Debates of May 30th, 1994

The House resumed, from May 26, consideration of Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 23 to 38.

Budget Implementation Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate on the motions in group No. 5 or Motions Nos. 23 to 38 inclusive.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

The provisions of Bill C-17 respecting unemployment insurance are unacceptable, as a whole and individually, particularly as far as benefit rates are concerned.

In my speech on the budget, I reminded the House at the time that Montreal has become the capital of poverty. In March 1994, according to Statistics Canada, there were 151,270 UI recipients in Montreal. In the greater Montreal area, 18.5 per cent of families are living under the poverty line.

I have asked a question about the effects the increase in unemployment will have. The unemployment rate has grown from 9.1 per cent in December 1989 to 13.8 per cent in December 1993, exceeding the growth of the unemployment rate in Saint John's, Newfoundland, for the same period, while in Toronto it had gone from 4.1 per cent in December 1989 to 11.5 per cent in December 1993. I also pointed out that, even before consultations on the needs of the population start, the UI reform would have an absolutely catastrophic effect on the provinces' finances.

The budget measures will result in an increased need for social assistance at the expense of the provinces which will then have to cut, as usual, in their social programs and services because transfer payments are frozen.

Last Thursday, Statistics Canada announced that long-term unemployment had increased in 1990, 1991 and 1992, which means that fewer people received or qualified for unemployment insurance. It is estimated that more than 10 per cent of unemployed workers have turned to provincial social assistance programs.

The Bloc Quebecois has proposed that this Bill, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 11, with the following: "(ii) the greater of 57 per cent of the".

The purpose of this amendment is simple. At present, the rate of weekly benefit payable to a claimant is equal to 57 per cent of his average weekly insurable earnings; the government plans to reduce this rate to 55 per cent. The Bloc is merely asking to leave it at 57 per cent.

As we know, insurable earnings are based on average insurable weekly earnings over the reference period. For example, a person whose average insurable weekly earnings amount to $620 would see his or her benefits decrease from $353 to $341 if the bill is passed without amendments.

The government tackles its deficit by gradually eroding the benefits of the poorest.

Let us also keep in mind that the benefit rate will be reduced from 57 per cent to 55 per cent for about 85 per cent of recipients.

Once again, government savings are achieved on the backs of the unemployed. I would like to remind you that businesses whose annual UI contributions are less than $60,000 qualify for a tax credit to cover the increase in their contributions up to $30,000.

What a funny UI program: the government does not have money to pay benefits to the unemployed but finds the necessary resources to pay some employers' contributions to that same plan. Another double standard, not to say anything about social equity.

The changes to the benefit structure are simply designed to erode income replacement programs and introduce the principle of justification based on means. The double benefit rate structure is outrageous. Like the Canadian Labour Congress, we must recognize that workers' income is not based on their family status any more than their premiums, hiring or dismissal.

For a government to conceive such a program strongly contradicts the principle of income replacement and other aspects of the labour market; it is a disgrace. This government is destroying the basic principle of income replacement that was the hallmark of the Canadian UI program for many years.

The formula described in clause 22 whereby a higher benefit rate would be given to low-income claimants with dependants hides the fact that other planned changes in this bill will decrease the benefits paid to these same people.

In fact, the advantage of a higher benefit rate will be cancelled by the stricter eligibility standard, a reduction of 12 to 10 weeks of work and a reduced benefits period. The real reason for this bill is to reduce benefit levels. I remind this House that the benefit level has already been reduced twice: from 66 to 60 per cent of salary under Bill C-21 in 1990 and from 60 to 57 per cent

of insurable earnings through the amendments made in Bill C-113 in 1993.

How can the public not be cynical towards governments when it sees this Liberal government pursue the very policies it denounced when it was in opposition barely a year ago? I will take this opportunity to quote the present Prime Minister in a letter dated March 26, 1993 to opponents of Bill C-113: "The Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and further penalizing those who voluntarily leave their jobs, clearly the Conservative government cares very little for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of attacking the real problem, it is attacking the unemployed-" That was barely a year ago.

Conservative or Liberal, it is the same thing. The poorest people, who are the victims of this system, are attacked. The proposed changes in Bill C-17 will lower the benefit rate for the great majority of claimants to 55 per cent. The lower benefit rate was adopted for just one reason: to reduce spending on unemployment insurance.

Like others, including the Public Service Alliance, I reject the two-rate benefit structure described in this bill, as well as the lower general benefit rate. In fact, it is important for benefits to be paid to all claimants on the basis of their former employment income.

The government points out that the 60 per cent benefit rate will apply to only 15 per cent of claimants. However, I will add that the reduction of the benefit rate from 57 to 55 per cent will apply to 85 per cent of claimants. The Canadian Labour Congress points out that the higher benefit rate, even the 60 per cent rate for recipients with dependents and a low income, is not designed to increase the protection afforded to the unemployed.

The $12 per week involved is cancelled out by more stringent eligibility standards or the duration of benefits, or both. In the case of workers deemed ineligible because they cannot even get 12 weeks of work, this means a total loss. The government did not tell us how many of those recipients who earn less than $390 per week and who have dependents will lose everything.

With this measure, the Liberal government is getting closer to the American pattern regarding weekly insurable earnings. Indeed, Canada reduces its rate from 57 to 55 per cent, while in most American States that rate is 50 per cent.

Taken together, the new unemployment insurance measures will translate into savings of $725 million for the government in the first year, and $2.4 billion in the two subsequent years. This decision however causes a serious prejudice to the unemployed, who will see their purchasing power diminish and will thereby make less of a contribution to the economy of their region and community. The government is only creating a greater gap between the rich and the poor.

Eighty-five per cent of the claimants of unemployment insurance will lose money in order that the government may avoid the painful exercise of cutting costs of government operations. Only claimants who have both dependants and a dismally underpaid job will be able to receive 60 per cent of insured earnings.

Like Quebec with the "boubous macoutes" of the Quebec Liberal government, the rest of Canada will see the emergence of its own flock of overzealous federal civil servants trying to track down their quota of bad abusers the system. The witch hunt is on.

