Debates of April 14th, 1994

Budget Implementation Act, 1994

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since the hon. member was not in the House earlier, I wish to remind him that he should address his remarks to the Chair.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

My remarks are about the budget and I am just giving my impressions of our discussions on the subject.

The Reform Party is not being any more objective about the bill. You heard the last speaker from the Reform Party say that our youth program was a waste of money and that instead we should ask our young people not to accept jobs but rather to become politically active by writing to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Finance and others, which I find totally ludicrous.

I think that our bill is a very sound piece of legislation. We have a good budget that addresses two major problems. First, it addresses the national debt and deficit issues. The Reform Party would like us to shut down the government and take what little bit of money we have left to pay off the debt.

If we did that, we would not be able to provide services and no one could pay a lot of taxes. The role of a government is to provide services to the community; it is not a private industry. Therefore, it has to address the debt problem and cut some activities, some programs. It must also create jobs, and we can see that the Liberal government is creating an atmosphere that gives hope to everybody across the country. What was lacking these last couple of years was hope; people were totally desperate. Young people, students, university graduates had become totally desperate for they had lost every hope of finding a job.

We are now changing this attitude, changing this climate in Canada, so that graduates and even drop-outs can find a job. The youth program is in the works. I find that very encouraging and very positive. There is something positive after all. There are some budget items that I personally oppose. The budget is not 100 per cent perfect. I would give it a mark of 99 per cent, perhaps, or of 98 per cent, at times, when I get up in the morning.

I deplore the fact that the government has put a wage freeze on public servants, that the same wages that have been frozen for three years will be frozen for two more years. I truly deplore it. I also deplore the fact that employees will not be able to get pay increments. I told the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that I deplored the fact that public servants would get no wage increases for two more years.

I appreciated the fact that both ministers promised me that if senior management could find a way to further reduce government expenditures, this two-year period could be brought down to only one year perhaps, or even less. I truly hope so.

Although there is certainly no such thing as a perfect budget or a perfect piece of legislation, contrary to what the members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Reform Party suggest, we are not going backwards. We are not taking two steps back, two steps forward, one step to the side and then one more step back. We are trying to solve problems, the problem with the economy of the whole country. Jobs have to be created. Temporary jobs, yes, and permanent jobs too, but for that we have to create a positive climate where people in the private sector can have confidence in the economy, take risks and further develop their businesses.

It is not with the solution suggested by the Reform Party, that is closing down government, stopping all operations and making everybody jobless, that we will create a suitable climate for developing this country. And we will surely not do it by following the example of the Bloc Quebecois, with their strange

way of twisting everything towards their own goal, to destroy this country. That, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept.

I will be pleased to vote for this legislation. It is not perfect, but I would surely give it a mark of at least 98 per cent.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just spoke of the budget inspiring hope in Canada and among Canadians. Heaven help us if he thinks that is what it is doing.

It is both unfortunate and undemocratic that the government is forcing debate on the entirety of Bill C-17, the budget implementation act. Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill. Essentially it addresses four major issues and lumps them under one bill. Therefore it could be difficult for members to vote totally in favour or against the bill as I believe that each issue merits its own debate.

Having said that, I will be discussing one portion of Bill C-17 which deals with grain transportation.

Bill C-17 would increase production and the government's share of freight rates under the Western Grain Transportation Act from 10 per cent to 15 per cent for crop years beginning on or after August 1, 1994.

A goal of the Reform Party is to change the way the agriculture industry is dealt with by the federal government. The movement of grain to export positions is highly regulated in Canada and that is an understatement, to say the least.

Since 1897 when the Crows Nest Pass agreement became law, the government has regulated and controlled grain freight rates. It fixed and set freight rates western farmers paid Canadian Pacific to move their grain to what is now Thunder Bay.

In the early 1920s legislation was passed expanding and extending the effect of the original rate set in 1897 to all shipping points on the prairies, to all railways and to additional destination points. In short, the legislative action in the 1920s was the most significant turning point in the history of the Crows Nest freight rates for grain.

It changed the system from one governed by a two-party agreement between the federal government and CPR to one by which Parliament unilaterally imposed a national policy by statute. The industry has been paying ever since because of government regulation.

During the 1960s railways began to absorb losses as the cost of shipping grain exceeded the revenue from fixed freight rates. As a result, the railways could not afford to make necessary investments in the grain rail system. The MacPherson royal commission on transport which reported in 1961 concluded that the Canadian railways were losing money on transporting grain at statutory or government set rates.

In 1982 consultations with farm groups were held on transportation policies led by Dr. Clay Gilson. As a result, he recommended payments be made to the railways initially but over a period years these payments would be phased to the producers until producers received 81 per cent of the benefit and the railways received 19 per cent.

One year later in 1993 the federal government's response to the transportation crisis was to enact the Western Grain Transportation Act. The WGTA provided for the continued regulation of freight rates and a subsidy based on the difference between what the producer paid to ship grain in 1982 and the actual cost of shipping grain in the same year.

In essence the WGTA increases the freight rates so that the railways would have enough revenue to maintain the grain transportation system. What about the farmers? What does the WGTA do for them? Government payments to the railways would defray the cost to farmers of moving grain but producers would pay an increasing portion of rail costs over time.

In the WGTA a system was born that has regulations regulating regulations. The previous federal government reduced the Crow benefit from last year of $720 million to $650 million in the current year. The Conservatives planned further 5 per cent reductions next year and the year after if Crow benefit payments were not changed to be paid to farmers instead of railways.

The current government dropped the Conservatives' conditions and instead is proposing a 15 per cent cut next crop year. That leaves the Crow benefit at about $614 million, a drop of $106 million in two years. That means producers are left holding the proverbial bag. They will be paying more for freight while at the same time putting up with big brother, the federal government and its stifling regulations.

I submit that the entire system is flawed, bordering on the absurd. The WGTA prevents farmers, shippers and railways from introducing savings into the system but at the same time with Crow benefit cuts farmers have to use a high cost system with less money to pay for it. The strangle hold that regulations have over grain shipping is squeezing the life out of many western producers. Farmers must put out more money for freight and severe regulations prevent them from using cost saving ways to collect and ship grain.

We are asking the government to consider introducing an entirely new piece of legislation to govern the way farmers move grain, a piece of legislation that is fair to the farmers and railways alike.

The WGTA promotes provincial offsetting programs, distorts domestic prices and promotes railway inefficiency. It is also a barrier to investment in the industry. It is clear that something needs to be done.

We advocate a trade distortion adjustment program to defend exporting producers against foreign subsidies on competing products. The program is all encompassing to the agriculture industry and would benefit producers by taking into account their individual needs.

The program would include an automatic triggering mechanism based on the historic volume of exported products. There would be no producer premiums and legislation would ensure timely payout to affected producers within this same market period.

It is important to vigorously support and defend Canada's food producers against the effects of matters over which they have little control such as foreign subsidies and trade distorting influences. What Canada needs is a viable market driven industry through the application of federal safety nets, programs that are production neutral, not commodity specific.

Canadian producers need to be able to transport their grain to foreign markets without barriers. The federal government is only chipping away at the WGTA, thereby passing further financial burden to the producers.

As the system now stands the backlog and confusion in grain movement are a direct result of the inability of government managed system to serve the agriculture industries. We need only look at the rail car shortage which is not only cutting into sales and costing farmers money but damaging relationships with important customers as well.

Canadian railways are not meeting their unload targets at Canadian ports as required by WGTA. More influence must be placed in the hands of those who have a legitimate stake in the industry, those who rely on the agriculture industry to make a living, namely the farmers. They are the producers and must have greater participation in how the industry operates.

The federal government is proposing to reduce its share of freight rates under the WGTA in the bill. By doing so the government is leaving farmers with the worst of both worlds, increased freight costs and a high cost, inefficient and inflexible system.

The federal government has a good opportunity to change the way things are done in the agriculture industry. Surely it can see that over regulation is crushing the hope of Canadian producers. We need a single program to protect our farmers, not a mix and match of of programs.

There has been some movement in this direction, judging from the recent meeting between the federal agriculture minister and his provincial counterparts.

The government is only justified to protect Canada's agriculture producers from international forces as other countries are continuing to generously subsidize their agriculture industry. I urge the government to continue negotiating the GATT in an attempt to get international subsidies down so subsidies in this country can go down accordingly.

We must work to make the agriculture industry more self-reliant, not only for today but for the future as well.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the sudden flare-up of interest rates could kill the economy which was slowly starting to recover.

To help it recover, to really put it back on its feet again, the government should have given it a helping hand, but instead it gave it a punch in the face.

We were waiting anxiously, but full of hope, for a recovery of the job market. But it is more unemployment that we will have because of rising interest rates. Has the Bank of Canada gone crazy? No, it is only trying to cope, as well as can be expected, with 10 years of mismanagement of this country. I will not pass judgment on its present policy.

In the United States, France and Canada, we are now hearing the old economic debates are coming to the fore once again. How can we revitalize a sick economy, particularly with monetary policy? Galbraith, Sorman and others have, I am told, opinions on this subject which are as clear-cut as they are divergent. People also talk about neo-Keynesianism. I will not venture into this subject because whatever I said would surely contradict one of these prominent economists.

