I put this question to the witnesses who came before us and I received answers, even from researchers who worked for you. They said that the unemployment insurance base had to be expanded, not reduced, and especially that the unemployment insurance program participation base should not be reduced. Forty-two thousand dollars, it's a start. If the government absolutely wanted to have $1.8 billion, what should it have done? Probably increase the maximum insurable salary to $46,000. At $46,000, you would have had $1.9 billion or $2 billion more without making ordinary people suffer.
Fraud is definitely not at the root of this reform. The percentage of abusers could probably be reduced by another 4 percent, but we can't base the reform on abusers alone. When you create a system to reduce fraud, it is often honest people who lose out, whereas the real abusers manage to slip through. I'm sure the Liberals would not want to create a system for abusers.
So here is one possibility that is definitely not very costly. Did you see, as I did, how far the premiums of a person earning $42,400 are reduced annually when the maximum insurable salary falls to $39,000? It's $120 a year, or $2 a week. Is this reduction worth all the misery that young people, women and seasonal workers will suffer? Why should they pay for this premium reduction? It makes no sense. We are taking a step backwards.
Thanks to your motion, Mr. Chairman, we can put forward our arguments in full and we thank you.
If the committee wanted to convince the minister not to reduce the maximum insurable salary but to increase it, we could contemplate a reform that would respond to needs because, as we have emphasized, we have to modernize. In this way, we could introduce a real reform.
Why did you decide to go after money through annualization? That was the next question I wanted to ask concerning clause 2. In the definition of ``insurable earnings'', you add:
- The total amount of the earnings, as determined in accordance with Part IV, that an insured
person has from insurable employment.
- I see two major reforms here. This part stating ``from insurable employment'' suggests to me
that this reform makes sense. There are people who would have gone from an uninsurable
situation to an insurable situation if all the jobs had been taken into account.
.2205
Let's take someone who is going to have a contract, as is the case in the new industries. There are many new industries in which there are contracts of limited duration. If someone has the opportunity to obtain insurable employment and cannot have a number of contracts in his year, but only one that he carries out in three months, if his salary is insurable, he will have to agree with the person who gave him the contract to spread out the number of hours, which is illegal. It must be said, however, that this is what is currently happening in the Maritime provinces. People act intelligently. In any case, this worker will pay premiums on his $15,000 in full instead of paying only on the maximum weekly earnings.
This is a very important change that once again hurts young people, those who are in new industries. It makes no sense.
For young people to help themselves, we must not sink them. They already have enough trouble helping themselves and we must not sink them. We must lend them a hand, not kick them when they're down. Annualization is a major problem for them.
I recently reread a brief in order to answer this. The Canadian Council on Social Development conducted an exhaustive study of the situation of temporary workers, and it was clearly shown that the level of education among temporary workers varies widely. It was said that, in the 25 to 44 age group, for example, nearly half have a certificate, a college diploma or a university degree. There are many whom you know ...
[English]
An hon. member: I thought you were going to say they need a lot of sleep.
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: No, they are used to working at night. I can tell you something in confidence. My son works on his computer at night because the computer is not available during the day. Young people are used to doing difficult things. When they find a contract, instead of helping them, we take their money.
I would like the members of the party in power to be prepared to let themselves be convinced that this makes no sense.
The definition of ``insurable earnings'' states:
- The total amount of the earnings, as determined in accordance with Part IV, that an insured
person has from insurable employment.
- This is simply and perfectly unacceptable.
What will a small or medium-size business gain, apart from the transition period, from the reduction of an employee's premiums? It will receive $7.28, whereas, with the reduction of maximum insurable earnings, big businesses will save $500 million. They all admitted it, including the Conseil du patronat and Canadian Manufacturers Association.
.2210
This is an unfair situation and we need more than five minutes to consider these clauses because this is serious.
It is curious that the government has chosen to do favours for big businesses - everyone agreed on that - and high income earners and to make young people and small and medium-size businesses pay. You may laugh, but we take this matter very seriously. Perhaps laughing, by opening your mouths, will make you more receptive to our remarks. This issue of maximum insurable earnings is fundamental if we want to introduce true reform.
If you had taken this direction, the committee could have made proposals that would have made it possible to attack certain problems with the present act without being forced to make women, in particular, pay such a high price because women, particularly those who will become pregnant, will have more trouble qualifying for maternity leave. It makes no sense that we should give large businesses and high-income earners preferential treatment while depriving pregnant women of maternity leave which is already not very generous.
I know that the party line is demanding. Mr. Nunziata learned that. However, our only hope is that, despite the present situation, you will hear our remarks and recognize that they are sensible and are intended to improve people's situations. The core issue is income and those who depend on the premium rate.
If we had been able to go to second reading and make the speeches we normally make at that time, you would have read them, even if you had not listened to us in the House, and we could have begun to debate this issue of income in order to produce a sensible program. We also could have discussed the issue of employment because it is a serious matter to say that governments have contradictory policies. On the one hand, they want to promote employment, particularly among young people, and on the other hand, they foster an unemployment insurance system that favours working two jobs and overtime.
In carefully reading the entire bill on the weekend, I was surprised to see how these clauses favoured working two jobs and overtime. When someone has two jobs and works 50 hours a week, he is favoured in three ways: he is favoured by greater accessibility, he is favoured because he has more money and he is favoured because he has paid more premiums.
.2215
Do you find it logical when the Department of Human Resources Development has a committee that makes recommendations on work time reduction and that the unemployment insurance system favours people who have two jobs and who work 55, 60 and 70 hours a week? This gives them greater access to the program, it gives them more money and it gives them benefits over a longer term. This is the contrary of an employment policy. It makes no sense.
Thus, when the minister said that the demonstrators were exploited by professional agitators, he insulted people's intelligence in a way. It is not surprising that the largest number of people were mobilized in the remote regions.
I have worked in unions for a long time and I have been involved in enough actions to know that it is not true that large demonstrations can be organized any time and easily. Unions may try to bring people together, send letters and buses and ensure that people are well entertained on the bus, but that's not enough. However, when 5,000 persons are brought together in Rivière-du-Loup, when there are repeated demonstrations involved thousands of people in remote areas, that's because people have understood that something is affecting them. They cannot be blamed because unemployment insurance is a part of their lives.
The Executive Council of Prince Edward Island - whose extremely interesting presentation I read last night - said that the government was mistaken, that this was not the right direction, that people must not be penalized and that this would lead nowhere.
Mr. Regan remembers: he asked the question, and he was told in reply that his amendment would not prevent people from accumulating hours. They will not accumulate days, but hours. They will adapt to the system.