For the most part, it is divorced workers responsible for single parent families who will have to prove that they have dependents. What an incredible mess! The government is adding yet another administrative level, "jobs, jobs, jobs", at the expense of taxpayers, to harass the unemployed.

Some used to say "poor Canada"; now, thanks to the Liberal government, this country will be even poorer.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-17, an act to implement budget measures.

The Bloc Quebecois members are missing a central theme in the budget. It has to do with small and medium size business. We campaigned last summer on the fact that small and medium size business represented the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to work.

As Liberals we said that if the 900,000 men and women who owned or operated small and medium size businesses were given a proper environment, the chances of hiring Canadians were very good. A central theme in this budget has been to try to create that environment that will cause that entrepreneurial spirit to move forward again.

There are a number of things that one has to do to create that environment and they have all been listed in the budget. Of course one of the very first items that we said we would address, and we did say this in the budget, was access to capital for small and medium size business.

All members of the House have been working on that issue over the last three months. We are beginning to get some movement. It is amazing that when the opposition stands up, it picks one or two little pieces. It is all negative. It cannot seem to find anything positive that we have done here in the House of Commons or in committee in the last few months.

Another theme in the budget which is related to the bill that we are talking about today has to do with making sure that we encourage our small and medium size entrepreneurs to trade more on the international scene, on the global scene.

As members of Parliament, we have to be more creative when we are looking at this budget and use it as an instrument of hope as well as a way of giving guidance to some of our small and medium size businesses.

Last week a group of parliamentarians from the government side went to China for 12 days with 120 small and medium size businessmen and women from every region of this country. I would say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the opposition that over 90 per cent of them had never gone on a foreign mission before. Going to China was a totally new experience.

We discovered number one that there is an economy over there which is very receptive to doing business with small and medium sized Canadian firms. It is not just the larger Canadian firms that they want to do business with. In fact unlike a few years ago when China was a place where it would take sometimes as long as 10 years to complete a deal, today they are moving in a very expeditious way.

I believe if we as parliamentarians would become more aware of the economic opportunities that exist in a country like China for our small and medium size business, we would then look more at this budget that the Minister of Finance has put forward where he is trying to create an environment which will inspire that sector to take risks, to have the courage to move forward, to hire again. If we showed them that their markets are not just in North America but that there are tremendous markets as well in the Asia Pacific region, I think we could trigger this economy that we are all working desperately on to move forward.

My message today on Bill C-17 is the fact that all of the components of the budget are an attempt to create a total environment which will allow small business to reinvent itself, to retool itself, to allow it to rethink its whole strategy for the new economy.

If we approach the budget knowing that all of those options exist then we will probably have a better chance of putting Canadians back to work. The member said earlier in his speech that jobs must be our focus. I think realizing that objective would be a lot more realistic.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues, I am here today to speak to Bill C-17. For the benefit of those listening, I would like to recall the purpose of the bill before the House today. Bill C-17 is what is commonly referred to as an omnibus bill, a kind of catch-all that contains measures affecting a number of different acts and programs. It is a mixed bag of provisions, the only connection between them being that they are intended to implement proposals contained in the budget brought down on February 22, 1994.

Of course when we talk about the budget, we talk about money and when we talk about money, we can talk about so many things, which is also the case today. Again, for the benefit of our listeners, this bill contains amendments to the Public Sector Compensation Act, the Governor General's Act, the Judges Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Salaries Act, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, a large number of acts and programs are affected by this so-called omnibus bill. Our listeners will probably have noticed that, in their presentations, members have approached these subjects in various ways.

Today, I intend to discuss the Unemployment Insurance Act. There are eight measures in the bill that will affect this legislation. However, it has been two years since in Quebec, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre has been prepared to take full responsibility for manpower, and unemployment insurance is one aspect of this sector.

Unfortunately, like the Conservative government, the Liberal government has yet to act on the requests made by the Government of Quebec and, instead, is proposing new measures that have made it incumbent on us in the Bloc québécois to try to make the best of a bad situation, in other words, to take the measures and make the necessary changes that would prevent them from having a negative impact.

For instance, I would like to draw your attention to clause 22 in Bill C-17 which deals with the difference in rates of benefit for a claimant without dependants and for a claimant with dependants.

We know that in the case of claimants without dependants, the bill proposes a rate of benefit that is 55 per cent of insurable earnings, while in the case of claimants with dependants, the rate is 60 per cent. The intent of the bill is commendable because it goes without saying that claimants with dependants do indeed have additional financial requirements.

Our concern stems from the fact that there is no clear indication in the bill before us on whom the burden rests to prove that the claimant does or does not have any dependants. We are concerned that, as the bill is now worded, the burden of proof rests with the claimant. My colleague who spoke earlier alluded very clearly to this point. If this is in fact the case, the bill creates problems for claimants who will be required to prove that they do indeed have dependants and who will experience an additional delay in receiving their benefits, not to mention all of the bureaucratic frustrations this process is likely to entail.

For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment which reads as follows:

For purposes of paragraph (1)( b ), a claimant needs only to establish a prima facie entitlement.

All the claimant would be required to do is acknowledge or confirm that he or she does in fact have dependants. The rate of weekly benefit provided under that paragraph would thus apply. The burden would rest squarely with the Commission to prove that the claimant was not entitled to this rate of benefit. In my view, this amendment would protect in the best possible way the interests of the public and, in particular, of those individuals who do have dependants and who would thus need to do nothing more than simply say so.

When people file their income tax returns, they state certain facts. The Department of Revenue takes it for granted that the facts are correctly stated, and the onus is on it to prove otherwise.

Moreover, most single parent families-and it is a fact of life, one that I am not passing judgement on-are headed by women. And if the present wording of the clause in the bill is maintained, it is a good bet that some of these single parents, most of whom are women, will have to prove their entitlement by travelling, losing time from work or time to be with their children, to go to the commission and show that they have dependent children.

I think that it is adding insult to injury by again giving single parents more work to do.