You know what the argument of the Bank of Canada is, Mr. Speaker. For Canada to stay competitive on the loan market, Canadian rates must be higher than American rates. That is the result of our enormous debt. However, American rates have been increasing this past month to quell the risk of inflation there. Consequently, we are told, Canadian rates must also go up. Q.E.D., what perfect logic.

The problem, as you know, is that the American economy is expanding rapidly. We are told that it will not be hurt by this dampening measure. The American economy has a little fever? Put an ice pack on its head. This therapy is quite defensible.

The problem for us is that our central bank thinks it has to apply automatically the same medicine to our economy, which is anemic and needs a tonic. If we cannot raise our rates higher than the American rates, how will we find investors for the debt

securities that we have to issue because of our enormous debt? Is that the financial independence advocated and promised in the famous red book which will meet the same fate as Mao's little red book and be thrown in the garbage with its promises of a brilliant future?

Do you know what it says in the Canadian red book under the promising title of "independence"? I will tell you right now that the red book does not talk about the independence of Quebec, but about the independence of Canada from other countries. And I quote: "A Liberal government will end the Conservatives' junior-partner relationship with the United States and reassert our proud tradition of independent foreign policy". It is mind-boggling! In terms of financial independence, Mr. Dubuc, an editorial writer at La Presse , pointed out earlier last week our complete dependence upon our creditors. The way things are going with this government, our policy will be dictated to us by the International Monetary Fund tomorrow, and the pill will not be easy to swallow. Will Canada, which is ironically the most indebted and potentially the wealthiest country on earth, become part of the Third World?

This is the result of a decade of unacceptably frivolous public management in this unfortunate country. We have accumulated the heaviest per capita external debt in the western world. The time has come to pay the piper. And we do not want to hear this government claim that it has inherited this situation and that it has no choice but to face the music. When did our external debt begin to rise really? The 1970s. Who was in office at that time? The same party as today. And back then, where was our present Prime Minister who takes such pleasure reminding our leader that he was once a member of the Conservative cabinet?

He was the President of the Treasury Board in 1974 and Minister of Finance in 1977, 1978 and 1979.

I shall now come to the heart of the problem, the icing on the cake. The increase in interest rates will jeopardize the recovery and who is going to pay the price? The unemployed. However, who or what is being targetted by the pitiful attempts of this government budget to at least slow down the growth of our debt? The wealthy? Those who benefit from tax shelters? The federal civil servants who are responsible for duplication and overlapping? Ministers' air travel? Not at all! It is always the unemployed who must foot most of the bill we now have to pay in order stop the deadly increase in the public debt.

If we are to go by what Pierre Fortin and his colleagues from the Faculty of Economic Sciences of the Université de Montréal say, the Canadian unemployed workers will have to pay for half the predicted new drop in the federal deficit, even if we take into account the budget for social reintegration.

As mentioned in the same study, since the unemployed end up depending on social security, we are once again witnessing a transfer of the deficit on the provinces. We are talking of at least one billion dollars. The provinces, in turn, will pass a part of it on to the municipalities, which will have no other choice than pass it on to whom? To Canadian taxpayers. We are back to square one. I know what I am talking about because I was a mayor for sixteen years.

It is far from being decent, Mr. Speaker, it is most cynical and unbearable. Only the legendary patience of our two peoples can explain why no angry outburst has yet occurred among unemployed workers and welfare recipients as it would surely have been the case in other countries.

Social peace and the most elementary sense of fairness both call for a fair distribution of the sacrifices imposed by the situation. Since Bill C-17 completely fails to meet those conditions, I will not support it.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today. Naturally, I will follow my party line in opposing Bill C-17.

Why will I oppose it? There are several reasons, the first one being, and I will explain it immediately, my strong opposition, which is not unknown to anyone, to the closure of the Saint-Jean military college and military base. As you know, this will lead to the loss of about one thousand jobs in the Saint-Jean area. When we look at the provisions of Bill C-17, we realize that these people will be doomed to a life of poverty in the short or medium term.

First of all, I would like to explain to this House the whole history of the Saint-Jean area, which has always been recognized as a very high level military region. Several factors can explain that, including geography. We are very close to a river, to the American border. When looking back at the region's history, we realize that the Indians, the natives, were already very much present, precisely because of its strategic and geographical location.

Naturally, that was followed by the arrival of the French and the building of forts. As a matter of fact, my region is known as the valley of forts. Then came the British and their resistance to the Americans, who attempted to invade Canada. In fact, had it not been for that valley of forts, we would probably be American citizens today.

What does Bill C-17 do in terms of the closing of the military college? As I already said, an incalculable number of unemployed people in the Saint-Jean area. I oppose it for those reasons, but also because it is an illogical budget cut that I will explain. It has been put forward in some arguments, and it is still being done today, that Quebec is already under-estimated, under-represented and under-budgeted in terms of national defence spending. I think that in Quebec, National Defence spending is 15 per cent, while our contribution is 25 per cent.

Same thing for the defence infrastructure. Only 13 per cent of the defence infrastructure is in Quebec while our contribution is 25 per cent. The budgetary cuts in this area, as a result of which-as you know-1,000 people end up unemployed, are going to widen that gap since officer-cadets from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean who are going to leave for Kingston are going to be the source of additional defence spending and infrastructure in Ontario to the detriment of Quebec.

The same applies to the military base and the language school. Given the circumstances, teachers would have to leave Quebec to go and teach in other parts of Canada, which would again lead to an increase in the budgets everywhere but in Quebec and widen the gap.

You certainly know also that Quebec will do without the helicopter contract; in fact, we had asked the liberal government to cancel that program. This already represents on the part of Quebec a sacrifice of 1.7 billion dollars. Unfortunately, the government has neglected our recommendation to establish a fund for industrial conversion, which would be a better option than cutting UI benefits and which would allow people laid-off in the military sector to be retrained for positions in other sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, for the time being, that solution is not accepted by the government, which prefers to go after the unemployed with Bill C-17.

I want to come back to the military college and say again that it is an illogical decision from an economic point of view. It has already been proven that in terms of costs per officer-cadet, Saint-Jean College costs a lot less than the two other military colleges. It costs $58,000 per year to train an officer-cadet at Saint-Jean compared to $71,000 at Kingston. We can see therefore the illogical situation created by the Liberal government's decision to close down a military college clearly more productive than other institutions.

As regards the military base of Saint-Jean, you know that it is the most modern in Canada. So how can you explain that a base which cost $180 million will be almost completely shut down since its activities are going to be reduced by 75 per cent?

These are issues we cannot remain silent about. In the case of the language school-and I have documents to prove it-Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Addy of Saint-Hubert wrote the following-and I have his letters here-to his brother, Brigadier-General C.J. Addy: Maybe the issue should be reconsidered because the solution will be more costly than keeping things the way they are. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are also facing an illogical situation here.

We must also remember the historical context in which the construction of the military base took place. That is very important. It was built following a Liberal promise. At that time, there where three major projects underway in the Montreal area. There was Mirabel to the north; Place Guy-Favreau on the island of Montreal; and the base of Saint-Jean to the south of the Montreal Island. It is also illogical because these promises now lie broken and it is Quebec and Saint-Jean that must bear the consequences.

I will say nothing on the death of bilingualism because it was mentioned several times and I am trying to limit myself to fiscal arguments. However, the government had other choices to make. Take for example the ERYX missile project for which the total is now $212 million. At the time, the current Minister of Human Resources Development condemned that project; he disapproved of the amount of money the Tory government wanted to pump into it, some $11 million. Now the government's budget projections show that this project will reach $212 million. All this for a short-range anti-armour weapon system which does not even appear on the list of weapons required by the Canadian Forces in Bosnia. It is not even recognized by the UN as an effective weapon.

So we have a hard time understanding why the government chose to close a college with a long standing reputation and to pump money into a weapon which produces no positive results except the squandering of public funds.

It is often said that the Maritime Provinces are also victims of plant closures, but nobody talks about the fact that they want to build coastal defence vessels. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, these would would be used to clear mines from our ports and harbours, as if the Russians were in a position to lay mines there these days. That in our view is an absolute waste of $746 million. On that point also, I think the budget choices of the government are totally illogical.

There is also the fact that if the officer-cadets currently in Saint-Jean were moved to Kingston, we would have to expand the facilities there and we will still have to pay grants in lieu of taxes in Saint-Jean, even if the building is empty.

A very interesting CROP survey concerning the city of Saint-Jean was published last week. It shows that the government is not backing down and still intends to close the military college and move it to Kingston. We think that the cost of adding to the Kingston facilities and laying off surplus teachers will more than offset any potential saving. This choice was not about saving money, it was not about bilingualism, it was not about culture, it was only, as I said before, about politics. This decision to hit Saint-Jean with the closure of the college was a political one.

The point I am trying to make is that it was a reckless gesture and that the government is not seizing the opportunity to convert the defence industry. We could put money in a defence conversion fund which would help save military industries, while at the same time ensuring that such monies are awarded in a fair and equitable fashion across Canada, as it should be in the Confed-

eration we still belong to. If there are very few military bases and colleges in Quebec, it is because, at the time, there was a trade-off for more military contracts. But with the changing international situation, these military contracts are going up in smoke. Not only that, but the few that are left in Quebec must have spin-offs across Canada.

