Madam Speaker, I was surprised when the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said in his speech that the government wanted to do this out in the open, not behind closed doors. In yesterday's Toronto Star , however, we read, and I quote:
"The federal government has a secret plan to cut $7.5 billion from social programs over the next five years". Further it states: "The plan was put on paper after Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asked his cabinet colleagues to clarify just how much social reform would save federal coffers before the end of the Liberal mandate".
I was surprised this should happen behind closed doors, but I also have the impression that as far as members from the Maritimes were concerned, the doors were closed to them as well, because that is the only explanation I can find. The hon. member who represents the Maritimes comes from a region that, like Eastern Quebec, which I represent, has been hit very hard. The government is going to create two kinds of unemployed workers in these regions: people who have been on unemployment insurance at least three times during the past five years and those who are employed on a more regular basis.
This is going to be a regular witch hunt. People will be practically branded as cheaters: "Why were you unemployed so many times?" The government also says their benefits will depend on the number of times they were unemployed. This means that two people working for the same employer and doing the same kind of work and earning the same salary might not receive the same amount of benefits if they are laid off, depending on whether or not they were employed regularly. There will be utter confusion!
I suppose we can assume the only jobs this reform will create are jobs in the bureaucracy, because the federal government will do exactly what it has done in the past: increase the number of bureaucrats instead of introducing specific job creation measures that will help the regions kick start their economies. One of these measures, for instance, would be to reduce the employer's contribution to unemployment insurance premiums. Instead, we have something that will further complicate the situation.
I am very surprised to see a member from the Maritimes rise in the House and say he is prepared to put this before his constituents, instead of immediately taking a stand against this kind of proposal.