Therefore, the purpose of the Bloc's amendment is to remove the burden of proof from the claimants and also to avoid-unfortunately, such things have already happened-setting up welfare police to investigate in the neighbourhood of these claimants who say they have dependants and to verify the accuracy of their statements, an approach that I find inappropriate, to say the least, in a civilized society like ours.

We admit that controls are required, but we say that care must be taken in the way that they are exercised. In this context, we believe that it is not only right but necessary for the burden of proof to be on the commission so that people will not have to worry and fret in order to prove their good faith; the good faith of everyone concerned should be assumed.

As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately those who can benefit from such a measure are usually those with the lowest salaries and, quite often, these job categories are in direct relation with the educational level. This is not merely a point of view: it is a statistical fact.

These less educated recipients do not always know what to do to protect their interests or have access to certain remedies. They are not always able to express themselves easily and defend their position.

Should these people, who are already less privileged by society, have to shoulder an additional burden?

Finally, as I also mentioned, women responsible for single parent families have neither the time nor the means to take care of an injustice done to them. Yet, they have to do it to get the 60 per cent to which they are entitled, or else they will only receive 55 per cent of their insurable earnings. This gap will create enormous problems, particularly for these people who, generally, can barely afford to pay for their rent and food. Yet, they are asked to take on a responsibility which the commission would be in a much better position to assume.

In conclusion, I ask the House to approve this amendment, since it would not affect in any way the increase provided for recipients with dependents, but would give to the implementation of this clause a human dimension which would take into account, among other things, the plight of single parent families, and which would ensure that a good decision is taken in the appropriate manner.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to make a few comments regarding this bill.

One of the first things I want to do is pick up on a number of points that have been made in the debates and to show that there is some inconsistency.

For example we talk about an omnibus bill. That is really quite correct. Various members have indicated that they wanted to see it separated. Perhaps people have observed that the only real commentary that has been received, and a lot of it has been received, has been on the unemployment insurance provisions. If it bothered so many people that this is an omnibus bill, surely they would taken each section and would have said this or that is what I oppose, with respect to each particular part.

I find it interesting why it should be so. Clearly people who oppose, if they are sincere, must have some specific recommendations to make on every single part of the bill. I have not heard that.

It is confusing. I mentioned unemployment insurance, and I really have no criticism to make on that. I believe that what the Bloc would like to do is very clear. When dealing with an omnibus bill and claiming that it would have been simpler to consider each element, one at a time, because of the multitude of programs involved, it seems to me that it should have considered them one at a time, and said: "This is what we suggest regarding

A, what we want concerning B, what should be done respecting C". During a debate, differences of opinion are expected.

I see some of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois with a smile on their faces. They must appreciate my remarks. I shall go on then. The Bloc's discourse seems to be blatantly inconsistent. I will give you an example. On many occasions, not only their leader, but several Bloc members mentioned that they would like to see expenses cut, that we spend too much money, that the deficit and the debt are staggering-we do agree-and that we should manage our affairs better; and then, when the government decides to do just that, they claim that it should not cut anything, and that instead it should spend more. There may be some logic in all that, and I am sure that my colleagues from the Bloc will come and explain to me where it is, in a little while. I know how eager they are to help me understand things.

A few days ago, they were blaming the government for its lack of long term vision. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that, after a few months in the House, or even a few sessions or Parliaments, the opposition loves to repeat that the government has no vision, no long term or short term plan, that it does not know where it is going, and so on and so forth. After a while, it gets rather boring. Let us be a little bit more creative. We do have a long term vision called social program reform. I am quite sure that you have heard of it since a few questions were put to the Minister of Human Resources Development on the matter. Our long term vision is to bring about changes that will meet the real needs of all Canadians.

It seems to me that we should be working together on such a project with a view to finding creative solutions and go on from there. This past weekend, it was announced that we lived in the best country in the world. This was fantastic news. I have a feeling that after hearing this announcement from the United Nations, my colleagues from the Bloc will work hard to help us not only to appreciate what we have, but to build on our achievements in order that we may maintain our top ranking and remain number one, together!

In another speech, mention was also made of duplication. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, and I believe my colleagues know it too, that duplication exists everywhere, be it at the provincial, municipal or federal level. Regardless of the level of government, members have a responsibility to endeavour to eliminate costly duplication. This is a positive, much appreciated way to cut government spending. Of course, the discussion focused primarily on duplication between the provinces and the federal government. No admission was made of duplication at the provincial government level. No admission was made of duplication at the municipal government level either.

My friends from the Bloc admitted that duplication existed, but were not prepared to say how it should be eliminated.

However, they do propose one solution to the problem, and that is to break the country apart. They claim that this would spell the end of duplication. Let me assure you that this would not be the case. In my opinion, this solution is rather hard to defend, Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the Bloc to defend it as well. As I see it, we are gradually eliminating instances of duplication. We are making progress and my colleagues are aware of this fact.

My colleagues in the Bloc also talked about a centralizing government and they know-they are well informed, but I feel that some members sometimes choose what they prefer-Canada is the least centralized country in the world. Yes, in the world.

They know that. They do not like to hear that; they are starting to blush a little. But who knows, one fine day they may rise in the House and say: "Yes, you are quite right, but we wanted to say that because we believed that it would advance our cause".

I think that people are starting to understand that some things are exaggerated and people do not like exaggerations. Listen, we should bring together all kinds of reforms going on in Canada now; because we live in the best country in the world, we ask you to help us find creative solutions.

Yes, there is duplication. We are negotiating to remove duplication and we are refining the machinery of government. Listen, if we centralize too much, I think that we are ready to look honestly, openly and co-operatively at how we could make the machinery of government more flexible.

I would feel that I had not done my duty if I did not address a few comments about some of the statements made by the Reform Party. Reform Party members feel that this particular omnibus bill is une aberration de quelque sorte. They are open to the observation and accusation I made that if they were so concerned about this particular bill why did they not take it one piece at a time and tell us precisely what they would have done to change it? They did not do that. No, of course not. Why? Perhaps there were some politics being played. I guess politics are played in this House on occasion, even I play on occasion.

Anyway, I was rather surprised that the Reform Party would do something like that, condemn this omnibus bill and not bring forward certain specific recommendations to every single part of the bill. Perhaps that is still coming. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Who knows? I hope so because if not it would be a flagrant contradiction.

