Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak for long but I hope to speak a little more calmly than the previous speaker did. A number of points he brought forward actually reiterate what my colleagues are trying to do in having this subject matter referred back to committee.
We must view this in light of the review of all of our social programs and proposed reforms to be introduced hopefully later and not that much later in this Parliament. We are going to be looking at the unemployment insurance system and hopefully reviewing it with a view to making it a true insurance program. Also when we are talking about jury duty we may be talking about other jurisdictions such as the provincial jurisdiction as it affects the criminal justice system.
There are so many complications and so many other angles to this whole situation which have not been adequately presented both in this House and to the committee nor for the provinces to have their input. This underscores the fact that before we hastily implement this private member's bill which will cost taxpayers some money and which will broaden the scope of unemployment insurance rather than narrow it to its original function, it would be wise not to bind the hands of the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development on proposals that will have to be undone at a later date.
I speak on behalf of rational Canadians who want to look carefully and make wise decisions rather than rant uncontrollably and emotionally without having put one's facts together ahead of time in order to make smart decisions rather than foolish ones. We have seen past Liberal governments build up the unemployment insurance program and our social safety net to the point that we have to look at reform, restructuring, redirecting them back to their original purposes so that they can help those Canadians they were supposed to help.
Certainly if people are called to jury duty and there are some financial implications, that needs to be looked at. I do not think my colleagues in the Reform Party are saying this is not a valid issue to bring forward in the House. We are saying that perhaps unemployment insurance is not the correct vehicle to deal with this issue. Also a precedent is being set where a private member's bill is going to cost taxpayers dollars. That is why the
Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs had to get up and make rather an elaborate statement to the House.
This is a precedent setting incident. We need to look a lot more cautiously in the light of the total deficit of $540 billion. Every penny must be accounted for. This House has to take more responsibility over that expenditure. We should not hasten to make short two minute speeches and try to slip these bills through without proper consultation and without proper debate in the House.