Try to imagine what it will be like for us. Let's say it's October. The unemployed worker has just finished a summer job. He wants to take a course that is being offered. But because the Quebec government and the federal government have been arguing for a long time about manpower, the Canada Employment Centre tells him that unfortunately he cannot get the bursary to which he would have been entitled, because there is no agreement with the Quebec government. The claimant will think he has misunderstood. He will argue that the course is being offered at the high school and that he is ready to take it. He will be told that the minister has ordered that cheques should be issued only if Quebec has signed an agreement.
To my mind, this is simply shameless blackmail of provinces. That is another example of an amendment to the legislation that should be considered to find a solution to this problem. Canadians should not be penalized because of disputes between governments, and should have access to adequate training. Something must be done to rectify that situation.
That is another amendment we should look into. For the past few hours, however, we have tried to convince the Liberal majority that if we are only given five minutes per clause, we cannot possibly show what is at stake. It will be impossible for us to convince them that amendments must be made to the bill.
This brings us back to the somewhat demagogic remarks of professional troublemakers who claim that the only ones objecting to the unemployment insurance reform are those who want to protect their own jobs, while we have been given a clear mandate by our constituents.
When the bill came out in December, I immediately held a teleconference the next morning in my riding, not with five marxists from Rivière-du-Loup, but with the head of the Corporation de développement économique, a businessman from the tourism industry, who owns motels...
An honourable member: A multimillionaire.
Mr. Crête: ...with someone representing community organizations, someone from Action Chômage, so with representatives from diverse constituencies. After the conference, which lasted an hour or an hour and a half, we immediately identified four or five major areas where we expected the minister would change the thrust of the bill.
.0250
In fact, we wrote to him immediately the following week. We mentioned the intensity rule; we mentioned the 910 hours; we suggested that a region be given a certain number of years to adjust to the situation and that it be given the means to do so. They weren't excessive conditions.
A representative from the Chamber of Commerce was also part of the group. In fact, it was very comforting to see the president of the Rivière-du-Loup Chamber of Commerce at the demonstration last Saturday. He certainly knows the economic impact the reform will have on the region. He knows that in the region of KRTB - Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup - Témiscouata - Les Basques, which will be a federal riding in the next election if it is held after January - , unemployment insurance claimants will get $10 million less next year.
That is not money people could put into an RRSP, nor money they would hoard somewhere, but money they need to pay groceries, school supplies, money that is immediately injected back into the economy, money that ensures the survival of corner stores, all other merchants, car dealers, and garages. So it has a significant, major economic impact.
The shopkeepers association of the Rivière-du-Loup shopping centre, which hardly ever gets involved in politics, unanimously passed a motion to withdraw the bill. You might say they are defending their own interests, but beneath all that, those people really want to stay in their own region.
It has taken years, if not centuries, for regional economies to develop and for people to earn a living in those areas, so you can't just suddenly implement a measure that will force those people to leave their region purely for economic reasons. Local economies must be allowed to flourish and people must be allowed to do what they can to achieve the results they want.
What can be done to make sure the bill is properly amended so that it translates into a novel and acceptable reform? It is only once this reform becomes a very reasonable one that we will be able to say there is no need to withdraw it.
However, as long as the government does not make major amendments, make fundamental changes, we could not support a bill like this one. We cannot proceed with a clause by clause study without making changes and then be told by our constituents that after saying the bill was unacceptable, we changed our mind once we were back in Ottawa, 500 or 1,000 kilometres from home, that we thought we should take other views into account, etc.
I am not interested in the Stockholm syndrome. I have no intention of suddenly feeling closer to people because they are right in front of me rather than those who have given me a specific mandate.
I saw that happen once; it was in Charlottetown. Eleven premiers were confined to a room; they were left to work behind closed doors; they came out thinking they had concocted a magic solution, only to be told a few months later, by their respective governments, throughout Canada, that it was unacceptable. That was the lesson of a lifetime for me.
I decided to do what my constituents have asked me to do. I think I would be prouder of myself, more satisfied and people from my riding would be as well. I think back to the 5,000 people who expressed their views in Rivière-du-Loup last Saturday, who clearly indicated they refused the proposed reform, who stressed the need for major changes.
I made a public commitment to those people. I assured them we would fight the battle to the bitter end for this bill to be corrected, overhauled.
.0255
That is why we are so vocal today. We want to make sure the issues are fully discussed and that we end up with meaningful results.
Thus far, everything we have said shows that before approving a clause such as interpretation, for instance, we should review the entire bill, to see whether some interpretations shouldn't be reviewed and at the same time make sure they are consistent with the rest of the bill to avoid any contradiction. For example, in clause 2 it says:
(2) If the use of rates of unemployment produced by Statistics Canada is required under this Act or the regulations, the Commission shall use those most recently produced at the time it is appropriate or necessary for the Commission to make a final determination in respect of those rates or involving their use.
Doesn't that warrant some thorough study? How are unemployment rates currently defined? Most people think that when they see 9.2% or 9.3% unemployment in the newspaper, that that is a clear reflection of the state of the job market.
You have to see how they arrive at those figures; it is after a very extensive survey and with some scientific analysis, but those figures are derived from a survey of people who can work. So you have to think...
There may be some real surprises. When people hear the economy is getting back on track, they start again to look for a job, they register at employment centres and suddenly the unemployment rate goes up. When the economy takes a downturn and people lose confidence, many go back home, the workforce decreases and the newspapers say the unemployment rate has dropped.
Couldn't we review that part of clause 2 and find ways to ensure people are better informed of the meaning of the information they get? They should be able to know whether those rates are a clear reflection of the unemployment situation or whether they are outdated figures or predictions based on the economy. We must make sure the employment planning system is based on accurate information.