So, as you can see, Quebec is a loser with this budget and, on top of that, Bill C-17 hits it again. This bill victimizes the unemployed instead of setting up a retraining program for the 1,000 people who will lose their job in Saint-Jean. Once again we are sidelined. The government remains insensitive to our plea. For all those reasons, I am very happy to announce that my party and I will vote against Bill C-17.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few points on Bill C-17. There are many problems with it depending on which area one would want to approach it from.

Often we hear the other side of the House say they are concerned that the Reform Party does not support this or the Reform Party does not support that. This certainly is a prime example of what happens. They jam a lot of different areas all together. If we turn one down because there is something in there we do not like, they say we are against everything.

I mentioned in the past how they did that with the Charlottetown accord. It was not just the other side but in fact all parties at that time. They had this huge, all-encompassing accord. Then after the people of Canada in their wisdom decided to turn it down they forever more are saying each and every part of that accord was rejected.

Some people voted against it because they did not like the fact it was almost impossible to amend it. Some people did not like the way the Senate was set up. Some people did not like the arrangements for the province of Quebec. Some people did not like it because of the concept of aboriginal self-government with no definition as to what it really was. The aboriginal people themselves did not like it. Yet every time now that we come back to one of the issues in there the government says: "You had your chance and you turned it down".

So it is with Bill C-17. The government likes to say we are against the individual parts of this, but of course we cannot be against the individual parts. We are not allowed. We either accept it in whole or reject it in whole. There are many areas in there.

I talked in the past about the transportation subsidies. Unemployment insurance is another example where the government is saying we are turning something down that we should be embracing. The government in fact is twisting our very words.

Under unemployment insurance they are dropping the rates from $3.30 to $3 and then we are chastised for making any comment against its action. The reality is they were the ones who put it up to $3.30 in the first place. Then they say a company with 10 people or 50-I cannot remember the magic number used-is going to save all these thousands of dollars with which it can hire new employees. The reality is that nothing has been saved because it was a charge imposed by the government in the first place.

If it were true, and I pointed this out to the Minister of Human Resources Development before, it should have put the rate up by $3 instead of 30 cents and then dropped it back down. That way the companies would save 10 times as much and all our economic problems would be over.

The reality is whether we should be debating the implementation of this budget at all. It is already out of date. The budget will not work. It has not taken into account the impact and the effect it has had on our economy already, how it has shaken the confidence of international lenders around the world. Our foreign bond credit rating has dropped. The stock market has dropped. Interest rates have climbed and our dollar has dropped. We are in big trouble and it started with this budget.

It is time the government realized this is not a budget that is going to work for Canadians. Instead of debating this we should be setting it aside and working together to develop a new budget, one that will really work and one that will address the real needs of the Canadian public.

We have to oppose the bill because it is the implementation of a variety of acts, some of which might be good but many of which will not work. It works toward passing an overall budget which itself is flawed and already out of date.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position taken by my colleague for Mercier regarding the amendment to Bill C-17 which changes the rules applicable to Unemployment Insurance.

Using as a base provisions contained in the 1994 Budget, the government has considerably changed the rules of the game as far as UI is concerned, without resorting to a special bill. I stress that fact, because the proposed changes are more than a simple change of rules.

This is the end of the redistributional effect of Unemployment Insurance. What people should realize is that workers should not be penalized for the lethargic state of our economy, especially when the government was elected on the promise that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and now looks idly-yes, idly, Mr. Speaker-at the waste of government money and at the sclerosis of its finances.

Up to now, the government has refused to debate its fiscal policy with the opposition. Moreover, it rejected the proposal of the Bloc Quebecois to create a committee to study all budgetary expenditures. However, without any consultation, the government decided to cut into UI, without putting into place the means to help workers. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Liberal members: Where are the jobs they promised during last fall election campaign?

Now that Liberals are in power, do they not fear the mounting discontent among taxpayers? It seems to me that my colleagues opposite, high in their ivory tower, do not realize the seriousness of the situation. They have lost touch with the reality of the employment market. What we need is an economic policy based on employment. We do not need unjustifiable and discriminatory measures aimed at the less well-off, which leave thousands of families with no alternatives and no hope.

As my colleague, the member for Mercier, said so eloquently in the speech she made in the House on March 25, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not reduce the inequities between the rich and the poor of our country, on the contrary. The announced changes do not provide for any specific measure reducing youth unemployment. Finally, these changes do not cancel out the raise in UI premiums of workers and businesses as of January 1st, 1994.

Several things bother me. What is the real purpose behind these changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act? Does the government really want to tackle the problems of unemployment and the labour market or does it simply want to hide its true intentions and have the middle class and the less well-off pay the bill?

The Minister of Finance announced recently in his budget that public expenditure control was one of the main goals of his government. I agree that such a goal of fiscal consolidation is necessary and even noble, but I am surprised and worried that close to 60 per cent of the projected drop in the federal deficit, some $2.4 billion out of a total of $4.1 billion, will be assumed by the unemployed, who are 1.607 million in Canada and 452,000 in Quebec.

According to the Minister of Finance, at least 85 per cent of the unemployed will see their benefits reduced. It is easy to figure out. Is it not strange when one is advocating social values and equity, as the Liberal government did so well?

In terms of equity, the government is making the unemployed pay the bill for its fiscal consolidation. That is an absolutely disproportionate share of the burden. We ask much more from the unemployed than from wealthier groups.

The Minister of Human Resources Development announced drastic measures regarding workers who lose their jobs. He said: "The proposed changes prejudge in no way of the social security system reform. These interim measures were necessary and constitute positive steps. At the same time, we are making additional savings by reducing duplication".

What the minister means is that tighter eligibility requirements, combined to a shorter benefit period, will force UI recipients off UI and onto welfare. These interim, positive steps will cost taxpayers in the various provinces at least $1 billion; Quebec taxpayers alone will have to pay $289 million. What do they take us for! Not all of us are wearing blinkers.

Basically, the federal government is making budget savings at the expense of Quebec's 452,000 unemployed and Canada's 1,607,000 unemployed. I am afraid that reducing the benefit period will be totally ineffective and that this measure will actually be counterproductive and fall short of the official objective.

Increasing the unemployment insurance qualifying period from 10 weeks to 12 could affect many of the thousands of seasonal workers in the eastern part of Quebec, to say nothing of Atlantic Canada.

Sixty per cent of UI cuts will be borne by Quebec and the Maritimes, two regions where we find the people who will be most affected by the increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits. In other words, the fishing, tourist, forest and construction industries will be the hardest hit by this reform. That is unacceptable!

To wrap up, unemployment insurance reform reflects the Liberals contempt for the unemployed. The Minister of Human Resources Development admitted to pursuing the following objective: to force recipients to work longer to be eligible for the same number of weeks of benefits. As if the unemployed chose not to work!

But that is not where the problem lies. So, it is not by tightening eligibility requirements and reducing the number of weeks of benefits that the unemployment problem will be resolved. Unemployment in Quebec and Canada is due to a lack of jobs for everyone and people have to go from one temporary job to another. The proposed reform will do nothing to solve the problem of insecure jobs, on the contrary.

The government claims that the decision to lower the unemployment insurance premium rate from $3.07 to $3 per $100 of insurable income in 1995 and 1996 will create 40,000 jobs by 1996. There is something wrong with that! Last December, this

same government raised the premium rate from $3.00 to $3.07. Moreover, this Liberal government, by its own admission, eliminated 9,000 jobs on January 1 because of this increase in premiums for employers and employees. Is that not sufficient proof that the government's proposed reform is ineffective? And part of this reform is already in effect, to boot.

What does the government really want to do with this reform? Are all the facts that I have just given you not enough to prove that the proposed reform is not appropriate and that it will do more harm than good?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in the debate on Bill C-17. I might point out that although I have spoken many times during the questions and comments periods of the debate, I find it hard to believe this is my first speech in the House. I hope all the folks back home in Prince George-Bulkley Valley are watching today.

In my address today I am going to acknowledge some of the good points of the budget, which I think is appropriate. Our party is not here simply to criticize. Where credit is due we certainly will applaud.

Accordingly I must inform the House that in our opinion there are very few good points in the budget, so a great deal of this address will deal with many of the problems in the budget generally and the negative effects that we feel it is having and will continue to have on the economy of the country.

First, I congratulate the government on certain aspects of Bill C-17 which indicate at least some fleeting recognition of the necessity to curtail government spending within the public service and in the area of transfers to persons and provinces. For example, the government has extended an existing salary freeze for public service employees and has frozen the salaries of members of Parliament. I applaud that. The government has also frozen transfers to the provinces under the Canada assistance plan for the fiscal years 1994-95. As well, amendments to the unemployment insurance lengthening qualification times may encourage some firms to hire and may discourage the abuse of the system.

On that point, it possibly would have been appropriate if the government had looked at putting a hiring freeze on the public service sector as well and let attrition actually contribute to this effort to cut costs in the public service sector.

Clearly these actions could be representative of a step in the right direction. There is some indication that the government recognizes problems surrounding expenditures devoted to public sector salaries, transfers to the provinces and social programs.

Unfortunately this is where the government's foray into the realm of reality ends. Despite repeated warnings from domestic and international investors there has been no significant reduction in government spending. Overall government spending has increased. The reaction of the markets in recent times reflects the government's continued neglect to address the financial problems of Canada in its recent budget.

On April 22, 1993, the present finance minister questioned the Conservative government on its budget. At that time he stated that the Conservative budget was a stop-gap budget that did not address Canada's real needs. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that perhaps he should apply his past comments to his recent budget. In so doing he may just come to an understanding as to why the financial markets have reacted in the way they have. Quite simply, the budget brought down by the Liberal government does not address Canada's real needs.

