Debates of April 11th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act, 1994

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I thought that the member from the Reform Party was going to be talking about the CBC. He started talking about the CBC in his initial comments and started quoting on the program that we could watch with great anticipation and delight this evening.

I do not know whether he had the occasion to watch Venture last night. It was talking about the BBC and the types of programming that the British Broadcasting Corporation has.

When watching the breadth, the depth and the scope of what is allowed to be broadcast in the UK as opposed to what our CBC is allowed to broadcast here in this country I felt slightly ashamed. Here we have a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that we are literally starving to death and not allowing it to use any amount of intellect as to the type of broadcasting that it can show us.

I had to stop and think that it probably had to do with money. It had to do with the amount of money that we were giving it. If we are going to starve it to death then we might as well put it out of existence. We might as well not have a CBC as to allow it to slowly starve as to what it is allowed to show us.

I think we are being very shortsighted and I would like to hear the comments of the member opposite on this. I think that the CBC was created the same way as our railway system was created in this country because we are such a vast country. We need to know what is happening in Northwest Territories and in Yukon or even in Alberta for the information of the Reform member.

There is nothing more enjoyable to me than driving home at night, I live in the nation's capital, listening to that program broadcast from coast to coast and I can hear what is happening in Newfoundland or I can hear what is happening in British Columbia. I can find out what is happening in this wonderful country.

My question to this member is does he really believe that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a role in this country in broadcasting? If he does, how does he expect it to accommodate what we as Canadians would like to see on its programming with the type of money that we are allowing?

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member opposite, the program that we were both watching last night was 60 Minutes , another American program.

When the hon. member mentioned driving along she was talking about the CBC radio program As it Happens that I think many Canadians listen to regularly.

I think if we were to say what model would we have for CBC television it would be CBC radio because we have to make distinction between CBC radio and CBC television. If I were looking for a model it would be CBC radio on television.

How would we go about achieving that? All across this fine nation we have public television. We have Access in Alberta and whatever it is B.C. and we have TVO in Ontario and in Quebec and in the maritimes. They are the educational television networks. They are all struggling for money. They can barely survive.

Would it not make sense for the CBC rather than to be telecasting the dribble that it is telecasting tonight in prime time to be taking some of the programs that are on Access and start working toward that?

The CBC last year started to sell itself as "flash, the public broadcaster". In my view what it is trying to do is live off PBS. It is trying to be a Canadian PBS but it is not.

Let the CBC become a public broadcaster. Let the CBC broadcast BBC type programming and get out of commercial programming. Why is CBC competing with CTV for the broadcast rights of the Olympics?

It has to be either fish or fowl and if it is going to compete in the private sector then let it compete in the private sector on a level playing field and not get one cent from the public purse. If it is going to get money from the public purse and call itself a public broadcaster then stop telecasting this dribble and become a public broadcaster and that is all I am suggesting.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise after my friend who talked about 60 Minutes and As It Happens . There is some confusion here.

I am wondering if my colleague and friend from Edmonton Southwest would mind if I would change channels for a moment and talk about something he discussed about unemployment insurance.

His comments were, and I am sure my hon. colleague would like to correct this, that hundreds of thousands of people are milking the system in Canada who are on UI. I am sure he would like to rephrase that statement because although we acknowledge that there are some abuses in the UI system and there are ways we should correct the UI system, when we have the number of people we have in this country collecting UI while they are looking for other jobs they are very honourable and very fine Canadians who are out looking for work.

I enjoyed very much the personal experience that my colleague had the opportunity to bring to the attention of this House but I would like him to correct if he would the misconception that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who are milking the UI system.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a tragic number. There are over 1.5 million people in Canada today who are out of work. There are social costs in being out of work. It is not just the financial costs, it is the lack of self-respect, the lack of self-worth experienced when people are unable to get that job. I know very closely from personal experience that the sense of self-worth and self-confidence really starts to go.

At the same time, while certainly there may not be hundreds of thousands, there are many thousands. We all remember the UIC ski team. We all know of circumstances in which people are

using the system. The system allows itself to be used that way and people are not stupid.