The clauses on the unemployment system do not clearly show how we can close the gap that currently exists between the number of jobs available and the number of unemployed. There are different types of unemployment, including ``frictional'' unemployment and structural unemployment. We should be able to set a level of appropriateness between the jobs available and the training being given to capable workers so that they can have those jobs.
Canada ought to be ashamed of its performance in that area, because the OECD said it was way behind. I think we should look into that matter much more thoroughly.
At this point, I would like to raise one last point about the bill and the importance of studying it in detail. There are other bills that come into play. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is to be amended. What impact will that have? And what about the Department of Human Resources Development Act ant the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, the bill tabled last session and tabled this session under a different number to create the Department of Human Resources Development?
.0300
That department will have the power to meddle in all sorts of areas of provincial jurisdiction. You will tell me that is nothing new, since in fact the department was established three years ago.
Now we are passing legislation to legalize the interventions in a range of areas which I find unwarranted.
Other acts are also affected: the Excise Tax Act and the Income Tax Act. With regard to the latter, I would like to reiterate that we are missing a great opportunity to correct the problems of backlog in dealing with insurability cases; there is so much work to do, and no progress is being made.
How are we to convince our liberal colleagues that we should have a broad debate for the clause by clause study? I am looking for other arguments. I would like to know what it will take to convince them that the situation must be improved. Isn't there any possibility of doing that? Aren't members concerned about the implementation and the impact this bill will have in their riding? Don't they realize what will happen, don't they remember what people in their ridings told them about the impact this legislation would have? Perhaps they represent regions where the unemployment rates are very low, 4%, 5% or 6%, but they mustn't forget that the economic situation changes very quickly and there can be big surprises.
Just think of the current situation at General Motors plants. Twenty years ago, employment opportunities abounded in some regions. I remember when I did some training in Oshawa 25 years ago, plant workers had guaranteed employment. The only potential obstacle would be the occasional strike, but there was never talk of closing the General Motors plants for long periods of time. But that can happen nowadays. It happened in Quebec, where the Kentworth plant that manufactured trucks had to close down. That closure was unexpected. Unemployment insurance can affect everyone; even those who think they can't be affected by it in the short term. A few years ago, who would have thought that the Ottawa region where Public Service jobs had been secure for a long time would be going through what it is facing now? Emergency measures must be implemented if we are expecting entrepreneurship to develop.
I am appealing to every Member of Parliament, and all his constituents; some ridings have already faced hard economic times, but that could also happen in other regions. If the reform, as is, is accepted, we will be supporting labour force mobility, which could mean ghettos around major cities. We've already seen the effect of huge growth in Toronto, which had become like Canada's Klondyke. People moved to Toronto, certain that they could find work. A few years later, there was a surplus of manpower and people went back home with their tail between their legs, having failed to succeed in their quest.
The entire regulating effect of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which enabled people to stay in different people to stay in different parts of Canada, will be significantly reduced once this new legislation comes into effect.
.0305
The government should examine that impact more closely, since 30 years ago, in eastern Quebec, for instance, about 30 parishes were moved, in the hope that those people would have a better chance of finding a job by relocating into better areas. In Gaspé, the entire Forillon sector was closed and became a magnificent national park, but they forgot to use the human resources that were on site.
That is a fine example of a mistake that should not be repeated, but with this reform, we are doomed to do so. Instead of hiring and training the residents of Forillon to become tourism officers, they were taken out of their environment and then the government hired biology students from other regions. The regional economy was greatly disturbed by that and it has taken years for the region to recover.
The reform under study should lead to the elimination of moving incentives. It would be better to encourage regional development and invest in the local resources. When people are stimulated by the need to create things, they give it their all. On the other hand, if they are asked to move, you'll end up with some overpopulated areas and the government does not gain anything. I think we should take that aspect of the legislation into account.
In conclusion, I hope to convince Liberal members of Parliament of the importance of discussing the fundamentals of this bill before proceeding with clause by clause study so that we end up with the best bill possible. That is what our fellow citizens have asked us to do. I hope the argument I have just presented will help us achieve the desired result. Otherwise, I can assure you we are very tough and tenacious, and we will continue to debate this bill as long as it takes to get what we want. It is in committee that we have an opportunity to express our views and we will continue to do so until our views are accepted by the other party.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you, Mr. Crête.
The next speaker is Mr. Nault from the government side.
Mr. Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to take this opportunity to enter into the debate because, of course, it's important to explain the real reason we're here. As a member of the government side, I want to spend some time laying out the facts and putting them on the record for anyone who has spent some time listening. It seems we're still on the airwaves. I don't know who's listening to this, but certainly it will be recorded anyway.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start with the argument that the Bloc has been making. This morning the opposition made the argument that they had not had enough time for examination of the bill. As you know, this filibuster started early this morning, but before we get to that, let's examine the facts as we know them.
This bill was tabled on December 7. That's 140 days that the opposition has had the opportunity to deal with the definitions and to ask the officials for a briefing and for an explanation of every single definition, as you said this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you know because you were there that a number of us availed ourselves of the opportunity to call up the officials and sit down and have a discussion about the bill in detail. Lo and behold, we find that even though the new minister made this undertaking to all the parties when he presented the bill, when it was restructured and brought back into the House - anything you want we'll be willing to do for you; if you want a briefing, or you're looking for information or anything of that sort, please give us a call and we'll set it up for you....
.0310
Then, Mr. Chairman, we get to the House, to this point this morning where we're in clause-by-clause. Starting at 10 a.m., we dealt with one clause - one clause - and we're still on that one clause. In essence, from 10 a.m. until 6:15 p.m., which is over eight hours, we never did get by clause 2, which was the first clause we dealt with.