As I indicated, a lot of things have been said about unemployment insurance par mes amis du Bloc. Of course Canadians will realize if they believe that these cuts have been undertaken, these changes are really rather severe. If the Reform Party had undertaken these cuts they would have been draconian and dramatic and they would have hurt a whole lot more. We have heard all kinds of comments as to what they would like to do and it is not a gradual cut; it is an amputation.

I have addressed most of the concerns my colleagues have raised both from l'opposition officielle, le bloc Quebecois, including the other opposition party, the Reform Party.

As I indicated today there are a number of flagrant contradictions. Politics are being played and I think they rather enjoy it. They are becoming rather good at it. I must commend them. Most of them are quite good at it, but at the same time they are not fooling too many Canadians.

Canadians are listening and they are asking if the solutions were as simple as the Reform Party proposes, why were they not resolved a long time ago? Of course they condemn the solution of the Bloc. All of the ills of the world will be corrected supposedly by the separation of Quebec from Canada. Nobody believes that, not even my friends from the Bloc believe that.

Today, if my colleagues from the opposition parties will do it, in view of the United Nations report which shows us as the best country in the world, I hope we will start working together not only to maintain that position but to improve it in the spirit of co-operative federalism.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to break new ground today and I hope the parliamentary secretary will be listening carefully.

I will start by saying that I am in agreement with the government on this portion of Bill C-17. I will be speaking to the portion on unemployment insurance. When I hear that Reformers are always negative and do not have any constructive alternatives, I particularly would like to explain why I am in agreement with the government on this issue.

We are talking about unemployment insurance program reform. I agree that unemployment insurance does need reform, in fact it needs more reform than is proposed. Of course the government is going through a social program review which will allow that to take place.

I referred to the red book on this particular issue and looked for what I could expect from the Liberal government during the election campaign. What I understood from the red book was that the Liberals would work with the provinces to redesign social assistance programs, so sorely tested in recent years, to help people on social assistance who are able to work to move from dependence to full participation in the economic and social life of the country.

During the election campaign I had a fairly specific proposal to place on the table for the unemployment insurance program review which reads: "The Reform Party supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original function; that is, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of unexpected job loss". It was a fairly specific proposal. It is fairly obvious that is more specific than the proposal I had from my opponent on the other side.

Frankly I was hammered on this and other social program issues during the election campaign. I was hammered as being uncaring, as being a person who was involved in slash and burn cutting with no compassion. I must admit those allegations hurt me a little because I entered the national arena of politics for compassionate reasons.

In my line of work I felt government mismanagement had a specific and significant impact on my life and my work and the life and work of those whom I had treated. I came here for compassionate reasons. I strongly believe that if our social programs are continually eroded by fiscal mismanagement that we will not have social programs and compassion will be very weak.

Last week I had an opportunity to talk with a number of grade 12 students in my constituency. Reformers have decided that to represent our constituents better we are divvying up our time and one week when the House is sitting we are actually in our constituencies. I took that week to talk to my grade 12 students.

I had a number of messages to give them. The one specific message I had to give was that our government and our country is in debt and in serious trouble. I went through the figures: that we are overspending $110 million a day; that we are half a trillion dollars in debt; that over 30 cents of every $1 is spent today on interest; and that every social program is in jeopardy, including their educational needs and wishes.

The figures were not particularly meaningful to those grade 12 students. I rethought my proposals as I spoke to them and tried to put them into a frame of reference they could better understand. The one thing which seemed to strike home was when I said that every single one of them who sat in front of me owed the federal government a brand new pickup truck.

I was specific when I said: "Each one of you owes the federal government a pickup truck. It is a two-wheel drive pickup truck, not an extended cab. It does not have electric windows, no options whatsoever. It has an am-fm radio. It does not have any trick wheel covers on it. It does not have radial tires. It is a basic, brand new pickup truck. That is what each one of you owes the government".

Then I asked: "If everything comes about that the government today is proposing during its mandate, where will you be at the end of that mandate at the next election?". Each one of them and every single Canadian will then owe to the federal government a pickup truck with an extended cab, alloy wheels and radial tires. This truck will now have an am-fm radio with a CD player and electric windows. It is still a two-wheel drive pick-up, not yet a four-wheel drive.

These youths asked me: "What are you saying to us? How long can this go on?". It cannot go on forever. It was like saying to them: "Suppose you pump gas at a gas station and make $100 a week but every week you spend $115. How long could you go on?". Obviously, it cannot go on forever.

The message I took to those grade 12 students is that my generation and we in this House are mortgaging their future. The grade 12 students in Macleod asked me to bring their message back to the House of Commons: Stop mortgaging the futures of the youths of Canada.

I went through the Bill C-17 proposals. I went to the summaries of the proposals suggested by the minister. It is always interesting to read the summaries.

On unemployment insurance the summary on page 5 of the minister's document indicates: "Changes will require claimants to work for longer periods in order to be eligible for the same number of weeks of benefits. For example, a claimant with 36 weeks of work and living in an area of 12 to 13 per cent unemployment is entitled to 50 weeks of benefits under the present schedule. In order to have the same entitlement under the proposed schedule the same individual will have to work for 52 weeks". That is 36 weeks has changed to to 52.

The summary on page 13: "The proposed changes to UI will improve the linkage between work and benefits while enhancing adequacy and fairness in the provision of income support. The changes will contribute significantly to job creation by providing premium relief beginning on January 1, 1995". It is interesting and every Canadian should pay attention to this: There is a linkage between providing premium relief and job creation. In this document the Liberal government is saying something I say very strongly.

I had a personal intervention in my constituency office earlier this spring. A seasonal worker came to see me griping about the unemployment insurance changes being proposed by my colleagues. He was griping because he had been on unemployment insurance and would have to work longer to get the same amount of benefits. It was a criticism of the whole process.

He asked me what I thought as a Reformer about the Liberal unemployment insurance changes. I asked him what he would think if I told him I did not think a seasonal worker would soon have unemployment insurance benefits if we continued going the way we were.