If our largesse has the built-in ability for people to use it, it also has the built-in ability for people to abuse it and unfortunately we have become for one reason or another a nation that does not look askance at people who abuse the system.

If people cheated on their taxes they were considered to be criminals. Every day now people are avoiding taxes, the GST. People are using the unemployment insurance or other welfare entitlement programs and feel they are entitled to them.

I think we have really lost something in our country when we became a nation of entitlements or benefits or rights rather than responsibilities.

I think the germ of the same thing is there that we as a nation have forgotten the fact that we are a people with responsibility to the nation. Every word we ever hear is about the rights that we as individuals have from the nation. We have to turn that around somewhere and I think it starts right here in this House.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer one observation as a result of the remarks of the hon. gentleman pursuant to the CBC.

He may or may not know that I spent 18 years at the CBC and so I know a little about that corporation.

What he neglects to say is that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation finds itself in a catch-22. Those of us who are what you might call purists and who defend public broadcasting would be more than delighted to see the CBC get out of commercial broadcasting completely. I really think that a public broadcaster has no business being in the commercial business.

As the hon. member should know, there is a refusal on the part of a lot of Canadians, probably himself, to fully fund a public broadcast network, and so the corporation over the last many years has felt the need to get into commercials even in a larger way.

Then when the corporation does resort to gaining commercial revenues a gentleman like him comes along and complains about the CBC in broadcasting sports events. Sports events in our culture attract large audiences and when we attract large audiences that is how we attract commercial dollars or first of all how we attract advertisers and that attracts commercial dollars. That is the catch-22 or the vicious circle that the CBC finds itself in.

Do not complain about the CBC's involvement in commercials. It is forced to because of the refusal to support it well as a public broadcaster. That is the catch-22 the corporation is in.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do acknowledge the fact that the CBC is in a catch-22 position. In my comments I think I made it very clear that it is trying to be fish or fowl and cannot be both.

I have looked at the CBC, as we all have, for many years. The CBC is going to have to define its mandate and decide what its going to be and how its going to do it and then come to the government and say this is what it wants to be or this is what it can afford to be.

We cannot keep on going as we are going today. The hon. member is right, if I had a choice between the CBC as it is today, CBC television, and continuing to throw more money at it, I would say absolutely not, not another nickel. If we could have a CBC, a la CBC Radio, a la the hon. member's intention, then I say it is worth contributing to and it is worth supporting. In its present state I do not think it is worth supporting.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to change direction slightly in this debate and talk for a moment about infrastructure. That is a keystone part of this government's budget and I would like to give the very narrow example of what that infrastructure program is already doing for my riding.

Before I go into that detail I would like to put a little anecdote together. Some 10 years ago I had the occasion to go on a courtesy flight in an aircraft of the Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum. The Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum operates from Hamilton civic airport in my riding and had at that time a collection of some 40 World War II vintage aircraft, that is pre-war and immediately post-war. I had the happy occasion to go up in an aircraft called the TBA Avenger. It was a torpedo bomber used in the second world war, chiefly in the Pacific, and this particular bomber was flown by the Canadian air force during the second world war.

I flew in the rear gunner position. The airplane was used in mock manoeuvres and it was quite an incredible airplane. The Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum also had a Hurricane and did mock dog fights and there I was. The airplane was diving and climbing and it was quite an exciting experience. It was a very daunting experience, I have to say.

While I was on that flight I could not help but realize that this was the real point of this museum. This airplane that I was in, this World War II airplane, was a full working airplane. It was not just a museum piece. It was something that had been restored, lovingly restored, and was in full flying condition even though it was almost 50 years old.

I have to tell the House a sad thing about that aircraft. A little more than a year ago it was destroyed in a fire in a hangar at the Canadian War Plane Heritage Museum at Hamilton airport, along with a Hurricane from that same vintage. This was a terrible disaster to the museum which has become in the Hamilton region one of the stellar attractions. The museum had

at that time about 40 aircraft and attracts about 80,000 visitors a year. In that fire five aircraft were destroyed and it was a very sad thing.