Mr. Chairman, as the member opposite from Lévis mentioned in his remarks, where in essence he admitted that this was nothing but a filibuster - and we're going to get the exact words for the record because I think it's important that people are aware of this - there was no intention of the opposition to get into clause-by-clause.
We've been following very closely what all the members have said on the record and we're going to produce the record of that tape sometime tomorrow, we hope, which lays out very clearly that the member from Lévis said in essence that this is a filibuster and they're not interested in the clauses or the amendments.
Speaking of amendments, here are the amendments of the government - over 60 amendments. So far, we have none from the Bloc. Oh, they've done a great deal of work on this. They're very upset. They're really worried about the people on unemployment insurance. But they have not one single amendment.
Here we are. We're ready to go. We want to get into clause-by-clause. We want to have a discussion on the clauses. We have 60 amendments, Mr. Chairman, and there is not one single peep from the Bloc. I don't know where their amendments are or what they're big concern is, because we haven't been able to see them.
What did they ask us months ago? Be fair; give us the amendments in advance so we can see them. Well, here they are. We've given them the amendments in plenty of time. Where are the Bloc's amendments? We have no idea. That's very democratic, Mr. Chairman.
That's the issue. Is it democratic to filibuster a government that has the majority, that has won in a federal election to represent all Canadians? Is it a democratic system when the opposition can filibuster for absolutely no reason, stay on one clause - one clause - for eight solid hours to talk about definitions?
Speaking of a waste of time, Mr. Chairman, here we still have the officials ready and raring to go to get into clause-by-clause. Certainly they would like to talk about the bill. But to suggest that every definition is sort of a sparrow waiting to fall...we know quite frankly that is not factually correct.
Then, of course, we had given the opposition many opportunities this afternoon to give us some sort of suggestions as to how they would like to proceed. We wanted to stand down clause 2 because they seemed to have a problem with it. Let's stand down clause 2 and get on to clause 3, clause 4, and clause 5, debate those, and get some movement in the committee.
Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that if the Bloc were at all serious about what they were doing, they would have given us the opportunity to see at least ten or fifteen clauses go today - if they were serious. But what they did prove to us today was that they had no intention, they were not interested in the bill, not interested about the unemployed, not interested in talking about the amendments and all the hard work that the government has done, all the members of the committee who have put together extensive amendments worth literally millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, in changes that we've been able to make on behalf of unemployed Canadians to make this bill much better. Well, Mr. Chairman, we haven't had a chance to talk about that either, because they refuse.
So this evening and this morning - it's now 3:10 a.m. - sitting here listening to the same members make the same speeches over and over and over again...I'd love to talk about the referendum because I think, speaking of democracy, the referendum is a very good case. There have been two referendums so far. The federalists keep winning, but we'll have a third because somehow...maybe if we change things around, blame everything on the federal government, maybe some poor Quebecker might change his mind and may some day vote for a sovereign Quebec.
By the time that happens, there'll be no Quebec because there'll be no jobs; they're all leaving the province. I have a brother who lives in Montreal, who has a major accounting firm and tells me it's awful in Montreal. You can't get business to stay there any more. He deals with all the major corporations and all the people who are very wealthy in Montreal. They're very scared of what's going on with this particular party. Now, is that democratic, to continue to drive the agenda to a point where you hurt Canadians and you hurt Quebeckers?
.0315
All we're asking for, Mr. Chairman, is some respect. All we've asked for from the separatists since day one, as this committee has gone through, is that they please respect the fact that we have, Mr. Chairman, a majority and a mandate as a government. We've been given that mandate. We spent literally months and months on this particular proposal.
Mr. Chairman, not only did we announce the bill in December, but for the last two years we've been having a review to deal with this particular issue. Yet now we hear the member say, well, you know, the Liberals are so undemocratic because they want to confine us to five minutes. Well,Mr. Chairman, you know that I said over and over again in this committee this morning that we don't want to bring in some sort of motion to restrict the date, but we think it's fair and reasonable that this particular party understand that the government is not going to be held hostage, not only by a regional party, not only by a separatist party, but by a party that does not have the mandate of all the people of Canada.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Nault: This is the government that has the mandate. Quite frankly, our agenda, our mandate will be brought forward whether they like it or not, and whether we have to sit here all night for the next two or three nights. We will do that. If we have to sit all weekend, we'll sit here until they come to their senses. Quite frankly, if they think people are not sitting there wondering right now why it is that we sat here all day and are still on clause 2, and haven't gotten past clause 2....
As members of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, we're sometimes accused of being slow, but we're not that slow. I think we understand this bill. A majority of members here spent a lot of time on it. I know there are some new members here who just sort of wandered in to fill in space, but as you know, Mr. Chairman, many of us have spent months and months on this bill and could speak to it ad nauseam, verbatim, clause by clause. But that's not what the motion is, Mr. Chairman.
The motion is this. We would like to get on with the business of the committee. So if the Bloc doesn't want to do that, then as the member from Lévis said this evening, they're just going to filibuster because that's their job, that's their right, because they don't agree with the government. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that the Bloc doesn't agree with the government on a lot of things. Obviously that's why we ran against them. I don't have any problem with that. I don't think anybody in this room has any problem with that. But what we're asking is for democracy to prevail and for the Bloc to have some common sense.
We've been at this for a long time now. We're prepared to get into clause-by-clause. We're prepared to give them.... Now, if the member can't put his case in five minutes, Mr. Chairman.... You know, we have one-minute statements in the House. A lot can be said in one minute, but to go on and on, and to make a speech for hours and hours and say absolutely nothing about the bill.... We haven't talked about it yet. All we've done so far is sit and listen to people talk about definitions.