I told him: "You have told me your story about how you worked very hard as a seasonal worker. You spent your summer on a road paving crew last year. You worked overtime and made $45,000 during the good time of the year. Then you went on unemployment insurance. You told me you went on unemployment insurance by choice".

He had told me he did not really have to be on unemployment insurance; he could easily have obtained a job with a transport company. He had a class 1 licence and the company was dying for him to come and work. However for the convenience of his family which I can understand, he chose to stay home during the winter to be closer to his wife. Therefore he would not be driving some place far away in the U.S.

He chose to do that because unemployment insurance was there for him as an individual who had made a significant amount of money during another portion the year. The principle of his being able to choose that over working when a job was available to him is something we must address or we will not have unemployment insurance.

I support the direction of this portion of Bill C-17 and I say that with no rancour whatsoever. As it is one of my committee responsibilities, I will push toward a significant change in the principle of unemployment insurance so that it becomes what it originally was.

I will end today with the message that came from my grade 12 students in Macleod, that the Government of Canada stop mortgaging the future of our youth.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have to participate in this debate on the Budget Implementation Act, 1994. On April 14, I said no to undue delays in reducing unemployment insurance premiums.

I also questioned statements by the Minister of Finance about potential savings to businesses, savings that could be reinvested to hire workers.

It is in that context that I will address today clause 26 of the bill.

The philosophy behind clause 26 of Bill C-17 is simple. It rests on the principle that, assuming the Minister of Finance's forecasts are realistic, the businesses would actually reinvest in job creation the amounts they have saved as a result of premium reductions. There you go, jobs are automatically created!

If this scenario is likely, and that is what we are given to understand, then the next logical step is to ask ourselves why the same government that has come up with this scenario almost simultaneously increased contributions to the plan. On the one

hand, it tells us that premium reductions will undoubtedly result in job creation and, on the other, it increases contributions. The logic behind this line of action eludes us.

This government expects 40,000 news jobs will be created as a result of its new policy concerning UI premiums. Let us take a closer look, if you will.

Based on the government's own calculations, 9,000 jobs were lost as a direct result of the UI premium rate increase that came into effect on January 1.

In the context of the present scenario, rolling back the UI premium rates starting January 1, 1995, would prevent the loss of another 31,000 jobs slated to disappear like those that were lost last January. If you add these 9,000 jobs to those that will be lost come January 1, 1995, the grand total is indeed 40,000. And that is what they call a "40,000 job job-creation program". In terms of creativity, we have seen better, but not in terms of demagogy.

The main question that comes to mind of course is: Why not have acted earlier? Or to put it another way: Why did the government, knowing that a premium increase would inevitably eliminate jobs, go ahead with this increase?

We do not understand and we are convinced that many Quebecers and Canadians are asking the same questions we are.

Will the 9,000 people who lost their jobs last January because of the premium hike be impressed by the glorified job creation program announcements? Of course not! How will the government explain its inaction to these workers? How will it explain that the jobs they lost will be re-created a year later? How will it explain to these people that it preferred to wait for one year before taking action, when the enormous personal sacrifices made by those who lost their jobs were totally unnecessary and unjustified? Will it blame these injustices on the Official Opposition, the source of all evils? Maybe. We have seen such demagogy before in this chamber.

The Official Opposition has vigorously denounced the February 22 budget since it was tabled in this House. We denounced the inequity of the lower benefits and the longer qualifying periods for the unemployed. We denounced the budget's inequity to some regions, especially Quebec and the Maritime provinces. We denounced the odious impact on women of budget measures that control their private lives. We denounced the disincentive and despair that these measures will create for young unemployed people at the beginning of their working lives.

The Official Opposition denounced the lack of vision of this so-called "new" government. We have noticed and deplored the lack of real job creation policies and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, until the government stops oppressing the poor and protecting the rich. We will continue to press for the creation of real jobs, new jobs, even if we are blamed for all the problems in the world.

I am speaking today in favour of the proposal to amend clause 26 of Bill C-17 put forward by my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. The proposed amendment is a very concrete solution aimed at eliminating one of the irritants created by the February 22 budget. This proposal is also designed to facilitate, albeit in a very minor way, job creation. The Official Opposition is thus trying to repair the damage done by the government.

We must support a motion such as the one we are proposing today to ensure that jobs are created as soon as possible. To do so, we must reduce premiums as early as June 1, 1994 while waiting for concrete, real job-creation policies.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before discussing the issue as such and the amendments tabled by some members, I want to reply to the comments made earlier by the hon. member for St. Boniface. The hon. member criticized the Bloc Quebecois on a number of issues and, on several occasions, he made comments which were quite inaccurate. I want to state the facts and also look at the real intentions of the government, in the light of the member's remarks.

He said that the Bloc is inconsistent since it is asking the government to cut spending, while opposing the fact that the UI budget will be reduced by several billion over the next few years. Yet, there is no contradiction there. It is possible to cut expenditures, but the government must certainly not start with cuts which will adversely affect the unemployed. The hon. member is telling us that, as regards spending reduction, the only significant measure in the budget, of which this bill is the result, is major cuts to the unemployment insurance program.

The hon. member said that the opposition lacked vision, adding that the problem was not new. He must know what he is talking about since he sat on this side of the House for a quite a while. I remember that at the time he and several of his colleagues, including the current Deputy Prime Minister, used to vigorously denounce the UI reforms of the Conservatives. It is rather amusing to read the speeches made then by those people. They were talking about inhuman measures and other similar things.

Yet, only four months after they took office, and after claiming in many cases that it was impossible to implement quick reforms because these things require in-depth reviews and a long term approach through committees which have to work for a year or two before changes can be made, the government was more than ready in the case of the UI program. And this only 18 months after the Liberals vehemently opposed the idea of targeting UI to fight the deficit at the expense of the unem-

ployed. Yet, four months after they came to office, the Liberals launched an all-out attack on the jobless.

This is where they will go and get a good chunk of the money they need to reduce the deficit in a very small way, as they said in the last budget.