We are far from having exhausted the debate on this issue, but I would add this: it is still possible for the present government to bring together those in Quebec whom it calls its partners and to have a real discussion with them either separately or together.
Mr. Martin is not in a hurry. He will have $1 billion more this year if there is no reform. It cannot be said that action must be taken quickly, that it is important to pass the bill, because, otherwise, there will be less money for Mr. Martin.
If we pass the bill, there will be $1 billion less. That is the truth. It's written here in very small letters that must be checked with senior officials. So we can take the necessary time to effect real reform. Why is the Minister in such a hurry? Why wouldn't he meet with the parties together?
Taking small and medium-size businesses on the one hand and large businesses on the other, the unions, the groups, it would be possible to increase revenues or at least not to reduce them. It is possible to increase them and then to reduce unemployment insurance premiums from all businesses. Why start by offering a large annual gift of $900 million to people who are earning between $39,000 and $42,400 and make the less well-off pay? Why start by making them a large gift and then saying that, since we are going to cut the less well-off, a surplus will remain that will make it possible to reduce everyone's premiums? That's the contrary of common sense.
.2220
Common sense dictates that maximum insurable earnings be increased to $45,000 or $46,000. You would then make it possible to reduce everyone's premiums substantially, without making ordinary people suffer. This seems simple to me.
I don't want to be in power in Ottawa, but I will tell you that I would like someone to listen to what we are saying about unemployment insurance because something can be done to build an adequate system. It seems to me this requires more than five minutes.
Citizens who currently have jobs hope they will not have to resort to unemployment insurance. Often when they work in their businesses, they do not even follow what is happening in the House of Commons. We won't be upset about telling you that. So it is not surprising that people do not take part in demonstrations or flock into the street. They have all kinds of other problems. It is our responsibility and that of parliamentarians as a whole and, of the official opposition in this case, to keep a weather eye open. This bill makes no sense. I hope that that is because it has not been properly studied.
It makes no sense. Michel Chartrand used to use the expression ``ass over tea kettle''. We offer gifts to high-income earners and big businesses, we make the less well-off pay and we give premiums to those who have two jobs in the period we are currently living through, in 1996. This is not right. It makes no sense. We cannot remain quiet and we cannot claim that we would be doing our work by allotting five minutes per clause for the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
We would have a minor success to our credit. I don't know how much time will be necessary for that. If you would only consider whether what we are saying makes sense! If you went to see ... It's because we see it, because we know it that we are asking you to examine the subject, to try to convince the Minister. Nothing is preventing you from doing that. The Minister of Finance would not be prevented from achieving his objectives, quite on the contrary. I have already said that.
Are the big businesses going to cry out? They would be in a very poor position to do so because they pay proportionately less for unemployment insurance than small and medium-size businesses. That makes no sense. Small and medium-size businesses contend that it is they who will have to pay. That is what they're saying and that makes no sense either. They are the ones creating jobs.
The big businesses would not have to suffer from what we are proposing. At Alcan, as you are no doubt aware, workers who work overtime easily make $70,000 a year. The same is true of all large businesses in your ridings, and you know it.
When the maximum insurable salary is reduced from $42,400 to $39,000, something illogical, inconsistent and incoherent is being done. If we believe premiums are too high, let's increase maximum insurable earnings, but reduce everyone's premiums. There is something incoherent in the government's position and it will definitely take more than five minutes to explain it to me.
I wondered what the ultimate reason was that explained why the government started this nonsensical reform. It was definitely thinking of what the OCDE was saying, that is that cuts were needed here and there. Furthermore, we were told that, dollar for dollar, unemployment insurance was the best economic stabilization instrument.
.2225
If unemployment insurance premiums are too high, there is a solution. And when I asked the question, no one objected to increasing maximum insurable earnings because that made it possible to reduce everyone's premiums.
I wondered why the government was doing that. The only answer I found was that it wanted to reduce the upward pressure on wages. It wanted to ``resolve the issue of seasonals''. We definitely have to look at it. We talked about dependency. Dependency is not the dependency of people, but that of the seasonal industries. We must see what is possible and what is not possible, but it isn't by cutting benefits now that we are going to ensure that these people will discover jobs by some miracle when there are none and when officials say there are none.
This unemployment insurance reform, which we cannot study in 15.8 hours, is a major reform that will change the program's direction. Not only will it reduce the number of unemployed workers who will be covered by unemployment insurance, but it will also have completely different structuring effects on the economy.
Other researchers came to tell us that the program was ultimately not working that poorly. Others, who were in agreement on a certain number of proposals, told us to go at it prudently because the social costs could be enormous. Mr. Van Audenrode, the professor from Laval, said that, in its scope and complexity, the reform was such that no economist could predict its effects. With all due respect for the department's mathematical model, I am certain that the limits of the mathematical model are the limits of the mathematical model. When we talk of structuring effects, they go well beyond the answers that the mathematical model can give us.
There are many problems with the hours-based system. It seems to be a good reform at first glance. In any case, this is what some people told us. The deeper you go, however, the more you realize that it's ultimately a band-aid that has been put there to compensate for a provision that we could have made. All the jobs we hold at the same time must be recorded for the purposes of program access. The jobs may also be recorded for benefits purposes, but there we are favouring those who have a permanent job plus a temporary job. We are giving them better access, more money, benefits over a longer period, which will have unforeseeable effects.
.2230
When we talk about micro-economics and macro-economics, these are not the same thing. If people are encouraged to hold two jobs, will the unemployment situation improve? How could that be?
Perhaps after all we should thank the author of the motion that we have to consider since it will at last enable us to talk about the merits of the bill. We will continue to do so because, for talking about it, we cannot accept this motion to limit discussion to five minutes. It seems to me that that is also true for the Liberal members of this committee. Dispatching the unemployment insurance reform in 15 hours at the clause-by-clause consideration stage would not be a feather you'd want to put in your cap. That's the least I can say.
The documentation is abundant. We have done our homework and we hope you will understand that we would like to convince you to convince the Minister. Every amendment that has a financial aspect must be introduced by the Minister. In reading Beauchesne, I realized that this was the case. There isn't much we can touch in this area without encountering a financial aspect. If we change the hours, or any important aspects such as annualization, there will always be money at stake.
If you convince the Minister that reducing maximum insurable earnings makes no sense, you'll be able to get the committee to do some real work. I assure you we would be prepared to do so and I am certain the witnesses and groups that appeared before us would be as well.
Businesses large and small have made various remarks. One might believe that they had conducted an exhaustive study, but I have been around them long enough to know they sometimes cut corners. It's in the exchange between large and small businesses and with other partners that we manage to find what could be called the social truth, a kind of consensus making it possible to prevent the waste that this bill will cause. It will certainly be a real waste.