Well, Mr. Chairman, you know that we spent some time with the officials, and we asked them those same questions. So the members accuse us today of not being interested in the well-being of certain individuals in society because we weren't questioning the definitions. We have a lot of faith in the officials because we have already asked those questions and we've done our homework. We have spent days and days looking at this particular piece of legislation. We've been given an undertaking by the minister to make changes. There are massive amendments; here they are. I would like to see the Bloc's. I'd be interested in reading one or two. Just one amendment would be nice. I'd like to see what they think is so good or bad about their proposal.
Mr. Chairman, there is no proposal from the Bloc. The only one we see is to scrap the bill. Well, you know as well as I do that that's not an amendment, it's not a proposal. That's just a filibuster, that's just politics at its extreme.
If the members are interested in improving the bill, they can give us their amendments. We're ready to look at them. We're ready to think about them and talk about them. They will be surprised, if we ever get to the amendments, that there are a couple of amendments in here that were brought up by the Bloc members themselves, Mr. Chairman. We put them in simply because we agreed with them in their conversations with us, both in committee and while listening to other witnesses. We put it in there, didn't we? But we couldn't rely on the Bloc. We were waiting for them to come forward,Mr. Chairman, with any amendments - any. So we've taken all day today and all night, and we have not dealt with the government's business, with the business that we as members of Parliament are elected to deal with.
.0320
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to put that on the record because of course, as you know, we have some new members here who haven't been following this very closely. If the members want to continue to filibuster, they can practice their speeches and their technique. We enjoy watching them improving. Maybe they should practice their English; it would be a good opportunity. I could maybe practice my French in my next speech to this committee.
It's important, though, that in the end this party, and maybe the one over there that had to leave a little early, would consider by morning some reasonable way of proceeding. Otherwise,Mr. Chairman, as you know, we're going to continue to do this and if necessary we'll go back to the House and the House will pass the motion and we'll get our way.
If they think that's going to help them get re-elected, that it's going to help unemployed Canadians, that it's going to help us to talk about the legislation and the amendments, it won't. We haven't talked about them yet, Mr. Chairman. I haven't had a chance to talk about one important clause.
One clause I'd like to talk about is the change from weeks to hours. This is probably the most fundamental change in the whole bill. It's probably going to be the most exciting change in unemployment insurance since the time we first brought in medicare or the time we first brought in CPP. That's how significant that change is to this bill; fundamental changes will occur because of going from weeks to hours.
Now these members are saying we can't take this leap into the dark, Mr. Chairman. That's like saying we couldn't have medicare in Canada because the Americans don't have it and therefore we wouldn't make that mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I take extreme exception to some of the members suggesting that if we go to hours what we're advocating is seasonal workers or people working a significant amount of overtime. I come from a very rural riding, as you know; it's the largest in Ontario, rural-wise. It's a fifth of Ontario's land mass. Some people call me governor down there and some people wish that I didn't have a fifth of Ontario's land mass to try to be the representative for. But most of my constituents are seasonal workers in the resource sector.
Have I had one single demonstration in northern Ontario? No. The opposition suggests that maybe these things weren't orchestrated in Quebec. Well, that's interesting. I don't think northern Quebec is much different from northern Ontario. I have seasonal employees in the forestry sector, the mining sector, and the fisheries, just like they do in northern Québec.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I haven't had one complaint about this bill as it relates to the hours in particular. Do you know why? Because every single seasonal worker knows that because they're in a seasonal industry, they work long hours. Maybe they don't like working long hours, but in the tourism industry when the summertime is hot and they're moving and there are lots of tourists in our region, they work 12 to 14 hours a day. They're not going to stop doing that, whether the Bloc likes it or not.
Mr. Chairman, if the Bloc and their pal in Quebec City were very serious about the comments they've been making about restricting overtime, why don't they pass a law saying you can only work 40 hours a week? Come on, Mr. Chairman. Do you know what would happen? There wouldn't be one of those members around. They would get their butts booted right out of office, because there are millions of Canadians who work long hours. They do it because they want to do it, because they want to do it for their families. It's pathetic for people to make the kind of accusation that this government is trying to drive people into overtime.
What I have in my region, Mr. Chairman, is people who end up on unemployment insurance after working four or five or six months. When we go to hours, they will be able to qualify for unemployment insurance literally twice as fast because that's how many long hours they've worked. You think that's not a benefit to all those folks?
These people seem to think that's a detriment, that it's a terrible thing. That's just one example of what I would like to talk to and talk about in clause-by-clause and in the House. What we're being subjected to here tonight is a filibuster. We're wasting the government's time. We're wasting officials' time. There's a highly paid staff who would love anything better than to be sitting here listening to me make this speech. They would like to get into clause-by-clause and talk about the 60-odd amendments that we worked very hard to put together.
.0325
If the Bloc thinks that somehow this is going to make them more popular or have people accuse the government of not caring about Canadians - when we know that 135,000 new jobs were created in Canada in the last three months and that almost 600,000 new jobs have been created in this country since we were elected - and that in fact we're not doing our best to try to improve the economy and that in fact we think that this change will improve the lot.... No. What they do is choose a couple of issues.
You know as well as I do that in Quebec the business community is very supportive of this legislation.
Talk about consensus. Every time I hear someone from Quebec say there's a consensus in Quebec.... Well, 50% are federalists and 50% are separatists, and that's a consensus. We know that's the most divided province in the country when it comes to where they want to go - so they have a consensus on that, so far.
The consensus I need from these people is -
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor] ...Ontario.
Mr. Nault: On the labour side, we're being told by unionists - and I'm a unionist,Mr. Chairman. I've spent all of my life in the labour movement. I have many friends in the labour movement. I'm sure I can speak to that better than anybody else in this room. I have spent all of my life in the union movement, and do you know what the union movement is saying now? It is saying that we've gone too far. That's the spin the opposition is putting on it.