The hon. member then went on to say that we live in the best country in the world and that our quality of life is second to none. He referred to a UN study, to the umpteenth version of a study that is published every year and whose findings were released during the weekend. According to the study, Canada ranked first for the second time in three years, and he was very proud of all that. Of course, he forgot to mention that the study does not consider debt levels in its ranking.

However, the report did say there was some concern about the future, because considering the debt, many programs may not be possible to maintain, at least not as they are now. There are a number of criteria in this study which are debatable, including the number of tv sets per household, and so forth. This is quality of life evaluated in North American terms. It is no coincidence that a country like Canada comes out well in this study. Criteria and values are ours, and they form the basis for the judgment made by the study.

If the debt were included as a criterion, I think there would be a little less enthusiasm, and I think the hon. member would be the first person to acknowledge this. Fine, we can say our quality of life is very good, but if next month I were to use up all my credit, my credit cards and my bank loans, of course I would have an excellent quality of life during that month. But I could hardly say the same for the months after that. I might have a few problems then, although for a while I would have a very good quality of life. Well, it would be a quality of life on credit.

He also referred to Canada as the most decentralized country in the world. I must admit I found it hard to keep a straight face. The hon. member must know a couple of countries. In any case, I will mention two he should look at a little more closely.

Certainly Belgium, where the federal level is responsible only for foreign affairs, international trade and currency. And even in the case of foreign affairs, two of the three levels have certain powers. I wonder how he drew the conclusion that he did. I suggest he take a course in international politics and take a close look at the Belgian model.

He could also look at Switzerland to see how the system in that country works. He would realize that they are somewhat more decentralized than we are here.

He also talked a long time about the duplication that exists between Quebec and Ottawa. As a member I get terribly frustrated when someone comes to my office and wants to apply for a training program, and they tell him he is not eligible because he is not on unemployment insurance. The program is open only to unemployment insurance recipients. If he is on welfare, he has to apply for a different program, because he is not eligible for this one. And then these people say: "But how come we have these criteria, because after all it is public money, and we want the training". And again they are told this program is not for them and that they have to go to the other level of government, which is responsible in their case.

What we have here is a lack of vision and a lack of consistency. The hon. member for St. Boniface knows this. And what have they done about it since they came to power? Nothing. It is easy to see. He says that we made "no concrete suggestion". We have been telling him for a long time that there were concrete measures to be taken in the area of manpower training. It is a very concrete suggestion and I am convinced that he sees people like that every day or so in his office. I know I do.

Let us talk about what is being proposed now. They are attacking the present unemployment system in many ways. They are changing the number of weeks, the benefit rate and the rules of eligibility. Since they cannot control unemployment itself, they will at least control the number of unemployed people and the way they will receive benefits. They are attacking the unemployed themselves. That is where they put the focus in order to solve the problem, despite the way they talked about employment all through the campaign. They say: "We will decrease unemployment expenditures" but they will not do so by creating jobs; instead, they will modify the plan and make it more stringent by increasing the number of weeks required and decreasing the importance of criteria such as regional unemployment, by increasing the number of weeks of insurable employment from 10 to 12 and decreasing the rate of benefits from 57 per cent to 55 per cent. For some the rate will increase to 60 per cent, but for most it will go from 57 to 55 per cent. They talk very little about that.

Who will be affected most by such a reform in the area of eligibility, expenditures, etc.? We can say that the Atlantic provinces and Quebec will be hard hit. We heard figures like 630 million dollars in the Atlantic region, 735 million in Quebec, 560 million in Ontario and 430 million in the west. You know the Maritimes will be the hardest hit.

Following the comments of my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe, the subcommittee on finance worked very hard and saw to it that witnesses were heard. It was disrespectful toward several of the groups that came to express their views and their fears, particularly about the UI reform aspect of Bill C-17. This was the case for the Acadian community, whose presentation was cut short and whose members were thrown out. It did not even take the time to listen to them. For a government which stressed the importance of dignity and openness, it showed blatant disrespect. Showing dignity is also listening to people and letting them speak even if their visions or views are different from our own. The committee did not even bother to do

that. This is quite astonishing, considering that that group had for the most part supported the elected party.

In the few minutes I have left, I would like to ponder what will happen now in view of these facts. What will happen if the system is made stricter, or the entitlement period shorter? What if beneficiaries still do not have a job at the end of their entitlement period, since nothing would lead us to believe that they will easily find one. They will simply have to become welfare recipients.

Then, which level of government will take them over? The provincial level. Another level of government will pay the bill. They are not in our records any more and they do not produce any red ink here. They are now in the records of the provinces which may end up with a tab of $100 million.

Researchers from the Université du Québec à Montréal, economist Pierre Fortin and his group, have estimated at almost $600 million the liability thus transferred to the provinces. Therefore, we are passing the buck and telling the provinces: "Make the choices that we refuse to make", notwithstanding the fact that their budgets are much smaller.

Here we have a budget of $160 billion, when in Quebec it is less than $50 billion, that is less than a third. We are telling them: "You have more imagination, do the cuts we refuse to make". This is a terrible thing to do. Who are the losers in all that? They are the individuals under attack and given little hope. They are the consumers who just lost their jobs, that are often in very difficult economic situations, and to whom we say that they cost us too much and that they are responsible for the deficit. We find that unacceptable.

This is why several of my colleagues have proposed interesting amendments aimed at preserving an efficient enough system, given that we are presently studying an in-depth reform of social programs. I believe that what we have in front of us is a major piece of legislation, and I call on my colleagues to support the proposed amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 25 last, the Canadian people elected a new government. In Quebec, we were in the advantageous position of having the choice between three political parties. Quebecers chose to send Bloc Quebecois members to Ottawa. On October 25 last, the objective, the campaign slogan of the Liberal government was hope. All over Quebec, we heard "Votez libéral pour l'espoir". Whenever I heard that slogan I thought that it did not make much sense, especially knowing the government's background.

The Liberal government is to be blamed for most of the Canadian deficit. All the Conservatives did afterwards was to increase it. The Conservative government, which was in power in the 1980s and early 1990s, increasingly curtailed citizens' rights and now with Bill C-17, this government of ours is going even further.