I wish to report however that the War Plane Heritage Museum which is chiefly staffed by volunteers, with over 6,000 members, has risen from the ashes. It has done more than that. Not only has it embarked on a very aggressive program to replace the aircraft that were destroyed, it has also put forward a proposal to build a brand new museum on the Hamilton airport property as part of the infrastructure program. It has actually put a proposal forward.

This proposal has gone before the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council and it has basically agreed to partial funding. The council is going to put up $1 million and the museum is going to come up with the other $3 million through donations and various other means and then we hope to have matching grants from the province and the federal government to bring the total cost of the museum to $12 million.

The plan is a beautiful one. They want to put up a museum which will be right next to the airport terminal. It is going to shaped like the fin on the tail end of an airplane and there will be two large hangers on either side in which to keep the restored aircraft. There will be a viewing area and all that kind of thing. It is going to be fairly close to where they are going put the new highway 6 bypass. It is going to be a very attractive project.

This seems to be a rather odd thing to be a candidate for an infrastructure program because we think more in terms of roads and bridges. The region is using much of its $53 million allocation for just that purpose. This project incredibly fits right into the infrastructure mandate as laid out in this program. It is going to create jobs and it is going to be operated by the people who have put it together.

The thing that makes this project so exciting is not only is it going to create jobs, it is going to create enormous attention for the War Plane Heritage Museum which as I explained already attracts 80,000 visitors a year and we can expect it to attract 160,000 visitors a year when this is completed. Therefore, we will see jobs created.

The thing that is so delightful about this project is that it really is a project that celebrates our past and our identity as Canadians, even though it is an infrastucture project. This is the thing that is so beautiful about it.

For instance, one the the most stellar aircraft in the collection is a Lancaster bomber which is one of only two Lancaster bombers in the entire world that will still fly. That is the kind of object that is in this museum.

The reason I bring this up is that to my mind it just shows how a program like the infrastructure program that has been presented by this government can be taken by regional politicians and by ordinary people and be made into something that can inspire our fellow Canadians, can celebrate our past and be a very fine thing for everyone involved.

I think that other communities will take this program and do many things similar to this. It is a very fine program and a very fine budget.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand that the member is dividing his time. The hon. deputy whip to the government, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on debate.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

I want to start by congratulating the Minister of Finance for having brought forward such a balanced budget for our country. Mr. Speaker, lest you think that I am partisan when I make these remarks, which is probably the furthest thing from your mind at this point, let me tell you what others have said about the budget.

John Reid of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association says that the budget sends a good message for the economy and our rapidly changing job structure. Is that not great?

Ted Bryk, president of the Canadian Home Builders Association-an appropriate name for a job like that-said: "I think it is fantastic. I see it as a really positive move that will encourage young buyers into the housing market". This is in reference to the extension of the RRSP Home Buyers Program.

"It is a huge incentive for small business to create business. You take a tax off jobs, you get more jobs". This is in reference to the cut in UI premiums by John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Even bankers have said that this is in bankers' language a good budget. Mike Chandler of the Royal Bank says that the market seems to have given the budget a passing to good grade. Considering bankers' compliments as they are, I consider this to be pretty complimentary.

So, as you noted, Canadians agree that this budget is good for the future of our country. It is not only commentators who made comments on this; we have already seen the effects of this budget, and also the effects of having a government that we can trust, and we see it in the reduction of the unemployment rate since the Liberal government took office.

What has this meant? It has meant that in March the unemployment rate had fallen to 10.6 per cent. Of course that is still way too high but we have only just begun. We have reduced it from 11.1 per cent in February and the month of February had a huge increase in the number of jobs. I say to all hon. members that this is good news for Canada.

So, the infrastructure program is not even implemented yet we are receiving bids and we award contracts.

The other day, I heard the Minister of Finance tell us that, at first, we thought that the infrastructure program would create 60,000 jobs. Well, we were wrong. It will create 90,000 jobs, according to the most recent estimates. And it is not even in place yet.