The business community is saying that as far as it is concerned we haven't gone nearly as far as we should go. This is the business community that these people pretend to represent.
Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that in this business, in government, when in fact you have two polarized sides.... On one side are the unions, who of course don't want us to do anything, don't want to make any changes, don't want to make any dramatic, fundamental change, because it's difficult to explain that when you're a full-time union official. On the other polarized side you have the business community saying, look, there are too many of these payroll taxes, it's hurting us, it's causing us problems.
We have a bill that's right down the middle. Being right down the middle is a pretty good Liberal tradition. That means we have both sides harping at us. We have the opposition harping at us, and that's acceptable.
But in the end, the point I wanted to make in my presentation to you is that there have been 140 days for these particular members to make themselves aware of what the definitions are about. It has been 140 days since these members got the bill. Can you imagine that after 140 days he still doesn't know the definitions?
I don't know what's going on. I really don't understand how, after 140 days of this bill being around, they haven't had the opportunity to ask these officials for a briefing to say, oh, by the way, I have this concern here. Is it that they just don't have time to read the bill? I can't figure this out.
Then we start today, after 140 days of the bill being around and after having all of this discussion and all of these witnesses, with the most fundamental part of the bill being clause 2. That has to be the biggest con job and farce I've heard all through the years I've been here.
You wonder why the government is not very happy and why the members on this committee are not going to put up with this nonsense. We're not. We've been around as government members long enough - a lot of us have been around for more than a couple of years - to know when we're being had and made fools of.
If the members want to make legitimate arguments on all of these amendments to the different clauses, then we'll give them the five minutes and they can make the case. If that's not enough, then we'll give it to them in the House of Commons when the bill goes back. I imagine that's when they're going to give us their amendments, because what they were doing this morning - which I thought was very interesting - was trying to get from the officials an explanation of every part of the bill that had a particular word. Did you notice that?
To my mind, that's a cheap way of getting research done. If you find every part of the bill that has a particular word in it and you have it all listed for you.... We'll do this anyway; we know that they're not getting a lot of research money, so we'll help them, we'll give them all of those numbers. But then they'll take that and go to their research bureau and draft amendments to all of those particular areas because of that one word.
So the Bloc will come in with literally 100 to 150 amendments, all on about six or seven words that show up in every clause, all along.
That's the oldest game in the book. Everybody knows how to play that game.
.0330
So here we are, waiting for them to give us real amendments. But in the report stage they're going to give us literally hundreds of amendments on words that are in the definition side that happen to appear in other parts of the bill.
We know that in fact this particular party has no interest in the betterment of Canada. I have a very difficult time squaring the fact that they're trying to break the country up on the one hand while on the other hand they want me to feel comfortable that they're the loyal opposition and that they're looking after the best interests of the people in northern Ontario, for example, who I represent.Mr. Chairman, you know I can't sell that at home. I couldn't sell it for five minutes that these people are really trying to represent the good folks in northern Ontario, because they're not.
So, Mr. Chairman, now that we have democracy back on the table, I'd like to see the opposition conclude their remarks sometime this morning. Mind you, we're not really wasting the time of the committee any more, because we were supposed to stop at midnight. We decided to continue on after midnight. We weren't supposed to start until 3:30 p.m. Now we're on the Bloc's time, which I don't mind, because quite frankly they obviously don't have a heck of a lot else to do anyway.
So now we're on the Bloc's time from 12 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow. We'll be here and we'll let them continue to practice their speeches, because we're on their time now, and I don't mind that one iota. But I hope that by 3:30 p.m. tomorrow they've come to their senses so we can get back to the work of the committee, which is clause-by-clause, with 60 amendments.
I want to emphasize that we're ready to put forward 60 amendments that will improve this bill. We're still waiting to see in their amendments what these members think is so terrible about the bill. We'd certainly like to have a look at them. Maybe we can agree with them, as Mr. Allmand suggested earlier on today. If they're there and they're better and an improvement, give us an opportunity at least to be able to say yes or no.
We haven't even had the opportunity to say yes or no, Mr. Chairman. Where are the amendments? That's the biggest farce I've seen all day. We've been debating one clause with no amendments by the opposition. In my last eight years as a member of Parliament, I've never seen us spend hours and hours debating definitions when they don't even have an amendment to the definition.
What they want is to have the officials explain to them why they should like the definition. Then if they don't seem to feel too comfortable with it, they say maybe the officials should give us a new word. I thought the job of the officials was to give us the facts about the bill. If the opposition has a problem with a particular part of the bill, give us an amendment to the word. Tell us what you'd like in the French language, the English language or the Greek language. I don't care, but give us an amendment to the word.
But no, they asked the officials this morning what they thought we should put in its place. Maybe we should talk about it for another three hours until you sort of get worn out as officials and agree that maybe it might cause a problem in the year 2050. It never did before, and the officials kept saying they've never had a problem with this word; it's been there all along. It's not a major change, it's just been modernized because computers happen to be a big part of today's society.
Well, that's not acceptable, so then they even suggest that the integrity of the officials and their expertise is not good enough. They want to spend time with some sort of expert besides the officials who were here.
I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, what we could give the members so they would feel comfortable. First of all, they don't act like an opposition. They don't give you amendments to anything. Then they say it's all terrible and poor old Quebec is going to be so beat up by all this, it's just going to be awful. But so far, no amendments.
Mr. Chairman, 140 days. Remember that, because tomorrow when I put out my press release to my constituents when they ask me why I was up all night, I'm going to explain in detail what the Bloc was doing. I'm going to ask whether they think 140 days is long enough for a member of Parliament to ask for information and to get it on the record, whether they're smart or whether they're dumb. They've had 140 days. Then we have to sit here and we're expected to accept the argument made by certain members that they didn't have enough time for the whole debate, that they need more time to talk about the definitions, that they need more time to understand where we're coming from.