I close with the hope I have convinced you. I will continue to try to do so.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Ms Lalonde: No! Oh, no!
[English]
The Chairman: You're not ready for the question?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Chairman, do I have the floor?
[English]
Mr. Nault: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, are these members officially members of the committee?
The Chairman: Yes, they are replacements.
Mr. Nault: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to replace a permanent member of the committee to the great dismay of the people opposite. You have followed procedure and I thank you for allowing me to give my point of view on the unemployment insurance reform question.
.2235
I have not taken part in all the proceedings of this committee. Nor have I heard the contributions of the witnesses who have come before this committee since the start of proceedings. However, having read the documents submitted, I realize that, when some 200 witnesses were heard by this committee they didn't speak only foolishness.
More than 200 organizations made comments to this committee, and I think we should at least respect most of the comments of those people. I would like to refresh the memory of a few members of the Standing Committee opposite by drawing attention to the contributions of certain witnesses. Those members may then report them to the Minister, who will in turn take them into account in his reform by taking corrective measures.
Perhaps you have forgotten these people or organizations because they came here a long time ago. Months and months have elapsed since that time. I'm therefore going to cite a few in order to refresh your memory somewhat. Then I will give you the comments that I heard in my riding, since I also had the opportunity to meet with many organizations which complained on this point.
According to the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union the best thing to do with this bill is to consign it to oblivion. They cannot support the unemployment insurance reform program for fisheries workers as it is written.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour informed the members of this committee that the bill's passage will lead to the destruction of the unemployment insurance program and to the abolition of insurance principles. According to these people, the bill absolutely does not take into account structural employment. I could also cite the New Brunswick Federation of Labour. So it's not only in Quebec that people have raised a cry of protest against this bill.
The New Brunswick Federation of Labour told us that the bill follows the orientation initiated by productive users. The problem is related not to the unemployment insurance program, but rather to the shortage of jobs. It simply stated that this was not a way to create jobs, and they could have continued in this vein at fairly great length.
I would also like to pass on a comment concerning the definitions, which we stumbled over and that brought us to this motion. When you look at the terms defined in clause 2 one by one, you see that they continually refer to other clauses in the bill.
It is therefore difficult for people who have not followed the debates and who were not members of the Standing Committee to make the necessary connections. It was entirely natural to take the necessary time to obtain an explanation of the sense in which the definitions of each of these terms was used, particularly as those terms apply in various statutes concerned by this bill.
We wasted time at the outset. I arrived at 7:30 p.m. For an hour, we discussed the bill for 10 minutes at most and then spent the rest of the time discussing a procedural matter.
.2240
This procedural matter made us waste an enormous amount of time. If the people opposite had wanted to allow the opposition to ask questions in order to obtain the relevant information from the departmental people, we could have moved ahead properly and gradually within the bill since these definitions are, in my view, the foundation of the entire bill.
We cannot ask people who are not lawyers or notaries, who do not regularly work with the law, to interpret these terms clearly. We are being deprived this evening of the relevant explanations and comments that the department's officials could have given us to enable us to understand each of these terms. We have wasted an enormous amount of time discussing procedure.
Let us consider only the terms of clause 5 with respect to insurable employment. Here you have a list of employments that are characterized as insurable. And a little further on, it simply states:
(7) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations for including an insurable employment ...
There are one, two, three or four other points that would require clarification.
At this point, we appear to want to give a great many powers to the Commission and to the Governor in Council when it comes to expanding the notion of insurability. This same language is used again to exclude other employments from insurable employment. This gives the Commission and the Governor in Council a little too much latitude.
To understand what this article means, we could have received highly relevant comments from the officials.
If this federal government bill is passed, it will naturally have a catastrophic effect on employment across the country, but I would like to take the opportunity afforded me by this motion to reduce discussion time on each of the clauses to five minutes to describe to you something of what is happening in my region, the Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean region and the riding of Chicoutimi.
I have met with many organizations and many people, and I must tell you that this reform is putting a brake on the economy in a region where the economic situation is already very precarious.
If you read the statistics of one organization that is paid with Canadian taxpayers' money, Statistics Canada, you must have noticed that my region has had the highest unemployment rate in Canada for many years. That's putting it mildly.
Imagine the effect that the reform may have on this region if it is passed as drafted. It will, to all intents and purposes, erase any chance of survival for the people of this region who have already been sorely tested in the area of employment. These are things that must be taken into consideration.
If this is the situation in my riding, in my region, I suppose the situation is the same in other parts of Canada, as much in Liberal ridings as in reform ridings, or even in our own. We have these situations. Can we afford to tolerate this activity? Can we afford to destroy forms of insurance that gave the people of these regions the opportunity to make ends meet?
.2245
The government continues to turn a deaf ear to the cries of most citizens and most organizations. I don't think that all those who demonstrated against the bill were activists. That's not true. They were not professionals. Nor are they lazy. I'm going to prove that since I've seen it virtually everywhere.
It wasn't necessarily unemployed workers who took part in the demonstrations or separatists. However, the government did not react to the demonstrations, even though they weren't held in Quebec alone.
In my riding there were demonstrations in all municipalities: Saint-Fulgence, Fernand-Boileau, the Town of La Baie in the Lower Saguenay. That's quite a lot of people. There were elected representatives as well. These were people that were accountable to their public.
However, unemployment insurance is not one of the responsibilities of the two councils and RMCs. They are concerned with employment because it is an economic engine, but these people know perfectly well that the unemployment insurance reform comes from the federal government and that the action it currently wants to take will destroy certain economies.
These people had grounds. They had taken the pulse of their public and they had all come to the same conclusion, that Quebec was one of the provinces most affected by this reform.
The proposed reform particularly affects workers in unstable employment. In the Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean region, two classes of workers in particular are in precarious situations: women and young people. Part-time workers are having a great deal of trouble making ends meet.
This reform also penalizes unemployment insurance claimants by increasing the number of work weeks required and reducing benefits. The number of work weeks is being increased, benefits reduced and workers will draw them when they qualify after endless investigations.
The government instead should have announced job creation programs that would have made it possible to turn the economy around, to get the ball rolling. The more people there are working, the more people contribute to the fund, which is going to record a $5 billion surplus and could have had a larger one if we had known how to create employment programs.
.2250
This reform will destroy the national instruments we had managed to build up over time. People who were here before us accomplished things. Today, you want to cut all that down. You want to destroy what has been done. There are things in here that made sense. These national instruments of social protection were built on consensus and we realized that a consensus has formed against withdrawal of this bill.