So, you see, this government is here to serve the Canadian people and to serve them well. We are here, of course, to make sure that Canada will prosper. It is useless to preach despair, as some of our colleagues opposite do, or as those who like to say that we should cut everything and that perhaps the economy will work by itself. No. The government is here to govern. It is here, of course, to have its say for the good of the Canadian people and for the good of our economy.

As a father of two adolescents, I cannot wait for the economy to improve. I have a son of 22 years who is just completing his fourth year of university this year. I want him to be able to have a job, yes, but a good job even more so. I say that we must move now to do these things. Every day we wait to pass Bill C-17 is costly.

For instance, I say this to my colleagues from the Reform Party, if the bill is not passed by June 16 in all stages, the Senate, royal assent and so on, it would cost $34 million more pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act. If changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are not made by the first week of July, a one month delay would cost $175 million more. The people opposite say they are in favour of saving money. This would rise to $350 million after three months. That being said, we have waited long enough. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purposes of considering the second reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that as for the House's cooperation, if the government keeps on moving such motions without any warning, the Official Opposition will put an end to the exceptional cooperation it has offered up till now.

We had an understanding concerning that bill; we would discuss it until 7.10 p.m. in accordance with the Standing Orders. But they underhandedly propose continuing the debate this evening without giving us advance warning for our speakers. We refuse to agree to such methods and if that is the kind of game the government wants to play in the coming weeks, I can tell you the Official Opposition will not behave as before.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is now time for comments or questions on the last speaker's intervention. Are there any comments or questions? The member for Richelieu.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the five minutes I have left, I would like to make a few comments on the speech by the member who just spoke.

It is rather surprising to hear him make such remarks when we know what he used to say when he was in the opposition. How dare he come and tell us with a straight face that unemployment has dropped when it has only fallen by one point and only because unemployed workers are now on social assistance. There is nothing to rejoice about.

What I cannot understand is that the member, instead of being ashamed of his government's performance, and trying to put a good face on a ridiculous budget, is boasting about it. He is boasting about his government's performance. He claims that his government has created 100,000 jobs, but with what projects? With what? With what vision? With what performance? This government has no economic vision.

Speaking of the last budget, what did it amount to? It amounts to the creation of 32 or 33 committees of all kinds to consult people, whereas before the elections, they were brandishing their red book saying that they had solutions for everything. They had solutions for everything but when the time came to table the budget, the only solution they had was the same disease the Tories suffered from, which is to consult the people. We have consultations on defence policy, consultations on economic matters, consultations regarding social programs, but no decisions.

And the member opposite dares come here and boast about his government's performance! There is a total lack of vision in the bills this government has presented since it came to power. They have no vision and they come and tell us that everything is fine. They talk about infrastructure, temporary jobs, jobs created with borrowed money. They say they will create 90,000 jobs, 60,000 jobs or maybe 45,000 jobs, none of them long-term. Is it the only thing you have to offer your son who is graduating after four years in university? What is he supposed to do? Work for a

few months at a job provided by the infrastructure program? Is this the best you have to offer your son, sir? Mr. Speaker, through you, I am talking to the member and I think I am getting him upset.

Well, this government, which has no vision, has decided to consult the people instead of making decisions. Consultations like people in bars would have held. You only have to listen to open-line shows to know that people are fed up, that they want decisions, cuts, changes and a fairer tax system.

Why not do something about family trusts? About tax havens? Because the people who benefit from them are the same people who finance your party. Now that you are in office, you do exactly what the Conservatives did. It is your turn to enjoy pork-barrelling. Instead of saying "We will not do as the Conservatives did", as you promised to do while in opposition, you have not changed a thing. You come up with the same kind of budget, the same kind of statements. You brag about decreasing the unemployment rate, when you had nothing to do with it. You brag about creating jobs, even though not one program has been set up since you came to office, and no economic direction has been given. You are behaving exactly like the Conservatives did in 1984.