Mr. Chairman, that's what I wanted to put on the record this morning at 3:30, because it is important to know that we've been at this for 140 days as a committee, since December 7. I think if we want to see this progress, then the Bloc, being the democratic party it continues to say it is, will recognize that in a democracy when a government is elected by the majority of the people, they have a right to put forward their agenda and follow through on their mandate.
.0335
Thank you.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you very much, Mr. Nault.
We have another speaker on the list.
Mr. Brien, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien: While listening to my colleague and to the member of the government party, I remembered I had a few more things to say. I would like to make a few comments.
First of all, I would like to apologize for comparing them with the Conservatives earlier on. I really should have referred to the Reform Party. When you hear their discourse, you can really detect the hatred they have for the federal government and the sovereignist members of Parliament.
I sometimes have the sense he was very annoyed and found it very difficult to accept us. Nonetheless, he is the best example of contradictory statements this evening, and I will give him first prize for that. During his speech, he made numerous references to the Bloc Québécois not having any amendment to table, not having made any contribution and not having done anything. But a little later on, he said it would be interesting to see the government's amendments because they contain some of our suggestions.
How can you say we never suggested anything if the Bloc Québécois' suggestions are in their amendments? That is totally illogical. I hope you will provide us with some explanations. You can't contribute and not contribute all at the same time.
Secondly, there was another contradiction in his speech. He wanted us to pass 14 or 15 clauses today by looking at some clauses while ignoring the second definition. We were just going to pass anything then. The other clauses would be passed without agreeing on the interpretation and afterwards we would have come back to the interpretation. In the final analysis, we would have interpreted what had just been passed. That is also illogical and I am surprised by it. He says he has been a member for a number of years, and that certainly worries me. I don't know if he always works that way, but it would be good if he would see the legislation that has been passed, to see whether he did indeed go back to the interpretation afterwards.
An honourable member: There are some others that look even better.
Mr. Brien: Yes. There are probably members of that party who are more solid. So there seems to be all sorts of criteria for choosing a parliamentary secretary, but I will not dwell on that. If you look at the way he boasts about the government's contribution, he is obviously on very good terms with government members.
He also spoke about mandate. Just because they were elected does not mean they can do anything. Absolutely not. That is why our parliamentary system has an official opposition whose most important role is to watch what the government does, because those who created this system could see that a government might abuse democracy. Since power give government authority, it could do whatever it likes with public funds. That is also why the Constitution states that elections must be held every four or five years.
The government may not necessarily respect that time frame and may not systematically hold referendums on every issue. The opposition's main role is to protect citizens' interests by checking up on the government.
The very people who claim to have a mandate to carry out this reform are the same ones who were elected by promising jobs to everyone. Secondly, they were elected on the promise of abolishing the GST. You can see what is happening with the GST these days. Kill it? No, it will be hidden in the price and you can be sure it will be more alive than ever. Perhaps the name will be changed and it will become a 15% national federal sales tax. That's what they call abolishing the GST.
I do not think that is what voters understood during the election campaign. In fact on of your members was expelled from the party for wanting to fulfil his commitments. That was the end of the rope, as they say where I come from. Being expelled from one's party because you want to keep your promises! And not just individual promises, because it may happen that a candidate strays somewhat from the party's platform. In that case, it is a Red Book promise.
I remember the prime minister saying on the news: ``We hate this tax and we will get rid of it! We'll scrap the GST!'' and all sorts of pronoucements each better than the next!
.0340
I also heard him say in the House: ``We hate this tax'', and look what happens. They hate it so much, Mr. Chairman, that they are now going to reinforce it. Then they wonder why there is an opposition that does its job and checks up on the government. We are dealing with a major problem. I am quite proud to tell you all this.
I am pleased to be here and I will stay here until the end. I am so annoyed at everything I hear that you can rest assured that I will retort.
There is no reason to filibuster? We should let the government do what it wants? We shouldn't object? It is they who are objecting to us doing our work. It is their motion which is stopping us from studying the bill clause by clause and in depth. They want to give us just five minutes per clause.
Do the math, Mr. Chairman. If we have just five minutes to discuss each clause, you'd have to divide that time by the number of members of the different parties. There are nine members of the government party, three members of the official opposition, three from the Bloc Québécois. If five minutes is 300 seconds and you divide that by 15, every member will have 20 seconds to say his bit, or 10 seconds for the question and 10 seconds for the answer. There will not be any discussion. That is total nonsense, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, some clauses will not be contentious and will pass more easily, but there's no guarantee of that.
Let me remind you as well that he then went on to say that we weren't tabling any amendments and then contradicted himself by saying we had done so because they had represented a significant contribution to the government's amendments.
All this reminds me of the street in front of our place. It is full of potholes. Some people want to fix the road by patching some of the holes, whereas others think it would be better to remove the entire layer of asphalt and resurface it entirely. Perhaps that is what we should do, and I said so in my first intervention.
I've noticed a total lack of vision in the development of training programs which should be adapted to the problem of people who lost the job they held so many years, sometimes 15 or 20, as well as the problem of young people trying to get into the job market and the problem of women's work.
The consensus concerning the transfer of job training to Quebec does not have the support of 50.01% of the population, said the Parliamentary Secretary just now.
I would have you know that that consensus spread from Ghislain Dufour to Lorraine Pagé, and includes Gérald Larose, community groups, Robert Bourassa, and Daniel Johnson. What more do you want? Could there be a broader consensus? Daniel Johnson also agrees with us. You can't really go much further than that! The entire political spectrum of Quebec is easily covered, and he tells us that it is limited consensus!