I assure you that the arguments used by the municipalities and the various organizations are true. This was verified in committee. These are not dangerous people or activists who have come to this conclusion. These are not arguments that were plucked out of the air. They simply represent the truth and this is what people want. They want concrete proposals, not proposals that are going to destroy everything.
I also had the opportunity to meet with unionists, people who could afford not to take an interest in this bill since they have been contributing to the unemployment insurance fund for 20 or 25 years and have permanent jobs. They are lucky because they have not had to use it. But these people nevertheless made their weight felt by standing up against this bill. They characterized it as inequitable, unfair and ineffective. They sent this message not for themselves or for their immediate families, but in thinking of the people who would be affected by these measures, the people who have no jobs or unstable jobs.
It is always the same classes of society that become increasingly poor: women, young people, people who have responsibility for single-parent families.
On this point, I would like to tell you the story of an unemployed worker who simply told us this. If people take the trouble to write and to talk to their member, it's because they want us to be able to discuss their concerns. Naturally, we would have been unable to transmit the message of the people we represent within the short time limit you wanted to set for discussing each clause. We represent people who are having difficulty.
This is what this citizen told me. I told him to put it in writing and we would see what would come of it. For him, the situation is as follows:
- Unemployed workers are not foolish enough not to see that the federal government is
dramatically reducing the number of employees qualified for unemployment insurance in order
to transfer the burden to the other provinces.
- We are not yet alienated enough not to realize that, in the meantime, Ottawa has seized control
of an alleged surplus of $5 million in the unemployment insurance fund in order to conceal its
mismanagement of the public finances.
.2255
He continues, saying:
- We are not yet ignorant enough not to know that the federal government has drained its budget
by distributing its largesse to the various regions in order to buy national unity.
I would also like to talk to you about unemployment among young people. I am a career teacher and young people and their situation are of the greatest interest to me, particularly since it is very difficult for them to find a job.
It used to be that we didn't have time to finish our science programs before companies came to our schools offering jobs. Today, young people must increasingly continue their education. They earn higher level diplomas, master's degrees, but even they are not enough.
We have people who, through courage and the fact that they did not have a job, continued their education and are now doing research. They finished with gold-plated qualifications, doctorates, but then could not find employment. They earned those doctorates with the aid of very small government grants, which cut into research and development at certain universities. People cannot find jobs.
I'm going to cite an economist from my region who works for the Department of Human Resources Development and who informed us that, in recent years, the number of people unemployed and looking for work has continuously risen, and sharply. Those are his words, those are the words of an economist.
In Saguenay - Lac-Saint-Jean, we ended 1995 with 19,000 unemployed workers, compared to 17,000 in 1990. This increase in unemployment is attributable to young people who cannot find work. There is a high percentage of them. Furthermore, this is underscored out in certain documents and briefs filed by organizations during your consultations. When they cannot find work in a region, they leave, virtually everywhere. They show up in other provinces. Then at one point, they swell the ranks of the unemployed in another province. This is the kind of endless vicious circle. Thus, the unemployment rate among young people was much higher than in any other group. And they're not lacking heart.
Why not use the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to create employment programs that will enable these young people to make the economy work? One job created can create two or three more.
.2300
This is a fairly bleak picture of the employment situation among young people, but it is a true one. We must not conceal the fact. Given the way we provide for them, this generation is very calm and fairly steady, but watch out: at one point, they may wake up. And when they wake up, they will ask us to account for our lack of action. We will have to tell them whether this reform meets the needs of these young people.
In my mind, the answer is already known. There is nothing to attract them. We are increasing the hours of work and we are spreading out. We are raising the number necessary in order to qualify.
At one point, they will have trouble paying for their education and, as a result of the lack of action, they will continue to leave their regions and will try to find new opportunities elsewhere. However, they won't find any. They'll come back and, at that point, their parents will have to accept the consequences of their precarious situation.
Does this bill contain a measure to counter this kind of situation? I don't think so. I don't see one anywhere. And I have followed the debates.
The Bloc québécois members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development have constantly informed the public about the progress of the committee's work.
It's not that we're lacking information, but we have not been shown that there was any marked progress that would have enabled people to find work somewhere.
When we talk about young people, we naturally think of occupational training. I have checked the Debates. You will see that the Bloc québécois has pressed the government on many occasions to ensure that each of the provinces takes responsibility for occupational training.
We are currently witnessing the creation of many courses which do not necessarily lead to work activities. We are training people in already saturated fields.
Shouldn't we talk about things like this for more than five minutes? It's not a serious matter that waiting lists are getting longer for courses that do not lead to jobs, but let's not talk about it. We are going to try to solve the problem in five minutes. The faster the bill is passed, the better things will be, but we'll see the consequences later. This is not the way we should act. Let us try to foresee the consequences first.
What will happen once the bill is passed? With this action, we are doing a great deal to make it easier for students to drop out. The fact that students are dropping out of school causes other problems, family problems, alcohol problems, drugs and so on.
.2305
There is nothing worse than keeping a person idle. We have to put people to work, give them something to do, not leave them in misery.
Our generation managed to pull through because there were jobs. But look at what is happening now in the hospitals, in the schools, which are part of the public sector. After 12 years, people who work there still have no permanent employment and hold only unstable employment. This is a discouraging situation.
However, nothing in the proposed reform leads us to believe that this will be corrected or at least that an attempt will be made to find ways to correct the situation. In unstable employment, which is mainly held by young people, in the restaurant business or elsewhere or where employees work 10 to 15 hours a week, there will be no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits under the reform. We have to think about it.
What alternative solution is available? If we want to keep them in school as long as possible and prevent them from working, then let's say it. If we want everyone to get an education and earn diplomas without knowing what they are going to do with them afterwards and without finding work, let's say it. At least, they will be parked somewhere inside a school, inside a building. They will stay there, where we can control them. Is that the solution or is it first to provide them with opportunities in fields where there are jobs and subsequently to offer them programs for finding a job?
We are sacrificing this generation. Let's think twice before sacrificing it. There are some things we could introduce into the reform for them. With these cuts, we are trying to recover $2 billion. With this amount, wouldn't it be possible to design projects that would enable our young people to get by? We could talk about it at length. I am asking the representatives of the majority to have a thought for their children and their grandchildren who are growing up and to whom we have nothing to offer.
Are we merely going to pass on our debt to them? I want to forget about this debt issue for the moment. But in so doing, let's think about what could be done with the $5 billion to help the next generation. It is very important not to make it a generation like the 25 to 35-year-old generation, which is now virtually burnt out. It's a generation that will never be able to obtain permanent employment anywhere.
There is another very important point. The other class of persons seriously affected by the new clauses contained in the reform is women. Under these clauses, women will be enormously affected by the reform. When this population group is deprived of the resources necessary to its survival, the economy feels it.