You had five months to answer my questions, dear colleague. Five months to let me know of your government's intentions through statements by ministers and a budget that holds up. But no, we got nothing at all.

I would be pleased if the hon. member could give me an answer, albeit a short one. You have already talked too much, that is why I did not leave you much time to reply. I would like the hon. member to tell me how he can be proud of what his government has done, since the unemployed have seen their benefits reduced, as of April 1, and have lost $1 billion-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a question or a litany. I thought it would never end.

The hon. member asks us why we are in favour of consultations with regard to family trusts. Does he not remember that it was his own colleague, the opposition finance critic, who called for consultations? You see, we are so receptive that we are even willing to take advice- not too often, of course-from a member opposite.

The hon. member questions us about the budget, claiming that the general public does not like it. I will read you a quote: "The federal Finance Minister's first budget is modest but true to what the Liberal Party told Canadians during the last election campaign. It will not please those who, like the Reform Party, want to slash spending across the board. But, for once, it spares the vast majority of taxpayers who already shoulder a heavy burden." That quote is from Le Devoir .

Would you like to hear another one, Mr. Speaker? Here is what the Vancouver Sun had to say: ``Mr. Martin kept his word. He gave us a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that will reduce the deficit a little without compromising a fragile recovery.'' Canadians across the country are saying unanimously that it is a good budget.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express to this House my support for the amendment moved on March 25 by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, respecting Bill C-17, an Act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

How can we endorse these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act? How could we support this government, even for one minute? Do you think we were elected to help the government swap its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs for bang, bang, bang? That is the sound of unemployment insurance reform crashing down on the heads of the unemployed if we allow the government to come down hard on them, because that it what it intends to do, Mr. Speaker.

In moving her amendment, my colleague gave two reasons why this House should refuse to proceed with the second reading of this bill. I fully agree with them. How will the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act redress the imbalance between have and have-not regions? Where are the measures to reduce youth unemployment? How does the government explain its pursuit of a conservative policy and the finance minister's refusal to cancel this year's increase in unemployment insurance premiums?

These are all questions that I have been hearing from my constituents and that are being asked across Canada. Is the government deaf? I hope that it is not and that it will take these concerns into account. The people deserve more than recycled conservative policy.

There is nothing in this bill that leads us to expect that the inequities between the provinces will be eliminated. Who will be affected by the amendments to the unemployment insurance system? Quebec and the Maritimes. Increasing the number of weeks needed to qualify for benefits affects mainly the Maritime provinces and Quebec. In the regions hardest hit by unemployment, people will have to work two weeks more to obtain benefits, that is in regions where unemployment is over 16 per cent.

Let us suppose, an unpleasant hypothesis, that this measure had applied in the past few months. Seven of thirteen regions would have been affected in the Maritimes and six out of thirteen in Quebec. In real terms, we are talking about 277,000

unemployed people in Canada, of whom nearly 210,000 live in these regions suffering from the economic climate.

Many young people who have to rely more and more on insecure employment will be victims of these measures. They will not collect UI, no, they will have to live on welfare. What a program, Mr. Speaker!

We learned some good news last week: unemployment had declined. Bravo! But that is mainly thanks to the economic recovery in the United States, so the government should not boast. Nothing in its budget has helped the economy recover in this country, Canada. But at least, if the economy is recovering, the government should not put obstacles in the way of those who want to participate in this economic recovery.

When I hear the Minister of Human Resources Development say that he wants to require beneficiaries to work for longer periods to qualify for the same number of weeks of benefits, my hair stands on end! As if the unemployed chose to be out of work. That is not the problem, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment in our area is due to the lack of jobs and to the fact that more and more people have to go from one temporary job to another.

Do not mention the infrastructure program to me; it only creates temporary jobs, not real permanent jobs. There is nothing to give confidence back to the 1.5 million unemployed people throughout Canada and the 428,000 in Quebec. No. The eligibility conditions will not be tightened and the number of weeks of benefits will not be reduced. It is a big deal.