Those people don't want to give it to us because they think that it is based on some sovereignist's design. But I told them before there would certainly be problems. The Parliamentary Secretary does not like to hear about sovereignty, but he must remember that, first of all, we were elected with that mandate and secondly, it reflects some ever growing inclination in Quebec.
He referred to the referendum problem. I'd like to call to his attention that he spoke of two referendums in Quebec, when there have been three. And he says he's been in politics for quite a few years! He should, therefore, know that there have been three referendum in Quebec, one of which was organized by the federal government, supported by all the parliamentarians of the federal government except the Bloc Québécois MPs, who were at that time behind the curtain, in the back to the right. They were the only parliamentarians against it, and it was rejected anyway by all Canadians. And he claims to be aware of what's going on this score, with his citizens of northern Ontario. I'd like to know what the unemployed in his riding really think, Mr. Chairman.
It's not very far from home, because I live in northern Quebec. I think I'll go over there and talk to the people and find out what they think.
So what he is saying cannot be taken very seriously. It does not seem very serious to try and lecture us at 3:30 in the morning, saying that we've known all this for 140 days and bringing in sheaves of statistics!
Of course, none of this is really important and what counts is rather the true effects of this reform. All of this should not keeping us from looking at them. It's not because a parliamentaray secretary, in a bad mood, because he's worked all night, issues a cutting press release reviling at the Bloc Québécois that we're going to stop doing our work!
We've already said, and I repeat, that this reform has some serious flaws which mean it won't accomplish its goal.
Another part of his speech that I have to bring up is his reference to Montreal and to all the people, including his brother, who wants to leave Montreal. When things go badly, they abandon ship.
.0345
I'd like to remind those people that it's the federal government which dismantled the shipyard network that existed in Quebec. Those same people also made the decision to build Mirabel one day, creating mayhem in Montreal by setting up two airports, and moving air traffic towards Toronto, at the same time, with new regulations. Let's also talk about the dismantling of the railways, of the disruption of the petrochemical industry and all the rest. Day after day, decision after decision, year after year, the federal government has played a significant role in Montreal's economic collapse. And they seem almost proud of this success, because for them, it's a success.
But we'll get Montreal back on its feet despite them. When it comes to rallying, Quebeckers are ready and able, and that is what we will do. We know very well that we can't count on them. We don't expect much. However, as long as we pay taxes here, we'll ask them to put in their share of effort. They will have to be actively involved.
They take great pleasure in proclaiming from the rooftops and throughout the world that Montreal is a catastrophe, that things aren't going well in Montreal and that you shouldn't invest there. Those people claim to be Canadian representatives and say we're a regional party. They wander all over saying that in Montreal things are going badly and that you shouldn't invest there, and that it's a disaster area. You claim you represent a national party from one end to the other of Canada. But be serious! If embassy people said the same thing as you, do you think that would be reasonable? You know very well that in economics, there are rational things and irrational things.
Political instability: that makes me laugh. Is there political stability in Italy? Is there political stability in Mexico? And everyone says invest in Mexico, that it's the way of the future. Sure! There was an assassination a year and a half ago. Prime Minister Chrétien was actually going there the next day, in mid-election campaign! No problem! The political climate is stable and it's a steadfast democracy! Invest! Free-trade with Mexico!
You make great speeches about political instability in Montreal and in Quebec, where there's a very substantial democratic system, when 93% of the people vote and express themselves. They are peaceful people who are not led on by federalist agitators trying to mess up things in Quebec, as you are doing, or whom you support even if you don't do it yourselves. We don't need to be lectured by anybody.
To come back to the substance of the bill, Mr. Chairman, if some people want to start the debate up again, I will gladly join them. I'd ask them to do so and to comment on the parliamentary secretary's words when he came to Quebec. I'm sure that his speeches would be of great help to us in the next sovereignty campaign. I am extending an invitation to him!
But let's get back to the bill. It is a reactivated bill which was brought back before the House, after the new Throne Speech. People thought that the government was stopping, proroging the session. With the new Throne Speech, they thought that there would certainly be a change of direction, a change of course, concerning unemployment insurance as well a new Cabinet and a new minister. They thought they'd get off to a good start, on a more solid and realistic footing.
But not at all! We're back to the same thing. All that's being changed is the number, which means that people will have to rewrite the banners for their demonstrations to get more work. That's about it. Only the number has changed. They're now trying to get people to believe that it's employment insurance rather than unemployment insurance.
How is it that the government has set goals in the fight against the deficit, in all sorts of areas, but that they don't ever dare set any for employment?
A while ago, my colleague referred to significant statistics concerning the unemployment insurance rate. The unemployment insurance rate may be an outmoded statistic. We may have to re-think our indicators. The real data to watch concerning the job market is the job-population ratio. That's the real statistic. This would keep a parliamentary secretary from bragging and saying that 110,000 jobs were created, while 135,000 were being lost. The data to watch show growth in employment. We must therefore look at the number of jobs-to-persons. Those are the important indicators.
In Quebec, if I remember correctly, it's between 55% and 60%. Why not set targets in that general area, goals to be met other than budgetary and financial ones?
.0350
Why don't they do that? Probably because they're afraid of not being able to, not being able to meet their objectives. And yet this is the same government that was elected on a job creation platform, jobs, jobs, jobs, but it doesn't even dare to define its employment objectives.
How can you be serious and credible if you don't even dare to set goals for job creation?
In any case, the voters will ultimately judge all these actions. I realize that outside of Quebec, they don't have much of a choice. But in Quebec, we'll give them one, because that's our role.
I'd like to tie this in to the unemployment insurance fund. There are many basic and important things to discuss.