It is my opinion that the Liberals are on course to add $100 billion to the national debt over the term of their mandate. The consequences of that will cause severe stress to our economy. Specifically it could translate into such excessive tax increases that the Canadian consumer will be left with a severely deflated disposable income and those who would invest in this country, the investors and the developers, would end up having a zero comfort zone.

Our standard of living and our way of life would begin to become dramatically downgraded. The people of the country could be transformed into minions of the state, simply working to feed the government and its insatiable spending habits.

Some forecasters predict that government growth could be the strongest among the G-7 countries in 1994. I believe industry is looking to the government for stability in politics and in taxation so that as a result of the forecast it may begin to develop this comfort zone and take any advantage it can of any upswing in the economy.

Unfortunately it is not the intention of the government to allow industry to have that comfort zone and it has been demonstrated in the recent budget. The government appears to be well on its way to being a major deterrent to economic recovery in Canada as a result of the budget. Nowhere is it more pronounced than in the budget.

It is the opinion of our party and of millions of Canadians that we need serious cuts in federal spending if we are ever to transform Canada into an attractive country for investors. As well we need serious cuts in government spending and some clear indication that the government is getting its financial

house in order if the consumers of the country are ever again to develop any measure of consumer confidence.

The government has introduced some cost cutting measures. However the government will still be running a $40 billion deficit this year. This is because it has introduced 18 new spending programs and 15 new studies.

In the budget speech the Minister of Finance stated that people told the government it should freeze spending and it agreed. That is what he said.

The minister may have agreed with that point but he took no action to implement it. In fact he did the opposite. Total government spending is up from $160 billion to $163 billion. Because of this action and the recent rise in interest rates it is my opinion that the government cannot possibly reach its target of 3 per cent to GDP ratio in three years. It is impossible under the present budget.

Total debt as a percentage of GDP has been increasing steadily over the last 25 years. In 1970-71 total debt represented 21.8 per cent of GDP. Forecasting predicts that in 1995-96 total debt will represent approximately 75 per cent of GDP. By the turn of the century, if current government spending habits continue, total government debt will surpass our GDP. This would mean that we would eventually owe more than we earned in a year as an entire nation. I find this a national shame.

Our poor financial condition is evident in some recent trends in the Canadian economy. The dollar has come under increasing pressure and foreign investors are withdrawing their money in response to the staggering government debt load.

The IMF warned of such a situation last year. It predicted that the dollar would begin to slide if "Ottawa and the provinces fail to cut spending in their upcoming budgets". This is exactly what happened.

The Dominion Bond Security Rating Service recently downgraded its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt from AAA to AA high. Dominion stated that it had no choice but to downgrade the rating since there were no "meaningful reductions" in the government's recent budget.

This represents yet another harbinger that the nation's fiscal house is in disorder and could be on the verge of collapse. None of this has frustrated the Prime Minister and his government. It has not frustrated them at all. The encouraging news that I have just outlined has somehow prompted the Liberal government to embark on a $6 billion credit card infrastructure program.

Interest rates have been edging up as foreign investors see Canadian debt load increasing and as they react by selling off their Canadian dollar holdings. The dollar has lost two or three cents since budget day and as well the government deficits will continue at unreasonably high levels in the short term.

The budget similar to the Liberal election victory is a status quo entity, that is if they do nothing and say nothing they hope to emerge undamaged by public scrutiny. Contrary to the claims of the finance minister the budget is just nibbling at the edges of the problem.

The one area of spending that needs to be reformed and is not, which is the largest government spending program, transfers to provinces and persons remains relatively untouched by the government. Over 50 per cent of our budget is spent on social programs and transfers to provinces and persons. This huge area has been virtually untouched.

Industry, investors and individuals are looking for signs of stability and thereby certainty of the future economic direction of our country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is the hon. member's maiden speech. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to let him have a little longer to finish it. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just about done.

The budget was supposed to represent stability and certainty in the future economic direction of our country. Sadly, very sadly, budgets such as the one presented on February 22 do not provide any kind of stability or certainty. Continued deficits point to higher taxation, individuals are cautious in the use of their disposable income as they see it shrinking and as they see their job certainty becoming more uncertain and industry is looking south of the border for a more hospitable economic climate.

The underground economy is running at about $70 billion a year. This all represents definitive evidence that there are problems with taxation on industry and taxation more generally.

Alberta has recognized the negative effects government debt produces. Accordingly in its provincial budget it has taken measures to eliminate the provincial deficit within a few years and is predicting a surplus. Those people from western Canada hope that will work and they are confident it will.

Other provinces and the federal government must take similar action. Rosy revenue projections are simply no longer acceptable. The federal government needs to take action on this issue and we need action today.

I will just sum up. We in the Reform Party have been constantly speaking about taking action. The government has failed to listen to us. We in the Reform Party will continue to speak on additional cuts that the government has to make to its budget and we have been. We will do all these things in an

attempt to prevent the government's fiscal house from crumbling and come crashing down.

The implementation of Bill C-17 and the budget generally represent the removal of yet another cornerstone of our financial house. It is on the verge of collapse and accordingly our party and I must oppose it.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 is a direct result of the finance minister's great budget. So just about anything having to do with the budget will impact on Bill C-17.

Instead of touching on every aspect of the cuts achieved at the expense of the unemployed, I will move in a more specific direction.

The cuts in the finance minister's budget affect the unemployed, seniors and, in large part, the national defence budget. The defence cuts were wanted by the Liberal Party before it took office; we in the Bloc Quebecois also wanted them so I will not question their validity. Of course, I cannot help but point out that the military college in Saint-Jean is not and will never be part of the acceptable cuts, let alone justified by economic arguments which, in my opinion and that of my Bloc colleagues, have never been proven.

However, section 7.1 of Bill C-17, which deals with national defence cuts, seems vague and shortsighted to me.

These cuts will translate into civilian and military layoffs. Under section 7.1 of this bill, payments will be offered or given to employees who have lost or will lose their jobs due to civilian and military personnel reductions. We must also speak up about staff cuts at the national defence research centres.

Section 7.1 is vague regarding the duration and amount of payments to national defence laid-off workers. It is also shortsighted because it does not offer future prospects to the people who have lost their jobs as a result of the finance minister's budget.

The old saying "instead of giving a fish to the hungry, it is better to teach them how to fish" can be applied at many levels in our society. Why, as the Bloc Quebecois suggested during the election campaign, did the government not implement programs to convert defence industries to civilian production, in line with the red bible of this good government full of good intentions but very reluctant to take action?

When I see companies such as Paramax and Oerlikon after the EH-101 helicopter contract was cancelled, and also in the case of Oerlikon after the end of the cold war, I wonder what markets these companies can turn to.

Unfortunately, I think that the programs under section 7.1 providing for payments to those who will be affected by the cuts leave little hope to the many highly-skilled workers with very limited retraining opportunities, given our current economic environment.

Where do we find in Bill C-17 an incentive to employment recovery? Throughout the campaign, the Liberal Party kept talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, but we find very little incentives, if any. Generally speaking, in life or in the private sector, when corrective action is taken in response to some alarming situation, you try to plan different options.

What options has the government included in Bill C-17 to promote recovery? I have met with people in my riding and they do not speak highly of this kind of reform which does nothing to resolve the real problems. The gap between the social classes is increasing irreversibly. The middle class, which is the government's major source of income, is starting to wonder if the measures we take are not aimed at its elimination. Overtaxed and competing against the underground economy, the middle class could hardly believe the budget. Why were big businesses and trusts still spared, while members of the middle class, who, given the present economic situation, have started to join the ranks of the unemployed, were being squarely targeted by the government?

I said previously that if you taught someone in need how to manage instead of giving him money, that person would become self-sufficient. Here is an original example of job creation incentive. My colleague from Joliette has introduced Bill C-230, which is an amendment to Bill C-17. This amendment would allow resourceful unemployed people to create jobs for themselves and maybe even for others. There are many workers who were employed for eight, ten or twelve years, who were laid off because of the economic situation and who, thanks to their entrepreneurial spirit, created small businesses, thus losing all the UI contributions they made over those ten or twelve years.

Bill C-230 would allow a worker who becomes unemployed and decides to invest in a small business to receive, over a certain period, 50 per cent of the UI benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled if he did not have the will and the desire to start a venture. The break-in period for a small business is somewhere between three and eight months. Such a measure would be an extraordinary boost to job creation!

If a person who worked and paid UI contributions for many years does not have the initiative to create something, that person is entitled to UI benefits while staying at home doing nothing. Yet, if that same person has the will to start a business and needs help at the beginning, he or she simply loses entitlement to UI benefits. If Bill C-17 included measures such as

those proposed by the hon. member for Joliette, I would probably support that legislation.

Unfortunately, the bill contains no incentive; it merely makes it harder for the unemployed to survive and it will only accelerate the transition from UI to welfare, without any measure to help economic recovery. I have no choice but to oppose this bill and hope that it will be amended by including measures such as those proposed in Bill C-230.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about the budget. In particular I would like to say that as this debate has unfolded in the last few days, time and time again hon. members of the Bloc have risen and talked about what a horrible deal Quebec gets at the hands of the rest of the country.