We all know that women most of the time occupy traditional employment. It is time that stopped. The time is passed when the only occupations women had were those of secretary, office clerk or waitress. They are entitled to something else. That does not mean these jobs are not essential, but they must not be reserved for this group, for women.
.2310
Once again, as I showed for young people, efforts must be made through this reform. Think a little more with your hearts than with your heads. Put a little more humanism into it. The human factor is important. Money isn't the only thing. There are other values that must be taken into consideration. As you are reasonable people, who have impressive experience, who have been able to guide your children, who have managed to preserve the relations established virtually everywhere, I'm sure that your hearts will be sensitive to the terrible news for a number of groups in our society. I'm sure that, by putting a little heart into it, we will be able to improve the reform. You'll be able to do so if you believe in it.
I'll be back a little later. I give the floor to someone else. Thank you.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Proud): Thank you, sir.
Are we ready for the question?
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon (Quebec): I requested the floor and I thank the committee for affording me the opportunity to put forward the amendments that should be made to the social program reform.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is this member filling in as an assigned replacement for another member who is a regular member of this committee?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Proud): Yes.
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: Indeed, I'm replacing Mr. Paul Crête.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on this reform. I have difficulty understanding the motion put by some government members to the effect that we would have only five minutes in order to...
Mr. Chairman, could you ask the member to carry on his conversation outside the room? He is disturbing me. I would have thought that government members would show more respect.
If that motion had not been put forward, we would have been able to examine the whole of clause 2, about which they want to gag the committee by limiting members of the committee to five minutes each. I repeat that if opposition members had been allowed to carry their work as expected...
I was just going through a document that has been distributed and which is produced by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. I noticed that a lot of the opinions put forward tend to reflect ours.
I'm not talking here only of people coming from Quebec or from my constituency. Associations from all over Canada, Canadian associations, federations, Chambers of Commerce, coalitions, umbrella groups, all are represented. I think those people are worthy of credibility because they represent a good portion of the Canadian people, of the people of Quebec.
We should at least have the decency to listen to their opinions which are along the very same lines as those expressed during the committee hearings which I did not attend. However, everybody has heard about the UI reform or the employment insurance reform. Many of my constituents have asked me if I could point out to the committee the impact the reform would have on them.
.2315
I am merely going to restate all the requests that were made by these organizations, these committees, these unions, all of which said that the best thing to do was to consign this bill to oblivion. They said we would withdraw the bill, that it divides groups of unemployed workers. We repeat that it is a bill that should be withdrawn, Mr. Chairman. These are observations and recommendations that were made to this committee.
We say again that this bill in fact offers neither employment insurance nor unemployment insurance and takes no account of the scope and characteristics of the construction industry.
There are certainly people who have reviewed all the measures contained in this bill, which run precisely counter to what the government would like to do with such a bill, that is to create employment and to provide unemployment insurance claimants with a certain amount of support in their job searches.
Nor does the bill reflect the state of the job market in 1996. This bill is entirely unacceptable, regressive, anti-employment and rather poverty-creating. Earlier on, my colleagues noted at length that this bill would affect certain target groups such as women and young people. For my part, I am thinking in particular of the group to which I belong, women.
It is said that women hold 31 percent of jobs in which employees work fewer than 35 hours. The measures contained in this reform will mean that women, who are among frequently unemployed workers, will have to pay penalties when they return to the job market. Women also often hold jobs of fewer than 15 hours per week. In this case, they will not be able to meet the qualifying criteria, which are to be tightened.
I find it hard to understand that, at a time when we have a $5 billion reserve in the unemployment insurance fund, we are taking these kinds of measures with respect to population groups that are currently in difficulty and cannot find employment. This reform does not reflect the current job market. It goes against the amendments the Bloc proposed to unemployment insurance reform bill.
At a time when $640 million will be cut over the next three years and $735 million more in the following years, how do you expect the provinces - I'm going to talk about Quebec, but I know that other provinces will also experience these types of cuts - to ensure ... Insurance is administered by the federal government. However, the federal government does not put a cent into the unemployment insurance fund. However, it is going to force a percentage of people to be uninsurable because the criteria will be tightened.
Who will have to help them? It will be the provincial government, the Quebec government in my case, because these people will find themselves on welfare. In my riding, there's a fairly high percentage of people on welfare who are looking for employment. More than 33 percent of people in certain areas of my riding are living below the poverty line and have unstable employment. These people are going to find themselves on welfare sooner.
.2320
From what I've been told, Mr. Chairman, being on welfare is not a happy fate. And these people find it very hard to get by afterwards. In my riding, a number of people have come to me to say that, when you're on welfare, even if you do everything to get by, it is terribly difficult. Personally, I don't know what it is to be on welfare, but I can believe the stories and the descriptions that these people have given of their experiences.
I am certain that these people do not want to deceive us and that they are reporting, with a certain amount of truth, the situation they experience every day.
I think therefore that this bill should be redesigned. I found it very interesting that my colleagues who attended the committee sittings every day could put questions to the departmental people because that's what was asked of us.
I was very enthusiastic about seeing how many people there were who denounced this social program reform, this unemployment insurance reform and asked us to do the work that my colleagues have done. If my colleagues had not demanded the right to speak on the clauses concerning ... Clause 2, I believe, is the most important. It is the capstone of the entire bill, which defines its structure, and we should not disregard it. If the motion had not been made today, perhaps we would have finished consideration of clause 2 at this time.
I want to congratulate my colleagues for speaking and asking the questions that they are not the only ones to ask. Our constituents are asking them and I congratulate my colleagues for having had the audacity to do so.
It is not easy to take the floor before this committee because, on the other side, not in the House, but in this room, members don't appear to be concerned by all the suggestions that were made to us and all the demands of the various organizations. Otherwise they would try to listen to what the opposition has to say.
If these people found themselves at our table, on our side, they would have every interest in taking up the public's defence. The purpose of unemployment insurance is not to help people who do not have a job. When the unemployment insurance fund contains more than $5 billion that will continue to accumulate over the years and we are experiencing a hard economic crisis, I find it hard to understand that we can tighten the eligibility criteria, particularly when I know that women and young people will be the first victims of this reform.
I don't find this situation very pleasant. Furthermore, I believe that if I were a member of the party in power, if I were sitting with the government, I would no doubt be expelled for denouncing this government's lack of sensitivity to the unemployed.
To permit there to be two classes of workers, regular and frequently unemployed, is to show just how insensitive one is. Two classes of unemployed workers have been created. Those who are considered as frequently unemployed workers will feel responsible. They will feel that it is they who are out of place because they cannot find full-time employment, because they do not have the opportunity to have a full-time job. This is not being aware of what is currently happening in the area of employment.