Earlier my colleague mentioned 30 to 40 clauses of the bill. He spoke for almost two hours. How can there be a discussion if we are only given five minutes to debate each clause when there are things as fundamental to be considered as, for instance, moving from the number of weeks to the number of hours in calculating unemployment insurance rates?
That is a significant change. The parliamentary secretary said himself that it was certainly the greatest change since the setting up of the medicare system and the government entering the public health field. He introduced this reform stating that it was the most significant one undertaken in a long time.
Mr. Chairman, that can be said in five minutes, in committee. It's a significant reform, fantastically important, and that can be stated in five minutes, as for each of the clauses.
My colleague was saying before that we might give ourselves a little more time to consider the question and redefine a true unemployment insurance reform.
There is a surplus in the fund. It's not a pressing concern. The fund is running a $5 billion surplus, without counting the changes. I think that should be enough and should allow us to start off on a more realistic footing.
The government doesn't put a cent into the unemployment insurance fund. The employees and employers do. So why is it that they have no right to supervise the management and use of the fund?
If the government paid into the fund and was a member of its management, if the fund were subject to a parliamentary act, we wouldn't have a problem with it. But there would also have to be a committee, with certain powers, made up of the following partners: government, workers and employers.
When I say employers, it doesn't necessarily mean big business. Someone was saying that business people are all in favour of the reform. That's laughable.
The chairman of the Chamber of commerce in Rivière-du-Loup is a businessman and he demonstrated with the people. It's not because he isn't the chairman of the Conseil du patronat that he isn't a businessman.
In my riding, I know people with construction businesses who don't particularly agree with this. They are also businessmen and they find it a bit insane that you allow a $5 billion surplus to accumulate in the unemployment insurance fund with the money they've put in, as have all the other employees and employers. They say that it makes no sense.
And I can tell you that business people from big companies do not agree either when it comes to premium rates and the accumulation of surplus. But they may have privileged information to the effect that you are going to lower premiums. That's quite possible, as we know that they set your agenda.
It remains to be seen whether there is, as you say, unanimous consent amongst business people! If the fund was managed by different partners who all had their say, we could avoid this kind of imbalance.
We also talked about manpower training and retraining workers. Quebec, and Canada, are moving into an accelerated period. And it makes me laugh to see the Liberals salvage free trade, when they were against it. And it's in part thanks to Quebec if Canada got into free trade at all.
.0355
But this means significant restructuring, particularly in what is known as the soft sectors of the economy. Some industries have deteriorated quite quickly, such as textiles. And there have been major changes in agriculture. As a result, many workers who had been in these industries for 15, 20, 25 or 30 years have lost their jobs.
How is it that we are unable to find a way to get these people to play a role in society, given their expertise in other areas? There's nothing foreseen in the unemployment insurance reform for this category of workers. I would therefore say that this is a problem for people losing their job after working for 25 or 30 years.
Of course, you can't ask a textile worker to become a computer science engineer from one day to the next. There's a limit. At the same time, there is all the manpower trained in CEGEPs and universities which is having trouble getting into the job market.
However, an employer, given the choice, will prefer to hire fresh graduates if possible, rather than taking older people. This is a crucial problem for those people, and you refuse to see it, as if it didn't exist. There are also the massive dismissals or layoffs, as well as significant restructuring, both in the public and private sectors.
This reality doesn't seem to be affected by the reform. This reality should be of concern in the reform of unemployment insurance. We should have a debate on the use of the unemployment insurance surplus.
Shouldn't this money be invested productively in the economy? Is it acceptable to use employees' and employers' premiums for things other than benefits for the individuals insured?
Is it an insurance plan like any other insurance plan, is it an insurance plan which allows the individuals insured to have income if they lose their job and is it also an proactive plan which, via premiums, invests in the economy to help people keep their jobs?
But this is not the kind of debate we're having! And when it does occur, it's supposed to only take five minutes. I think this is a serious shortcoming. I also wonder how you explain this to your constituents when you visit your ridings. Perhaps you don't go anymore? You stay away from people so you don't have to speak to them.
I know there are people amongst you who are sensitive to this line of reasoning, and it's to them that I'm talking. If you've changed group, perhaps the new group is more sensitive than the previous one.
Try to influence your government. Tell it that you don't want to move in that direction. Tell it that you'll really take things in hand in committee and tell the minister to step back so that you can really see what you can do and start anew.
But I have my doubts. You were given a very clear message, yesterday, not to break ranks and to stay calm. Otherwise, you know what will happen if you try to honour your commitments. You'll be thrown out of the party! So watch it!
I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that fate sometimes takes strange turns. After the whole business of the GST and the broken promise, we're now at a crucial phase of the unemployment insurance reform and the liberal provinces in the Maritimes are being given $970 million in compensation, apparently to help them accept the GST reform and possibly also to sell the unemployment insurance reform. It's a lump sum payment over a period of four years. It's as if they were buying peace, to the detriment of other provinces, such as Quebec, which has harmonized its goods and services tax.
In Quebec, it wasn't an issue. Harmonization had already been carried out. In Quebec, nobody believed the GST would be eliminated, because everyone knows that the government isn't going to do away with a tax which brings in billions of dollars, when it's running a deficit.
We preferred to be more pragmatic and harmonize. But in Quebec, no one paid us compensation. No one! And today, Quebeckers are paying between $200 and $250 million so that the maritime provinces will accept to harmonize their sales tax and that the present government can save face somewhat concerning its irresponsible promise to abolish the GST.
At the same time, the government wants to make it easier for provincial premiers, so that they'll stay out of the unemployment insurance reform debate, arguing that the federal government isn't always bad for us and thus keeping some electoral control in the Maritimes.