After the last such outpouring of emotion from the Bloc I thought it might be interesting to do an analysis, an investigation, and see how bad it really is. I would like to read it into the record and bring some edification to some of the members of the Bloc. Let me quote from the estimates of equalization for 1993-94 by revenue, source and province.

An hon. member of the Bloc recently talked about the transfer payments and equalization and the fact that: "We recognize we are the recipients of transfer payments, but we send a whole lot of money into Canada, into the national treasury by way of income and corporate taxes".

Let me set the record straight as far as personal income taxes are concerned. I will not go through all of the provinces, but I will if I may outline Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

Transfer payments from the federal treasury to the province as a direct result of personal income taxes: Quebec is the net beneficiary of $1,529,700,000 a year; Ontario pays out $2,137,000,000; Alberta pays out $63 billion and B.C. $199 billion.

On business income revenues, Quebec pays out $78 million; Ontario $175 million; Alberta $245 million and B.C. is the recipient of $109 million.

Let us cut to the bottom line. There is a whole stream of statistics here and any of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc are quite welcome to ask the Department of Finance for the information. They can get it by phoning the Library or the Department of Finance.

Estimates for this year have Quebec being the net recipient of $3.730 billion from the federal treasury. Ontario will contribute $3.946 billion. Alberta with one-tenth of the population of Canada will contribute $4.218 billion and British Columbia, $1.294 billion.

I thought it would be worthwhile to put this on the record so my colleagues in the Bloc and the people of Quebec understand that there is a net benefit to Quebec to remain in Confederation. This is not a one-way street.

The other point I would like to raise in conjunction with the debate on the budget is the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am speaking in support of the changes that the government has introduced and would ask it to consider extending them to some of the recommendations that were leaked in the press earlier.

The unemployment insurance program as it is today is not the program that was envisioned when it was first announced. Unemployment insurance today is a wealth transfer tax. It is a transfer of wealth from those who are working to those who are not working.

That is fine except let us call it what it is. Instead of calling it unemployment insurance, let us call it a wealth transfer tax. It transfers that wealth from one part of the country to other parts on a sliding scale of entitlements and requirements. It certainly cannot be considered unemployment insurance.

I ask members to consider the situation of an employee who earns $15,000 to $18,000 a year, has never been out of work, pays unemployment insurance on a weekly basis and has done so for 15 or 20 years. Contrast that with a seasonally employed person who might make twice as much money working six or eight months of the year. That person is then entitled to unemployment insurance for the remainder of the year. They already make twice as much money as the person who works all year long. Yet the person who is unemployed seasonally gets a ton of money from the unemployment insurance program at the expense of the person who works all year long and does not take any time off.

Is it fair? We have to change the unemployment insurance program to reflect reality. Just as individuals may take advantage of the unemployment insurance program that exists today, so do businesses take advantage of it.

If a business sees that it is going to have a slow time for a month, a month and a half, or two months it is very easy to lay people off and bring them back into the workforce. They can go on pogey. The employer has no fear of losing them as skilled employees because they are not going to find a job in a month and a half.

When laying off employees the employer can tell them: "Don't worry, we will bring you back in a month and a half". What happens? The unemployment program is subsidizing a business and their employee pool. That is not what it was designed to do. That is a business taking advantage of the unemployment insurance program just as some employees do.

How do we go about fixing that? If we were to make the unemployment insurance program a pure insurance program run

by the employees and paid for by the employees, there would be natural checks and balances built into the program that would prevent abuse. If premiums were abhorrently high because other people were abusing it, it would not take very long for all the people who found themselves being abused to get in there and change it.

Therefore, what do we do in order to ensure that those who do not have the resources or the employment are looked after? Canadians are caring and compassionate. We are not going to let people starve in the street. That is a basic understood fundamental Canadian value.

How do we go about ensuring that does not happen? I submit it is time that our country started dealing with situations and problems as they are, not as we wish them to be. If that means that because of the changing nature of work in our country and around the world people are going to be working fewer hours and getting more for it, having more leisure time, then we have to reflect the realities that exist.

If it means that we are going to have to look at a guaranteed annual income then let us look at it. Let us look at these things honestly so that when we have an area of the country with extremely high systemic unemployment, people can say: "I can choose to live here because I like living here. This is where my family has always lived. I am only going to simply survive. If I want to do well or if I want my children to do well I am going to have to do the same thing that my forefathers did. I am going to have to go where there are jobs and where the economy is stronger".

We have to deal with the reality of the economics in our country and around the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be. If we continue to look at this through the rose coloured, rose tinted glasses that we have been we will never start dealing with the fundamental problem we have in our country. The fundamental problem is that there are areas where the nature of work is changing.

We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the unemployment in the maritimes is going to stay high for at least our lifetime. It is tragic but the reality exists that if people who live in the maritimes or in any other systemically disadvantaged part of our country want to do better they are going to have to move to another part of the country where their children are going to have opportunity just as our forefathers had to leave whatever their home country was and come here.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make these points. I wanted particularly to make these points about the value of Confederation to my hon. colleagues from Bloc from Quebec who are constantly reminding the House of how historically disadvantaged they are when the reality is they are not.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank you for doing me the honou of asking me to replace you in the chair for a few moments. This is a true historical event in this House. Imagine, a sovereigntist, a member of the Bloc Quebecois in the chair! Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, will go down in history for that.

I want to discuss here Part V of Bill C-17 amending the unemployment insurance.

Talking about unemployment is talking about employment. Last March, in the Great Chicoutimi-Jonquière area, the seasonally unadjusted unemployment reached 15.5 per cent. These kinds of rates bring us back to the inability of our leaders to manage our primary resource, that is our human resource. Wherever you stand, you have to acknowledge that the situation is tragic.

The mechanism we put in place to counter fluctuations in the economic cycle really comes into play when we go through a period of high unemployment. That is when the Liberal government chose to send a clear signal to Canadians. It makes far-reaching changes to the unemployment insurance plan. Moreover, the government promised jobs. That was the main theme of its election platform, but it seems that the colour of its red book has been fading in the last little while. I see it turning from red to beige a little more every day. What are they telling us now? They are tightening the screws. Following the changes made by the Tories, the Liberal government is continuing to undermine our social safety net.

The logical thing to do would be to create more jobs, not to dismantle the system already in place.

Eligibility for unemployment insurance is reduced, the benefit rate will also be reduced for the great majority of recipients and the benefit period will be shortened.

We are told that the government wants to establish a better balance between the period of employment and the benefit period. It overlooks some countries which do not follow that economic model. One cannot help feeling angry about such disappointing measures which show that the government is unable to create jobs.

According to the budget, there will be a net deficit reduction of $8 billion in 1995-96, but only $4.1 billion of that will result from the new measures announced by the Minister of Finance. The unemployed are the ones who will pay for 60 per cent of the deficit reduction effort, that is, $2.4 billion of a total of $4.1 billion. Even if you deduct the $400 million that the government plans to reinvest in order to help unemployed Canadians get back into the job market, their contribution is still 50 per cent.

How can the government ask the unemployed to make such a large contribution? The government estimates that the repercussions on provincial welfare programs will total $65 million to $135 million. According to three economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal, these changes will cost the provinces at least $1 billion, including $280 million in Quebec's case. Why is there such a big difference between these estimates? Who is telling the truth? The government or the experts? I think that the experts have more credibility because they are impartial.

The government says that it wants to strengthen the relationship between work history and benefit entitlement. But its proposal will only widen the gap between the various regions of our country.

By increasing from 10 to 12 the number of weeks required to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, the government is shutting out a particular category of workers who would barely qualify under the existing system. The increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits essentially affects the Maritime provinces and Quebec.

By restricting accessibility on one hand and by favouring applicants who have accumulated a larger number of work weeks on the other hand, the government is forgetting how shaky the employment situation is in many areas. Moreover, it is not taking into account the structural changes that have occurred in the job market. Instead of adapting the unemployment insurance program to the new realities of the labour force, the present government continues to reduce the protection given to workers.

The government has made up its mind, even though it indicates that these measures can be seen as temporary. They lead us to believe that the choices have already been made and that the broader reform of social programs will only serve as an exercise in justification.

Finally, lessening the importance of the regional rate of unemployment in calculating UI benefits will inevitably penalize the regions with the highest rate of unemployment. The reduction in the number of weeks of benefits will hit hardest the regions with a rate of unemployment over 10 per cent, once again the Maritimes and Quebec.

Indeed, eastern Canada is hit hardest by these measures. This is how an internal document of the Department of Human Resources Development estimates the cuts in benefits: $735 million for Quebec; $630 million for the Atlantic region; $560 million for Ontario and $430 million for Western Canada. Once again Quebec bears the brunt of the cuts. One cannot say that this is fair. Quite the contrary, regional disparities persist and the gap remains. Provinces with a high rate of unemployment will suffer higher cuts.

Finally, the government is increasing benefits for low-income people with dependents. Their benefit rate will be 60 per cent, while it will be 55 per cent for others. According to the Department of Finance, about 15 per cent of UI recipients will belong to that group. That measure will require women to prove that they have the custody of their children and will necessitate the introduction of monitoring measures. Besides, it was reported in broad headlines in La Presse , on Monday April 11, 1994, that the New Brunswick government wanted to require single mothers to identify their children's father; that those who refused would no longer be entitled to social assistance. Is the Liberal government, our government, heading in the same direction?