That people are penalized because they do not have a full-time job, because they do not have a job ... You are lucky here. Perhaps most of you have an annual job and are not required to apply for unemployment insurance. The suggestion that an unemployed worker's income should be reduced one percent each year because he finds himself looking for work every 20 weeks is not the suggestion of a government that is very sensitive to the job market.
.2325
Mr. Chairman, when we talk about tightening the eligibility criteria, of nearly doubling the number of hours, this means that it will be very difficult to obtain unemployment insurance. Nine hundred and ten hours for a young person who enters the job market or for a woman who has been absent from the job market is another way of tightening the criteria that people will have to face.
We hear talk of cuts, of tightening criteria, but when I see that revenues are $5 billion, I say to myself ... The government isn't putting a cent into the unemployment insurance fund. I say to myself that this $5 billion should be used for workers. It's the employees and employers who pay the premiums, but it's the federal government that proposes measures that it no longer even calls unemployment insurance, but rather employment insurance. Why? I find this fairly harmful. This must be in order to introduce certain programs that will encroach on fields of provincial jurisdiction.
Quebec must cope with cuts of $735 million and potential cuts of $531 million announced for 1997-1988. The provincial governments, including that of Quebec, will have to meet these shortfalls. I heard the Treasury Board President say he was going to wait for the provincial governments, including that of Quebec, to announce their cuts. At that point, they will be very unpopular and the government will be able to show that it is the only government capable of providing the social safety net in Canada. I find this is hypocritical.
People may not be as naive as we like to think because they recognize the tactics. The governments that would perhaps be in a position to propose other types of reform are also able to take a fair reading of the situation, Mr. Chairman. They haven't been taken in. We now know where these cuts come from. We know that profits are being made on the backs of people who have already paid premiums, but who will no longer have access to unemployment insurance.
Another measure I find hard to accept is that workers will have to pay premiums starting with the first hour of work. This is one way of collecting more premiums from workers in unstable jobs because, in may instances, they will not have work over the long term. They will have paid premiums and will probably never be entitled to benefits. So this is another measure I find a bit hard to accept.
We know that women often work less than 35 hours a week, even less than 15 hours a week. Although they will have paid premiums starting with their first hour of work, they will not be entitled to unemployment insurance because, under the stricter criteria, the number of hours and weeks of work necessary will be doubled. So this is a measure I find unacceptable and that we are going to continue to denounce.
A number of clienteles will be disentitled under this program as a result of this reform so wished for by the government. We must not be entirely wrong since so many people have denounced the reform. In my riding, I've been asked on a number of occasions up until quite recently whether we were going to speak on this bill, if we thought we could move the government to take greater account of the job market and our current social living conditions.
There are dramatic stories behind all this. There are women who are going to find themselves on welfare. There are women who have trouble finding jobs. This is not employment insurance, as I said. I think we should continue to call it ``unemployment insurance'', not ``employment insurance''. I think that to call this program employment insurance is to twist its meaning.
.2330
This is a form of insurance that we deplore, particularly when a $5 billion profit is being made on the backs of people who have paid premiums thinking they would one day be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits.
Self-employed working women will also be put at a disadvantage by this reform, as well as disabled persons. When it is said that the percentage of people who draw unemployment insurance has fallen from 87 percent to 46 percent, Mr. Chairman, it is not because there are more people working. On the contrary, jobs are increasingly hard to find and the unemployment rate has risen. This is because the eligibility criteria have become so strict that there are fewer and fewer persons who can gain access to unemployment insurance.
I repeat, reducing maximum benefits from $448 to $413 when there are revenues of $5 billion is fairly hard for someone who is out of work to accept. Given these revenues, I would tend instead to think that, given current job market conditions, we shouldn't tighten the criteria, but rather find other methods to enable people to draw their unemployment insurance benefits because it isn't their fault if they're out of work.
However, this reform will penalize unemployed workers. It is a reform that does not take into account unemployed workers and that will make them feel uncomfortable because they won't have jobs. It may be very difficult for them to find another.
We see all the closings that are occurring and that the newspapers report each day: plant closings, business closings and so on. I'm sure that people are wondering when it will be their turn to lose their jobs. These kinds of people, who have always had jobs, may be frequently unemployed in the coming years. The possibility occurs to me as well. I am certain that it occurs to a number of other people as well, who think they may one day be entitled to unemployment insurance. But they may no longer be able to find a stable job. They will probably find an unstable, intermittent or seasonal job.
This bill is not sensitive to this. It's as though society had not realized that there are seasonal unemployed workers and other types of unemployed workers. A seasonal unemployed worker is an unemployed worker who has no choice. A seasonal worker is not unemployed by choice, but because there are no jobs for him year-round. This is not a problem for us members, who are employed 12 months a year, but we could one day be in another job, a seasonal job, Mr. Chairman.
I thank my colleagues for wanting to ask questions. It is important that we be able to answer them so that we can then make amendments to the bill. I do not understand why the government has made this motion.
It is a motion which, in my view, is somewhat undemocratic. The role of the official opposition is to make amendments to bills. We listen to the public and the public tells us that this reform makes no sense, that it does not take into account the interests of people who have lost their jobs. And it isn't just people who have lost their jobs who are talking to us; there are also people who are sensitive to the situation of the unemployed.
So it represents twisted logic and a lack of responsibility. You are proud to say this government guarantees us social security, a social safety net, Canadian unity, that we are living in the best country in the world. But you are able to take $5 billion that has been paid by workers and not give it back to them.
.2335
Furthermore, we are unable to work together, to give a little more for citizens who are out of work or who are currently working and paying premiums.
Another measure I find utterly unacceptable is raising the maximum insurable earnings from $39,000 to $42,000 a year. Lowering the maximum means the sum of $900 million. But we know perfectly well that it's the big businesses that will benefit because they are the businesses that pay high salaries. So beyond $39,000, neither employers nor employees will have to pay premiums. This is an incentive to work overtime.
I find this unacceptable for small and medium-size businesses and for low income earners who will not have this benefit. They will have a smaller benefit because an attempt has been made to gloss over the situation by making them a small gift of about $200 million in overall terms. The premium would be lowered from $3 to $2.95. It is completely ridiculous.
Consequently, for all the reasons I have given, I don't think this is a reform that reflects the actual situation of the market and ...
What, five minutes? To seek by means of a motion to reduce the speaking time of members who take their responsibilities ... Five minutes is insufficient because my colleagues have spoken for periods ranging from 20 minutes to an hour and we haven't finished yet. We have not considered the entire orientation of this reform on a clause-by-clause basis.