Since his election as leader of his party and the last campaign, the Prime Minister is forever talking about bread and butter. We now know that those are mere words. What the Prime Minister and his cabinet are doing by amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, is to take away a little bit more bread and butter from the poorest members of our society. I rise today to denounce the irresponsible attitude of a government which is supposed to help economic recovery. A government which is supposed to make Canadians and Quebecers feel better. But what it is doing instead is taking a little bit more from everybody.

The Liberals are hitting the poorest members of our society, those who are the most in need. Losing your job is very sad. Mr. Speaker, you and I are in an advantageous situation. We are elected to serve for a certain period of time during which we do not need to look for a job. You know as well as I do that losing one's job is perhaps one of the saddest thing with which a person must contend.

All our government is doing is merely lowering the benefit rate. People who once were entitled to 57 per cent of their salary will now only be able to collect up to 55 per cent. Minor adjustments have been made, but if we look at the figures, we quickly see that two thirds of recipients will receive fewer benefits than before. This is unacceptable. When a government is given a mandate to govern, it must begin by focusing on the least fortunate members of our society. That is not what this government is currently doing. It is trying to reduce its deficit at the expense of the most disadvantaged and that is unacceptable.

The Liberals have always adopted the liberal attitude whereby the sky is the limit. Today, there no longer appears to be any limit at all, and as a result, the least fortunate are becoming increasingly dependant. What is this government doing? It is lowering UI benefits and, as of result of its actions, provinces will have to pick up a bigger share of the tab for social assistance. Once again, this government is offloading its deficit onto the provinces. This is unacceptable.

As representatives of the people, we have a role to play. We must ensure that all Canadian citizens are treated equally. Parliament must also strive to narrow the inequity gap between the classes. With Bill C-17, the Liberal government is making the gap between rich and poor grow wider and wider. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, cannot accept that. We were elected, Mr. Speaker, you, I and all the hon. members, to protect the interests of the people and, in this case, it would be in the interest of the people to at least maintain UI benefits at the 57 per cent level. This rate cannot be reduced.

The Canadian government seems to be strongly influenced by the United States, where the rate is approximately 50 per cent. But we have always had a slightly higher rate in Canada and Quebec. This government did praise the merits of unemployment insurance. The benefit rate has always been slightly higher in Canada and Quebec and I think it cannot go any lower. Let us not loose sight of those of our constituents who are poor. We have in our ridings less fortunate people who do not have enough to get by. The government has the duty-and the duty of Parliament is to support a government that does so-to do its job and be actively involved in creating employment. But it is not the case here. This government talks about doing many things. It plans to do this, that and the other, but actually does very little. This government has accomplished very little.

As you know, the rate of unemployment in Quebec is about 13 per cent. In Canada, it is around 11 per cent. Some 450,000 Quebecers are presently unemployed, not to mention those who lost their jobs but gave up looking for a new one because there are none available. It is well know that the fishing, forest, tourist and construction industries are seriously affected by the measures contained in Bill C-17. Workers will be required to work 12 weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance. There is a danger that these people will not be able to meet the 12-week requirement and will be forced to request social assistance.

It is humiliating for someone who wants to work to be on welfare. To wrap up, I think that the unemployment insurance reform reflects the contempt of the Liberals for the unemployed.

The Minister of Human Resources Development admits to pursuing the following objective: to force recipients to work longer in order to qualify for the same number of weeks of benefits.

The unemployed in Quebec and Canada did not choose to be out of work and I think the government must do the best it can to help them out.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-17 and especially to the UI provisions on which my party has put forward a few amendments that are, I think, in the interest of Canadians.

I do not want to repeat the arguments made since this debate started but I would still like to express my opinion on the use of public funds to create jobs. Of course, whenever we talk about unemployment, we also talk about job creation.

Every member of this House can now find out in his or her riding the true extent of the infrastructure program announced by this government, which will turn into a disaster in coming days when municipalities will have to present their ratepayers with borrowing by-laws in order to have access to the infrastructure program. Let us look at what is now happening in our ridings. Many of these projects will not be accepted because municipalities are already deeply in debt.

We said at the time that it was another way for the Liberal government to offload money it does not have onto provincial, then municipal governments. In recent weeks, I also analyzed what was being said and mostly listened to groups of young people between 18 and 30 years of age that I would divide into three categories: those who have jobs, young poorly-paid workers without contracts but who still manage to get by on their salaries for one, two or three years.

These workers still manage to get by. However, when their contracts expire, they will fall into another category, that of workers whose status is precarious and that is where it starts.

That is where it starts and when unemployment insurance comes into play. For workers whose status is insecure, there are only projects, jobs created under DEP or the Challenge program or something like that, which under this bill would give these workers lower benefits, because the rate is lower, after they had accumulated a certain number of weeks of unemployment insurance credits.

If you are lucky in that game and are back on UI, perhaps you will be lucky again and find another project, but there will be no third project. At that point, the insecure worker falls into the unemployed category and that is my main point.

We have nothing to offer our jobless young people who are 18 to 30 years old; we are losing that whole generation because we have nothing for them. We are taking away their dignity and forcing them for a few hundred dollars a month to take compulsory courses in school again, which will be no use in the end, since the training they will be given does not prepare them for the jobs now vacant.

You can be sure that young people in that situation-because I know, I worked with them for over thirty years-develop a certain fatalistic attitude which often makes them drink more alcohol and also take more drugs; not having anything to do, they find something to occupy their time.

The suicide rate is very high. Not a day goes by that we do not see lack of work as the main cause of suicide among young people aged 18 to 30. Of course they cannot afford to borrow, but sometimes they have to and the interest rates they pay are abnormally high. So they are caught in a trap from which they will have difficulty escaping.

We devalue them. These people are socially devalued. We are creating instability for a whole generation. If they are lucky, they move in coop or low-cost housing units which, when not supervised or when provincial governments make budget cuts, often look like poverty ghettos. This is where our 18 to 30-year- olds live.