The government argues that the changes will contribute significantly to job creation when the premium reduction will come into effect on January 1, 1995. The government has postponed until next year a measure it could have applied today. There is no doubt that these changes reflect this government's inability to offer a real recovery plan.

In closing, I will say that the government ought to fight unemployment rather than the unemployed. And one of the ways to offer a real recovery plan that would restore a balance and be equitable to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, is to transfer jurisdiction for labour training to the Government of Quebec, with the related funding, of course. Quebec already has the expertise in this field, being the closest to its constituents. It should have the right to manage labour training programs for its workers.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring our concerns before the House.

I would like to focus my remarks on the government's proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program. In the budget tabled on February 22 the government proposed the following changes to the UI program, some of which are included in Bill C-17.

The government is rolling back UI premiums for 1995 and 1996 to $3 for every $100 in insurable earnings, down from $3.07. It is reducing the benefits to 55 per cent of insurable earnings, down from 57 per cent. It is increasing the benefits for those UI claimants with low earnings and dependants to 60 per cent of insurable earnings. That is up from 57 per cent.

The government is increasing the minimum amount of time a person needs to work to qualify for UI from 10 weeks to 12 weeks. It is allowing more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs or are fired with just cause to collect benefits. Also, the length of time a worker can collect UI in regions with high unemployment has been reduced from a maximum of 32 weeks to a maximum of 26 weeks.

Finally, the length of time a worker can remain on a claim has been reduced. For example, workers who work 20 weeks used to

be able to collect benefits for 17 weeks. Under the new schedule, they will only be able to collect 10 weeks of benefits.

Those are some of the changes. The Reform Party is generally supportive of the changes proposed by the government. However we maintain that the government did not go far enough.

On Tuesday of this week the leader of the Reform Party asked the Prime Minister if there would be additional spending cuts to those outlined in the recent budget and the Prime Minister answered yes. Yesterday in the House of Commons the Prime Minister and a number of his ministers, despite repeated questions from the Reform Party, refused to identify which programs would be cut.

We maintain there are billions of dollars to be saved by returning unemployment insurance to a true insurance program. This means to protect workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. That is what we mean.

I would like to comment specifically on each of the measures proposed by the government and then put forward some constructive alternatives for the government to consider. We do not just try to criticize, but we also give positive alternatives.

The government is to be commended for reducing premiums to employers and employees. UI premiums are simply payroll taxes and payroll taxes are job killers. This is probably the only thing I have ever heard all economists agree on.

The government is to be commended for reducing these job killing taxes and restoring some confidence in the business community by assuring the rates will not increase for 1995 and 1996. The government says this will create 40,000 more jobs than if it had let the rates rise, proving once again that lowering taxes creates jobs.

In fact the government's own reports show that reducing UI premiums is a cheaper way of creating jobs than its own $6 billion infrastructure program, most of which will be financed by borrowed money. That again will increase the deficit and the national debt and undermine confidence in the economy.

I remind the House this is the same government that increased UI premiums by 7 per cent on January 1, 1994 and less than two months later announced a premium reduction for 1995. Talk about being confused. This also shows the government can and will change the rules anytime it wishes.

The government reports that reducing UI benefits will save $725 million this year and $2.4 billion in each of the next two fiscal years. Again the government is moving in the right direction but not quite fast enough. The government's own budget documents show that the cumulative deficit of the UI account as of December 31 is $6 billion.

The Prime Minister was silent a few weeks ago when asked by some angry fishermen in Atlantic Canada where it was written in the red book that the government would cut UI benefits. At least the Reform Party campaigned on cutting spending on unemployment insurance. The Liberal Party did not campaign on that. The government is finding out how hard it is to say one thing during an election and then to do the exact opposite once elected. Canadians will remember.

Increasing benefits to UI claimants with low earnings and dependants is commendable. It is a recognition of the Reform Party principle that assistance should be targeted to those who need it most.

The Reform Party was vigorously attacked during the election campaign for suggesting that universality was not financially sustainable. Now the government has contravened the sacred principle of universality. Will the government finally admit that universality is dead?

As a final comment, the reduction in the length of time a worker can collect UI benefits in regions with high unemployment is a small admission that the current UI system creates disincentives to work. It reduces worker mobility, discourages self-employment, undermines personal and community initiatives and impedes productivity for employers.

The Reform Party says it is time to use the government's initiative to phase out regionally extended benefits altogether. I would like to put the government's UI reforms to a simple test. I am going to call it the taxpayers' test.

Question No. 1: Do the government's proposals make the UI program financially sustainable? Look at it. No.

Question No. 2: Do the government's proposals help people become less dependent on the system? A little, but how many will return to welfare? The entire income security system is sick and it needs to be fixed.

Question No. 3: Do the government's proposals reduce abuse of the UI system? No. Abuse is still rampant. For example, there are now 43 just cause reasons which will allow job quitters to collect UI. There are 43 different ways.

Question No. 4: Are the government's proposals fair and do they treat all Canadians the same regardless of where they live? No. The UI program still allows people who live in uneconomic regions of the country to become permanent wards of the state.

Question No. 5: Do the employers and employees who pay for the UI program with their premiums have a real say in how their money is spent? Do they have any say in that? No. The government should democratize unemployment insurance. Let the people who pay for it run it. That is the essence of democracy, not this top down bureaucracy.

Question No. 6: Is the UI program a true insurance program? No. Unemployment insurance rewards repeaters and seasonal workers at the expense of permanent full time workers.

In closing, I reiterate that the unemployment insurance program is still being used as a vehicle for social engineering. The UI program still breeds dependence. The UI program is overly generous when compared to other OECD countries.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will soon put forward an action plan for the reform of social programs. This review provides us with a remarkable opportunity to revamp our unemployment insurance program.

I encourage the government to consider the principles the Reform Party has put forward to ensure that any future changes will pass the taxpayers' test.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-17, the government is asking us to amend 11 different laws to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994. However, this budget, as could be expected and as was denounced in this House, is making waves in the financial community of this country because it fails to meet either the expectations of the financial community or those of Quebeckers and Canadians.

This government had the opportunity to take some measures to put public finances in order, to put an end to wasting money and to eliminate duplication and unproductive expenditures in programs under both federal and provincial jurisdictions, but it did nothing. This government had the opportunity, as it has promised during the election campaign, to restore some hope among Quebeckers and Canadians, but it did nothing.

Rather, the Chrétien government brought about a budget which deeply affects our economy-and, God knows, it did not need it-and thus deprives us of our hope for economic growth and job creation. Those past two weeks, we have witnessed in the financial community some reactions which clearly reflect the low level of confidence they have in the direction that the government wanted to follow in this budget.

This government did not go in the right direction: the budgeted deficit has never been so high, reaching $40 billion and when they propose to cut back on expenses, they bluntly attack the most disadvantaged, the victims of a recession they are fueling rather than fighting, they go after unemployed men and women.

In the same budget exercise, the Liberal government is asking us to spend every day some $110 million more than the revenues it receives while the unemployed have to bear the largest part-almost 60 per cent-of the new budgetary cuts announced in the Liberal budget. In this regard, this budget is particularly unequitable and unfair, and when the government is asking us, through this omnibus bill, to implement measures so devastating to the unemployed, we must object to it.

The government has announced a comprehensive review of social security, including unemployment insurance, and hopes to present a reform plan to this House next September. It is therefore unacceptable for the government to proceed with such important cuts and such drastic changes in the unemployment insurance program before the necessary consultations have been held and before this whole matter has been thought through.

Whether it be the increase of the premium rate for 1994, the reduction in the length of the benefit period, the longer qualifying period, the two-tier benefit system which will affect 85 per cent of claimants, or the lesser importance attached to regional unemployment levels, these measures have, in our opinion, been taken on the spur of the moment and have only one purpose, to reduce the budget deficit on the backs of the unemployed, in an economy where there are not enough jobs for everyone. Instead of helping to reduce unemployment, these measures only weaken the social safety net. By impoverishing the unemployed, the government promotes the degradation of the entire social environment in Quebec and in Canada and thereby activates all sorts of ripple effects on such things as welfare and health systems.

If the government thought that the social environment in this country was bad enough to require social program reform, why does it further aggravate the situation by improvising such harsh measures for the unemployed? There were many areas where there is fat to be cut, but the victims of the recession have none. The Bloc Quebecois spared neither its suggestions nor its offers of services to identify areas where major savings could be made, and this, through a committee of this House looking at budget spending as a whole.

But no, this government would rather pursue policies it once condemned. I quote: "Conservative fiscal and monetary policies, as we have seen over the past few days, are having disastrous effects on the economy and always ask more of the poorest".

We must not fail to mention one of the adverse effects of the bill: the shifting of a portion of the deficit burden onto Quebec and the provinces. By shortening benefit periods, the federal government will more rapidly divert a greater number of unemployed people towards provincial social security programs. According to three members of the Department of Economics at the Université du Québec à Montréal this new shift from unemployment insurance to the welfare system will cost Quebec an additional $280 million. The provinces as a whole will have to pay an additional $1 billion, approximately.

Considering the government's promise whereby any social program reform affecting provincial finances would take place after due consultation, in order to get their prior approval, here is a good example of a broken promise. First the cuts, and then, the negotiations: what a nice way to instill a climate of confidence in future public debate and negotiations with the provinces!