I am a bit disappointed. This is my first experience on this committee. I thought the Human Resources Development Committee was sensitive to public opinion and to the opinion of members. The minister responsible for the reform has always told us to make amendments and to make ourselves heard. This is what we wanted to do this evening, but just look at what is being done with this motion.
In any case, we're talking about it, we're talking about it in a somewhat disorganized way. What I would have liked is to consider the bill clause by clause. We're discussing it in any case and you are here to listen to us. However, we could have had a healthy clause-by-clause discussion between government members and those of the opposition. It's not the questions that were raised that have taken time, Mr. Chairman, but rather the objection by the government members.
In any case, I calculate we have wasted a good hour and a half. But it's not over with and we don't want to discuss it. I have heard only one question that has been the subject of two or three addresses, Mr. Chairman. A number of questions were asked to which we tried to obtain answers from the department's people. If we had taken up the process seriously, we would have been able to put the questions to the departmental officials and the government members.
It is incredible to see how unacceptable this reform is for women, young people and for people who have unstable unemployment, part-time jobs, who are subject to irregular schedules and who find themselves without pay, once again in unstable conditions. That's the nature of the current job market.
I have a daughter at home. I see that it is hard even when you have degrees. When I was young, we were told that learning was a resource. We could normally hope to find work. Now, young people finish university and can't find jobs.
.2340
True, it is still said that university graduates may have more opportunities to find work. But you also have to think of others and the others are those who have lost unstable employment and people who too often find themselves unemployed.
When we use the expression ``employment insurance'', we are playing with words. It's a very ironic expression. But this isn't employment insurance because employment insurance would include aspects of occupational training, a provincial field. This reform bill also does not take into account the will of the Quebec government and all stakeholders in the labour community, unions, the CNS and the FTQ. There are a number of stakeholders, including the Conseil du patronat. Quebec's will is not being taken into account. It is they who will make employment policy because that policy will have to be flexible and adjusted to the realities of the market and the community. The policy we have here will not allow that.
All this reform will make it possible to do is introduce programs. That's why it is called employment insurance because employment insurance will give the green light for programs that will encroach on provincial jurisdictions, that will overlap with provincial organization charts, and give the green light for agreements with community organizations. It is a pernicious reform.
The members of the Bloc québécois were elected to speak about sovereignty, but also overlapping and duplication, about waste and the mismanagement of these types of programs. This disregards Quebec's will, the will of the population of Quebec, and you will pay the price for it at the next election.
Instead, I would invite this government to consider carefully all the amendments, observations and recommendations made in committee so that this reform can be improved.
As you know, I have seen matters progress. The social program reform started slowly, then we saw increasing numbers of groups oppose it. Well, they can't all be wrong. If it could be said that it's only the Bloc québécois members who oppose this reform, perhaps I would have tried to see whether it was not desirable. But this reform is not desirable, Mr. Chairman. It's not what we want. It doesn't take into account the precarious situation of many workers and unemployed workers if the probation weeks and hours are increased and benefits reduced. This is not a reform that will enable our people who are penalized by job shortages and plant closings ...
Instead I would invite this government to be more attentive and show greater solidarity. You talk about the social safety net and national unity. If you take these principles to heart, try to understand what is going on among citizens by introducing a real reform - you have a $5 billion surplus - a reform that would take into account workers and those who find themselves unemployed.
I'll close my remarks here. I am certain that my colleagues will have other good suggestions to make and that you will be attentive to them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Nault: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Point of order, Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Has the member been given the proper documents to fill in for a regular member of this committee?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Yes, he has, Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mr. Nault: Before the member makes his point of order, he's not a sitting member because he changed places with that member there, so he has no right to speak in committee.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): I'm sorry, but at this moment he is a sitting member.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, it is clearly stated in the Standing Orders that all members of the House are entitled to take part in debates. It is very clearly stated in the Standing Orders. We read this earlier as it appears in Beauchesne. We can find the passage in question.
.2345
All the members of the House of Commons are interested in the unemployment insurance reform. It will have an impact no matter in what province of Canada you live. There are decisions that will have effects in each of our ridings. I believe it would be very ill-willed to try to prevent a member who wishes to speak, who has taken the time to come here at an unduly late hour to take part in the debate. It is important for each interested member to have the right to speak.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): On a point of order, Mr. Allmand?
Mr. Allmand: I am afraid that what the honourable member has said is not correct. Any member of the House of Commons may come to the committee and may participate in the proceedings of the committee, with the permission of the other members. Usually that permission is given, but it's the committee members who have first priority on discussion before the committee. After those members have participated, we can hear from other members by agreement. Usually that is done, but not in all cases.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Nault, on a point of order.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, let me make this very clear and simple. If the facts, as the member has portrayed them, were correct, then whenever the NDP or any Conservative member wandered into our committee, the committee would not have the right to restrict their movements or whether they could ask questions or make comments.
If the clerk would read the entire article, you would see that in the last part of the article it suggests that the committee will decide whether members can make interventions, and if there's no agreement by the committee, regular members or substitutes for regular members will make those interventions.
That's been a longstanding practice in this House and it's well known the standing order reads that way. I am surprised the people at the front don't understand that, because the other day the NDP could have asked all the questions they wanted of Bob White because they are not sitting members. Whether they are associate members or individuals, they have to sign on as regular members or substitutes in order to speak in this forum.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you, Mr. Nault.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'm not at all surprised that the member is unfamiliar with the Standing Orders because we have been able to rebut his remarks four times today. I find it quite surprising that this would happen to a very experienced members.
I'm going to read Standing Order 119.
119. Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House of the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
So he may speak as much as he wishes and the parliamentary secretary is entirely mistaken.
[English]
Mr. Nault: I'm sorry, but you missed part of the clause.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Okay, for this moment -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, it is my right to speak that is in question here. I have risen on a point of order several times today. This is the fourth time that we rebut him. He is an experienced member who is trying to take advantage of the fact that we have less experience. He also thinks he's going to manipulate the opposition as he wishes. We have put him in his place on a number of occasions. I hope he will understand once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, do you recognize that the passage I have just read permits the member to take the floor?
Doesn't the Standing Order I have just read give my colleague the right to speak?
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Mr. Crête, the clerks are going to refer this, but at this moment Mr. Brien has the floor - and is a signed-in member.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Despite the harassment of our colleagues opposite, who want to prevent me from speaking, I am nevertheless going to speak, briefly, I hope. However, I have many things to say and I'm going to speak fairly slowly to ensure that everyone can hear me.
I find it unfortunate, for example, that one of my colleagues used the expression ``damn idiot'' while I was speaking, not knowing exactly whom he was addressing.
As you know, however, while these are not proper words in Parliament, perhaps they are in the committees.