They also share dwellings, which is not a healthy solution. If they are lucky and do not belong to a single parent family, they will go back to their parents' home, which is often the only solution for many of them. This what you are creating by not being able to come up with projects which will put people to work and give them back their dignity. The stress and anxiety related to the fear of not being able to find a job is very real for these young people.

I also want to discuss the third amendment proposed by my colleague regarding the approval of the House of Commons given by resolution of that House, instead of the approval of the Governor in Council. The Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to pilot projects. This is important and I think it gives satisfaction to the hon. member for St. Boniface. Again, we are not opposed to pilot projects. In fact, we supported the one related to Operation Dignity II.

We cannot oppose, and that is showing a constructive approach, the implementation of new ideas. However, we want the ministers, even though they are subjected to ministerial accountability, to allow this House to review, examine, evaluate and monitor each pilot project, since Parliament is the centre of democracy and since elected representatives are accountable.

They must ensure government transparency, so that they are not stuck with a fait accompli, as in the case of Pearson Airport and all the dealings that went on with lobbyists. Once a debate has taken place on a pilot project, the ministers are in a position to evaluate the pros and cons. This enables them, and us as well, to make better decisions. Then, the same information can be transmitted to every Canadian.

It is in this spirit that I will support the three proposed amendments.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to enter into this debate on Bill C-17, the budget implementation act.

I was very pleased to attend all of the hearings with regard to this bill at the committee stage. At that stage there were some interesting presentations from those who wanted greater benefits in terms of the unemployment insurance portion of the act which in this omnibus presentation before us and those who wanted to have the legislation concerning unemployment insurance more on an insurance basis so that the books would be more balanced and there would be less government intervention.

I would like talk about what I heard at those hearings. I want to make sure that those ideas are presented in this assembly.

The Reform Party, as my colleague mentioned earlier, is in support of the section concerning the unemployment insurance changes. We support it for two basic reasons. First, we believe there is a reduction in cost to business. Business across this nation at the present time is under stress. We believe that the reduction of cost can enhance employment opportunity for many people in the working world.

Second, we believe that this amendment brings us closer to the insurance principle whereby payments by the employer and the employee will be equal to benefits that are derived therefrom.

One suggestion made by a number of the groups is that we should have more input by the employer and the employees with regard to unemployment insurance. At the present time there is a feeling that government has too much say as to how the program is run. It was suggested that we should change the legislation even more extensively than the legislation before us now to a point where the government is one step removed.

I asked in that debate what would be the role of government. The suggestion was that the role of government would be a sort of funding agency that could play a part when there were surges. In other words, if there was a surplus of funds in the unemployment insurance fund, they could be the retainer of those funds but when there is a demand on funds the government would have this revolving fund available so that funds could be put into unemployment insurance and there would be moneys available at times of need.

That is a principle that we should consider here. I think it would put the unemployment insurance fund on a basis whereby it stands on its own merits and on its own financial support system.

We had some concerns regarding this Bill C-17 relative to the section on unemployment insurance. First, there was the question as to whether it should be a change in legislation just to reduce the deficit. As reformers we certainly support any kind of measures that go to reducing the deficit. If that were its only purpose we would feel that supporting this amendment would not be the right thing to do.

The second item that raised some concern with us was with regard to the item which we call the two tier system whereby there is the possibility of a means test for certain persons who qualify for unemployment insurance. I would think in principle it is not right that we have a two tier system. When a person pays into an insurance program, whether that person is single, married or whatever the status may be, that person should qualify for a certain level of benefits. To enter this other dimension into the system and at that time raise the question as to a person's other means I think is wrong. I certainly would not be in support of that area in this piece of legislation.

The third area that concerns us is the fact that this legislation was brought in with the budget. It was implemented with the budget. Following that the government announced a very comprehensive review of social programs. In a sense unemployment insurance is an integral part. To approve legislation in this assembly separate from this comprehensive review I do not think is right. It certainly raises a concern with us on this side of the House.

Fourth is with regard to the pilot projects. As a reform party we are not against any kind of pilot projects where we can experiment, look at efficiency or bring about avenues by which we can better allocate and expend public funds. However, the questions that are unanswered are the ones we are concerned about. What really qualifies as a pilot project? Who will be involved in these pilot projects? Will they be persons who are really skilled and have expertise in the area? Are we looking at some type of pilot projects that will satisfy some political friends? I hope not.

The other question is what is it that we are really trying to discover? What do we want to achieve through the pilot projects? Is it another means by which we are evading the real question before us? That question is certainly dealing with the unemployed of this country. Are we trying to do things just to pacify the general public by putting in place a pilot project which in a sense is a delay tactic that is often used by government in trying to avoid the main question that is before us?

To resolve and deal with these problems, certainly the one about unemployment insurance, we have to deal with the primary question. The primary question as we all know is what do we do about government spending? What actions must we take to encourage growth in the economy? The primary question is what actions must be taken. We feel and have said very clearly in this House that one thing that must be clear to the public and the investment community in Canada is that the government does have a deficit reduction program.

The presentation of the budget, this budget implementation act and other actions of the government to this time do not indicate to the investment community, the business community or the private individual community that the government has come to grips with its spending. When we do and confidence is in this nation and the economy grows then jobs will be available and the concerns we have heard with regard to unemployment insurance will certainly not be there. They will be set as a side agenda very low on the priority not only of this House but of Canadians.

I feel the solution lies in that area. However, in terms of the unemployment insurance program we must remember that program is not a welfare program. It is not a program by which people can live for months and months on unemployment insurance. It is a program that provides interim assistance between one job and the next job opportunity.

As I listen to the Bloc Quebecois make its presentation in this assembly I become concerned when it says benefits must be extended extensively. What I hear in its message is that it wants the benefits to be just about welfare benefits, not benefits on an interim or temporary basis for those who are between jobs. If we move to a point at which it becomes a program of longer term financial security then we have moved away from the insurance principle about which I spoke in the early part of my remarks and that would be wrong.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. This will also apply to Motions Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the whip of the Official Opposition has asked me to defer the vote until later this day.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until later this day at 6.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the Republic of Hungary, an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention between Canada and the Argentine Republic and a protocol between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (without amendment) from a committee.