We must reject Bill C-17 out of hand because it is a rag-bag containing radical amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Those amendments should have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation in the first place and, most important, they should have been preceded by extensive consultations.

In the present context, the unemployed in Quebec and Canada have enough incentive to find work and they do want to work. They plead for jobs in our ridings every day. Fraud, which we must continue to try to eliminate, accounts for only a very small percentage of costs. The basic problem is that there are not enough jobs for everyone as things now stand, and reducing the amount of benefits and the benefit period will not put more people back to work.

The government has estimated that every one-cent reduction in contributions leads to about 1,300 new jobs. At the same time it maintains an increase of 7 cents in contributions, which rise from $3 to $3.07. In doing so, the government deliberately prevents 9,000 people from going back to work, regaining their dignity and taking part in the economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, I like to use numbers on a smaller scale, those of a riding for instance, since I represent people from a riding in the House of Commons. Therefore, if you reallocate equitably on an individual riding basis the number of jobs lost because of the stubbornness of the government which maintains the contributions at $3.07, 32 people are deprived of a job in every riding.

You might say it is one case among many others. Maybe, but it was not so when we were elected or when our government colleagues got elected by promising jobs, jobs and jobs. Before we vote on Bill C-17, I invite my colleagues to think of those 32 people and of all those who regularly come to our riding offices to tell us about their hardships and their dismay because of the employment situation.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while Bill C-17 contains a good number of proposed amendments to statutes with which the Reform Party agrees, we find that the bill covers so many disparate areas that it is very hard to deal with it. It was for that reason that Reform asked the Speaker for a ruling on its status as a bill.

In any event, to the extent that the theme of Bill C-17 is to restrain government spending, we totally agree. Since it is so wide ranging I would like to seize one little area of government spending to prove that the government not only should but could cut back on its spending.

I would like to delve into the area of official languages and the cost of official languages. More specifically I would like to address the issue of bilingual bonuses.

The 1983 annual report from the Commissioner of Official Languages states: "Six years and let us say almost a quarter of a billion dollars into the game any question of the real contribution that the bilingualism bonus might be making to federal language programs has been pretty much lost from view". That is from 1983.

Two days ago in the House was tabled the 1993 report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Allow me to read very briefly from that: "Unfortunately with regard to the issue of bilingual bonus it is obvious that the commissioner's repeated recommendations still have not been followed. This year approximately $50 million was once again spent without any assurance that the payment of such a sum was necessary to ensure Canadians of the availability of quality service in the official language of their choice. Given the present economic circumstances we are more than ever convinced that the bilingualism bonus should be eliminated gradually by negotiating with the parties concerned. In the interest of public finances, as much as that of the official languages program, it is high time for the government to take this problem in hand".

What does the government need to get the idea that it should take things in hand? I stood in the House two days ago and read from the same report to the Prime Minister. I asked him in effect what his government will do about these continued recommendations on the part of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The Prime Minister's response to me two days ago was: "I do not think that the commissioner has made a strong recommendation. He has recommended we look into that and we will look into that".

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I do not say hear, hear. We have been looking into it for 15 years, 10 that the commissioner has put it on record. Where are we? The commissioners have advocated eliminating the bilingual bonus, not reviewing it again and

again. I put the Prime Minister's response equally with the response that I received a few weeks ago from the Minister of Human Resources Development to another question, and I will repeat that.

The response that I get from the Prime Minister and his other minister is, I am afraid to say, irresponsible. It is too vacuous for the circumstances.

There are millions of Canadians out there who are waiting for some sign from the government that the government is serious about its word on cutting back on its spending and getting hold of the deficit, waving the red book.

This is not good enough. We have a tangible right here recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages saying we can save $51 million in one year alone on this and the government says it will look at it.

I brought up the case in the House of a new government information centre being opened in May in Bathurst, New Brunswick. I suggested to the minister of human resources that instead of employing 65 fully bilingual people at that centre he would give better service and save money in the bargain by employing essentially unilingual people.

The minister did not respond, in my view, properly. He attacked me rather than coping with the problem or taking it as a suggestion well meant. He said instead: "You are lucky that you have a touch-tone phone and are you not privileged". His response I put with the Prime Minister's two days ago. This is part of the problem, I am afraid, that we have not just in this Parliament but in the running of the country. If we cannot stand here as part of the opposition and honestly put forward some ideas that we feel are of merit and have those ideas received in kind then where are we? It is small wonder that the electorate out there is unhappy.

Before we talk a little more on cuts, to shortcut any vehement attack on me or the Reform Party I am going to reiterate that the Reform Party is not against bilingualism. We encourage bilingualism.

We encourage everyone to speak French if possible.

Having said that, we are against waste. Let us give bilingual services where they are required but let us also protect the anglophone minority in the province of Quebec at the same time.

In the meantime, let us make cuts and cuts are indeed possible. Let me give a few proposed cuts on the official languages program. This is for one year. If we were to cut one-third of the transfers to provinces for education we would save $80 million in a year. We propose this on the basis that education is a provincial responsibility.

If we also take from the Department of Canadian Heritage transfers to the provinces for special interest advocacy groups for promotion we would save $41 million. If we were to take from the CBC second language broadcasting budget, eliminate it totally, because that service should be market driven rather than driven by Ottawa, we would save $80 million. If we would cut out advertising in minority language newspapers we would save $5 million. If we cut from Canadian Heritage the bilingual bonus we have already mentioned, we would save $50 million to $51 million. On second language training and salaries for replacement workers we would save another $50 million. The total annual savings are $306 million to $307 million. It can be done. Would the government please look at it and do something about it. Do not just study it again.

I will make my concluding remarks short. I implore the government and everyone else to join with us, re-examine the Official Languages Act and look at specific things like bilingual bonuses. We can save money, be more efficient and be happier as a country.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the economic region of the Montérégie is plagued with an unemployment rate that reached 11 per cent during the first quarter of this year, according to Statistics Canada. What would be the impact of Bill C-17 on the unemployment rate? That is what we have to ask ourselves to understand fully why the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance is an insult to all citizens.

The Martin budget is based on bad logic. For example, it establishes a link between the problems related to economic recovery and the labour market, employers and businesspeople, and the contributions which help fund the unemployment insurance system. Furthermore, since the beginning of the 1990s, unemployment insurance has become a program which is supposed to be self-financing. With Bill C-17, the government concludes that we have to bring back the rate of unemployment insurance premiums to 3 per cent. By doing so, they think that it will contribute 125 million dollars towards economic growth and job creation-as shown in Table II of the Budget Speech-and save 725 million dollars just in 1994-95-as it has been written in the backgrounder on the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program.

Did the government ask itself what contribution it might have done if it had reconsidered other measures? We still do not know why the GST applies to essential commodities and not to stock exchange transactions. What we do know however is that the financing of unemployment insurance has been turned back

twenty years. This program is more and more restrictive and out of reach.

The government is again making the mistake of going after the unemployed instead of unemployment, as if those people had chosen to be without a job. The benefit period for new claimants will be reduced. There is another measure which will transfer to the provinces the cost of the government's inability to strengthen the economy. Where do the unemployed go when they have used up all their benefits and still have no job? They join the ranks of those who are forced to live on welfare. And do not think that these people do not want to work because they do!

The Chrétien government was happy with the last Statistics Canada unemployment figures. However, it overlooked the number of people who have lost hope and have stopped looking for jobs. It also overlooked the figures showing an increase in the number of welfare applications.

Another measure of retaliation against the unemployed is the minimum requirements for benefit entitlement which have been increased from 10 to 12 weeks of insurable employment. The government is really striving to reduce the total number of claimants on the books. Can such a measure help solve the employment problem? Certainly not. The resulting savings will cost a fortune. The Liberal government is only giving us the impression it did something; in reality, it has done nothing at all.

The government said that it wanted to encourage small business by increasing consumer demand. Do you think that the unemployed will be able to contribute to this economic recovery effort when their payments are being reduced to 55 per cent of their average insurable earnings? Even at 60 per cent, for low income earners with children or other dependants such as an elderly parent, people are still below the subsistence level.

The government has made commitments that it is not keeping. Yet, it would be possible to straighten up public finances and the deficit, but it would take a major shake up with a view to establishing a really equitable fiscal policy. According to some experts, it would be possible to find $46.1 billion in additional revenues for the Treasury through fiscal restructuring only, without touching social programs, without attacking the poor who try desperately to make ends meet.

Seventeen separate measures have been identified by economist Léo-Paul Lauzon, from sources as diverse as the Auditor General of Canada, Yves Séguin, Ernst Young, the Liberal Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Department of Finance. Among them, the two most important are the closing of fiscal loopholes which would bring $10 billion to the treasury, and the creation of a new tax on securities which would bring in another $10 billion.

But the government did not dare touch anything which could have displeased its rich friends. However, it did not hesitate to do so when it came to the unemployed. That is the main reproach we can direct to the government, and Bill C-17 proves once again the public was misled by enticing election promises.

In the economic region of the Montérégie, an unemployed person coming to an employment centre with 15 weeks of work to his or her credit would currently be entitled to UI benefits for 30 weeks. After Bill C-17 is passed, the same person will be eligible for only 21 weeks of benefits. That is what the Chrétien government just offered. That is their initiative for economic growth and job creation. The government just cut nine weeks of benefits for this unemployed worker.