I also find it unfortunate that, while we are speaking on such an important topic, some members are entertaining themselves by playing cards on their computers rather than paying attention to such an important debate.
.2350
I was in my office when I heard about the debate that was taking place here this evening and when I heard that they wanted to limit my colleagues, who, like any parliamentarian, wanted to speak their minds and analyze more thoroughly each of the clauses of such a fundamentally important bill, I realized then that I could not stay without speaking and expressing my views.
As you know, this is probably the most important bill since the election. It affects the daily lives of many citizens. Mr. Chairman, have you thought of it? Limiting the analysis of each of these clauses to five minutes of debate is completely crazy. It is tantamount to ridiculing the parliamentary system which the government said it wanted to amend in the Red Book, which you must be familiar with since it was your election campaign document.
I'm showing it to you to be sure that you remember it. This was your election bible: parliamentary reform, respect, dignity of elected members and all the rest. It's true that you were in opposition when you drew up this document. You have probably changed your mind for a number of ... No, thank you, I don't want an autograph. If I have it autographed, it certainly won't be by you.
I don't know what you're saying there, but I feel you are very concerned by the debate under way.
Mr. Chairman, limiting each address on each of the clauses to five minutes at a time when many citizens are going out into the streets even as we speak is profoundly arrogant on the government's part. There were 5,000 people in Rivière-du-Loup on the weekend demonstrating against this reform. Very many people have done so in recent months and recent weeks, mainly in the Maritimes, but also in Shawinigan. If you don't know Shawinigan, I would remind you that it is your Prime Minister's riding.
These people are wondering who is going to represent them, who is going to defend them, whether there are people in Parliament who are going to seriously take their considerations, their demands, into account, without necessarily making reprisals if they demonstrate against the government. We saw all kinds of things during these demonstrations that showed a certain intolerance on the government's part. We even saw our Prime Minister attack demonstrators. It was quite scandalous.
I would have liked to see the reaction of the members of the Liberal Party if a Conservative Prime Minister had done the same thing a few years ago, to see how vehement their reaction would have been to such an action by a Prime Minister.
But this shows how the reform has touched a sensitive cord among a number of members who I imagine must be bringing pressure to bear in their caucus. The pressure on the Prime Minister and his ministers is rising. They're ultimately becoming a little annoyed at seeing that they may have made a mistake.
This evening, I was speaking by telephone with a friend who told me that she was soon going to lose her job, as is the case with many young people who hold unstable employment, contract workers who don't know whether they're going to be renewed. This person, who is nevertheless fairly optimistic by nature, told me that she did not know whether she was going to manage to find another job, but that she thought so. However, she expected to receive unemployment insurance benefits for a certain time. She was quite concerned about the amendments that were going to be made. Not everyone knows the actual consequences of the reform. People often learn them as they go. That's why this person wanted to have some information. In her misfortune, she may lose her job before July 1. I told her that her case fell under the present act, which is quite a small consolation.
These people are concerned. This shows one thing, Mr. Chairman, that there is concern. People are thinking that something is happening, that things will become increasingly difficult. They're wondering what to do to maintain an acceptable standard of living in the meantime or when they will be subject to a new process.
As to young people, when they lose a job, they often need more training, specialization in a more advanced field, in order to find a job with even less resources than previously, not to mention all the linkage difficulties between the federal and provincial programs, the loan and bursary system and so on.
.2355
[Translation]
This is only an introductory statement. I'll get back to this and look at the question from a broader point of view and target a few things more specifically. I'll come back to it later,Mr. Chairman, because I think it's unacceptable to try and limit those debates.
So I'll use the time we have available, during debate on the motion, to put forth certain points of view. In my riding, just as elsewhere, there are a number of people concerned with the future of the unemployment insurance system.
What brought us to this? How is it that we're here tonight, perhaps not all of us interested in the matter but some certainly are and that's the case for the members of the Opposition, to discuss unemployment insurance reform? Maybe I should include you, Mr. Chairman? I know that you're following the whole debate very attentively and I have a lot of respect for the work you're doing right now. I would simply like to have the same attention and compassion shown by all your colleagues. Anyway, some hopes are unrealistic. So, what has brought us all to this point?
Mr. Chairman, I'm trained as an economist. I studied economics. At one point or another all kinds of economic theories appeared. There was Adam Smith's invisible hand and then the more Keynesian approach with John Maynard Keynes whose economic theories are applied, in part, in most of today's industrialized economies.
At the time, only part of his theory was implemented as is often done in other fields. It was the same thing with Marx. The idea of valued-added used by the capitalists was taken from Marx or was mainly inspired by him. Of course, some capitalists wouldn't like to be known as disciples of Marx, but that's what reality is all about.
To get back to my friend Keynes, he said that the state was a very powerful lever and that when the state spent money, there were multiply our effects. The money invested by the government in the economy could have a multiplier effect and in hard times, the government should put money into the economy. On the other hand, in good times, it should make sure to decrease the level of indebtedness and its deficits to bring them back to a tolerable level.
The government only heard the first part of the message which was to spend during periods of recession which means that after several economic cycles, we wind up with a very high level of indebtedness indeed.
We're facing a major problem. No one from the Bloc québécois would try to deny there's a problem in our public finance. Nobody denies that. The problem is with the approach used to bring our indebtedness back down to a tolerable level.
Since we've been in Ottawa, we've seen two main areas targeted. We might even speak of three because the public service was restructured. However, the two more specifically targeted areas were transfer payments to the provinces and unemployment insurance. Now, you can do percentages, draw up the tables, add equalization payments, do whatever you will, produce statistics with every set being more useless than the other, at the end of the day in real dollars and in absolute numbers, transfer payments to provinces will be lower today than they were when we got here. Transfers to provinces, Mr. Chairman, are used for health, education and social aid.
The federal government is chopping about one third of its budget in those areas and another third in unemployment insurance. Do you know what the consequences are when you cut unemployment insurance?
If the person who phoned me and whose case I raised a little earlier doesn't find any job after his unemployment insurance weeks have run out, what's going to happen to him? Welfare? Who's paying for welfare? Provincial governments. At one time, the federal government paid for half. That's not the case anymore.
So provinces will be faced with an additional problem. More burdens are being loaded onto their shoulders. People here are patting their backs, especially our Superman disguised as our minister of Finance, because our deficit has been wrestled down to 3% of our gross domestic product. I can already see us in Parliament in February or March next year at the dawning of probably a new election campaign while he's announcing that he has just attained his objective of bringing our deficit down to 3% of our gross domestic product. And I can see you all, dear friends on the government side, rising in a monster ovation without any consideration for the way it was done nor for the medium and long term consequences.