As I just said, the result will be to shift claimants from unemployment insurance to welfare. This passing the buck to the provinces, which is what it is, Mr. Speaker, will cost the provinces at least $1 billion, of which $280 million is for Quebec, according to the figures put forward by three economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal. The government, more generous, no doubt, estimates the costs at between $64 and $135 million only.

Clause 28, Part V, of Bill C-17 is complete nonsense. This clause modifies the number of weeks of benefit entitlement and abolishes the qualifying salary range for UI. As I have just demonstrated, these measures affect areas with the greatest needs. Again, the unemployed do not choose their situation, no matter what certain dinosaurs seem to think in Canada.

Still, according to the previously mentioned study conducted by three economists from the University of Quebec in Montreal, 90 percent of the unemployed in Quebec did not voluntarily quit their jobs. We are talking here about lay-offs, job losses, illnesses or buy-outs. Others are looking for a first job, but are not receiving any UI benefits. Job security is practically non-existent. We have no control over the length of employment. Workers accept casual, precarious or seasonal jobs. Not by choice. It is not that they refuse stable jobs and decent salaries, but rather that only these types of jobs are available. I cannot believe that we must still explain that to the government.

Another point which supports our case for amending this bill is the government's decision not to lower immediately the UI premium rate from $3.07 to $3 for employees, and from $4.30 to $4.20 for employers. The Minister of Finance decided to postpone this move until 1995. I think the good news from last week concerning the reviving economy should prompt the government to reinstate the $3 rate as soon as possible. You know as well as I do how fragile an economic recovery can be.

Cavemen did not spit on the fire they wanted to light. Rather, they blew carefully on it to make it brighter. It is that kind of care that is needed to ensure economic recovery. Why jeopardize the recovery when one could have frozen the rates in January and could still do it with an amendment to the bill?

Not later than last week, the minister of Finance recognized in an interview with Canadian journalists that, considering their current levels, U.I. premiums killed jobs. The Minister of Finance said and I quote: "The problem today is not that we must take fiscal measures to encourage job creation. Rather, we have to eliminate fiscal measures that deter employers from hiring people. That is the real problem."

I am glad to see that the minister has identified the problem. Now he only has to take action. Why was Bill C-17 not brought in with that in view? When a job is botched, there is no shame to do it again. When the government brings in the House a bill which will reduce iniquities between richer and poorer provinces, measures which will create jobs for the young and cancel the raise in both employers' and workers' premiums, it will have done a real good job.

As the slogan of a well-known Quebec humorous magazine says, it is not because we laugh that it is funny. Yet, I feel that this is the reaction of Canadians to the government's promises. The government claims that the reduction in the unemployment insurance premiums in 1995-96 will create 40,000 jobs by 1996. Those who prepared the budget have taught us a few things. Every 1 per cent reduction creates some 1,300 jobs. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that any increase leads to a loss of jobs in the same proportion. The government talks about 40,000 jobs that were eliminated in its last budget. Where will the government re-create these 9,000 lost jobs? In its budget, the Liberal government proposes to re-create these same 9,000 jobs by lowering premiums to their 1993 levels. There is the catch! The government will re-create what it had eliminated. The remaining 31,000 jobs will not appear as if by magic.

I think these 3,000 workers could return to the labour market; is it not the wish of all members of this House to see these 3,000 people regain their pride? This country needs more people working to turn the economy around, but under the current system every time you hire someone, you get hit by a whole lot of new taxes.

The government must be consistent. Yet, it hopes that this House will pass its bills without reacting. It should listen to the Canadian people expressing themselves through us: let businesses and the unemployed breathe; do not stand in the way of the economic recovery; refuse to proceed with second reading of this bill before it is too late.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the government is very interested in continuing this debate but we do not have a quorum.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Clerk to count the members present. And the count having been taken :

[The Deputy Speaker]

We do not have a quorum. Ring the bells. And the bells having rung :

[The Deputy Speaker]

As we now have a quorum, the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James has the floor on the debate.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is on debate.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.