Do the government realize what they are doing? What they are saying by this is that their management of social problems is a complete failure. They are saying to Canadians that they would be better off if this responsibility was transferred to their provinces. It is proving the Quebec sovereignists right. Should we go as far as to thank the government for doing us this favor?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today to oppose implementation of the Liberal budget which has and will continue to cause hardship for Canadians and damage to the Canadian economy.

The budget will lead to a deficit of almost $40 billion added to the over $500 billion debt the federal government has already accumulated. The prognosis for ever dealing with this financial mess we are in is becoming increasingly difficult to even comprehend.

It has now reached a critical point. It is not too late. The problem can be dealt with but it has to be done now by making substantial cuts in federal government spending.

Before the federal budget was released, the finance minister travelled across Canada in an attempt to discover how Canadians wanted government overspending to be dealt with in this year's budget. He received excellent advice from Canadians at these conferences. However, in their budget documents the Liberals merely acknowledge the direction that Canadians said they would like the government to follow. Unfortunately they failed to act on this advice.

In the budget debates, Reform MPs clearly laid out their proposals for cuts in federal government spending. These have also been ignored.

One of the first motions that Reformers put forward was for a cap to be placed on federal government spending. This spending cap would at least have given the Liberals a chance to meet their own deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP in three years as outlined

in the red book. This motion was voted down by the Liberal and Bloc members.

During the pre-budget debate Reformers tabled a document that outlines $20 billion in federal government cuts. There has been no indication that any of these proposals were ever examined by the government.

Before, during and after the pre-budget debate Reform MPs have elaborated on our proposals for spending cuts which include approximately $6 billion in cuts to government itself, approximately $4 billion in cuts to business subsidies and about $9 billion in cuts to social program spending.

The government completely ignored the message received from Canadians and Reformers during the budget debate. The early symptoms of the Liberal lack of action are now appearing, for example, the rapidly dropping Canadian dollar and increasing interest rates.

These symptoms alone would not be a cause for great concern. However, what concerns us is the underlying problem of the lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. This lack of confidence has been illustrated clearly by Canadian banks in their hesitation to lend to small business.

Lack of confidence has also been shown by private investors who are taking their capital out of Canada at an ever increasing rate. This is further illustrated by Canadian consumers who, with good reason, are not convinced their jobs are secure enough to spend freely.

A further problem is the reality of the huge government debt which is increasing at an incredibly fast rate. It is quite possible, and many feel even probable, that Canada will hit the wall just like New Zealand did. If that happens the Reform's zero in three plan will be replaced by the Liberal's zero in three plan, but it will not be zero deficit in three years. It will be zero deficit in three months, three weeks, three days.

This kind of concern is no longer just coming from Reform members of Parliament and from the general Canadian population. It is also coming from financial experts across the country. Warren Jestin, chief economist with the Bank of Nova Scotia, states: "The finance department has to revisit its deficit projections and interest rate assumptions before the economy is a mess".

Sherry Cooper, chief economist of Burns Fry Limited, shares this sentiment. "We need a mini budget outlining explicitly the cuts in government spending that will significantly reduce the budget deficit. The financial markets are demanding the cuts. We are talking about averting a currency crisis", said Sherry Cooper. These sentiments reflect clearly what Reformers were saying following the finance minister's feeble attempt at a budget.

The weakness could be due in part to the fact that the Liberals simply did not have time since the election to come up with a real budget. I encourage the finance minister in the strongest way possible to bring forward a mini budget in the next few months. Joshua Mendelsohn of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce stated: "If the rates keep rising, Martin will have no choice but to bring in a minibudget".

In the meantime it is essential that the Prime Minister and each cabinet minister give Canadians at least a hint as to where they will be making further cuts as promised by the Prime Minister. These actions will instil enough confidence in the Canadian economy, in Canadians and in foreign investors to hold off a pending financial crisis.

To allow the Liberal government to make the changes necessary to balance the budget changes must also be made in Liberal philosophy. The Canadian mindset toward government has been changing but government has failed to recognize it. The Liberal philosophy of big government which was fostered in the sixties has changed. The Liberals must recognize this change and deal with the new political and economic realities we are now facing.

This outdated mindset was clearly illustrated to me in a meeting I had yesterday with a Liberal member of Parliament. During the meeting he referred to the relationship between the Canadian government and farmers as a partnership. This is not what Canadian farmers want or expect. This is not a concept Canadians can afford.

The Liberal concept of government so heavily involved with business is not working. Something else has to give. Canadians want government to provide the basic infrastructure that business cannot and the basic social programs and to foster changes which will allow a market economy to work well, nothing more.

Mr. Albert Friedberg, author of Friedberg's Commodity and Currency , agrees that government involvement in the Canadian economy is stunting economic growth. He stated: ``The major problem is the rising size of the state and in the economy that chases an enormous amount of capital away''.

If the government is afraid of making substantial government cuts, take a look at Alberta's current situation. Changes in Alberta did not happen because Ralph Klein and his Conservatives wanted them so desperately. They occurred because Albertans were pushing for these changes. Klein's government recognized that in order to get elected again it would have to make substantial cuts. The people forced their wishes on the Alberta government.

The Klein government would not have been elected in Alberta if it had not promised substantial government cuts. The Liberals will not be re-elected if they do not make substantial spending cuts.

The Alberta experience has demonstrated this move is not only a move that is good for Canadians and is good for the country, but it is also good for the government politically. Recent polls in Alberta verify that Albertans strongly support the Klein government because of tough spending cuts it has made. I certainly have heard this loud and clear in my constituency.

I know the Prime Minister feels that his great political savvy can accomplish almost anything on its own, but I believe the Prime Minister and the Liberal cabinet could learn a lot from Alberta in a political sense.

Alberta is poised to reap the benefits in terms of jobs and in terms of a buoyant economy which will lead it and Canada economically in the future. Alberta's unemployment rate instead of rising during these times of cuts is actually dropping. Its economic growth rate is expected to increase by a full 2 per cent for a projected rate of 5.3 per cent which will lead the country.

[The Speaker]

I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has elapsed.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I had the privilege to ask this House to accept an amendment to Bill C-17. My hon. colleagues decided otherwise and, as any good democrat, I accept their decision. That does not mean that I agree with this bill, and for the second time, I will try to explain my reservations to this House.

Some of the wording of this bill leads me to believe that it would be premature to pass it. Let us take, for example, the wage freeze. I already said yes to the freeze for certain categories of public servants such as federally-appointed judges, parliamentary agents, the Governor General, lieutenant governors, Parliamentarians, and certain members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But I believe that it is very dangerous to remove any incentive for public servants and to prevent them from climbing the wage ladder.

This bill also caps payments to provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan after the 1994-95 fiscal year. The Canada Assistance Plan cannot be modified without a national consultation and, for this reason, I found it premature, at this point, to cap payments for 1995-96.

I do not agree either with authorizing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to borrow money. The CBC is a public corporation and as such should be funded by government grants and advertising revenues. With a deficit of more than $500 billion, this government does not need to authorize public corporations such as the CBC to borrow money, thus adding to the Canadian deficit. Anyhow, if the CBC chalks up a deficit, Canadians will end up paying anyway. So, let the Canadian government give the corporation the necessary budget to promote Canadian culture and inform Canadians but we must not authorize it to borrow money.

Although this bill contains many questionable and premature items, the most questionable of all is the reform of unemployment insurance. The changes proposed in Bill C-17 are unfair and will harm Canadians, especially in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

The government proudly proclaims that the proposed changes will bring about savings in UI expenditures of $725 million in 1994-95, and of $2.4 billion in 1995-96 and 1996-97. Does the federal government think it is doing Canadians a favour with such a measure? Does it really believe that it will create more jobs by lowering the premium? No, I do not think it will and I am convinced that this government does not think so either. It is just passing its financial problems on to the provinces, as it has been doing for some time. What will Canadians and Quebeckers who will no longer be entitled to unemployment insurance live on? On welfare, which is of provincial jurisdiction.

The results of this decision are twofold. First, the human person, and I often talk about the human person when I address this House, will lose dignity, because in addition to being out of work, they will no longer have the income to which they contributed with their premiums. They will face the problems of welfare recipients, despite the efforts of our provincial governments to make welfare less painful. Mr. Speaker, human dignity means being gainfully employed. As Félix Leclerc, who is from Saint-Pierre on Île d'Orléans in my riding, said, the best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing. With this bill, the government is not creating jobs, it is shortening the unemployment insurance benefit periods and forcing people to depend on the state for subsistence.

Secondly, the changes to unemployment insurance will force the provincial governments to increase their welfare budgets and thus increase their deficits. That is what these premature changes will do.

The people of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, whom I have the honour to represent in this House, want to have something fine, true and real to hang on to so that they can forget the recession we are going through and the financial difficulties they have had to put up with for several years. The people of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans are entitled to work so that they can consider themselves full citizens. They are entitled to

believe in their elected representatives. They are entitled to hope that their representatives will find solutions for the current problems and prepare better days for the years to come.

This House where the people of Canada are represented does not have the right for partisan reasons to pass legislation that is premature and unfair to the people of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

I therefore ask this House to reject Bill C-17 on second reading and thus permit the House to go more thoroughly into the proposals which were made to us prematurely in this bill.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin would have the floor if he would care to begin. If not, we can take a minute or two and go on.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we may, let us go on without the hon. member being here.