Debates of March 12th, 1996

Supply

[The Speaker]

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Lévis has only 10 seconds left. You can answer by yes or no.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, and with all of our energy.

[The Speaker]

That is a good answer.

Main Estimates

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to discussions I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That notwithstanding the order made on Thursday, March 7, vote 130 of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 of the Department of Canadian Heritage be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations; and

That vote 140 of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 of the Department of Canadian Heritage be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to.)

Special Joint Committee Of The Senate And The House Of Commons

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on another pursuant to the same round of discussions that occurred between all parties the second motion is the following. I move:

That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to develop a code of conduct to guide senators and members of the House in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists;

That seven members of the Senate and fourteen members of the House of Commons be the members of the committee, and that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to act on behalf of the House as members of the said committee;

That changes in the membership of the committee on the part of the House of Commons be effective immediately after notification signed by the member acting as the chief whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the committee;

That the committee be directed to consult broadly and to review the approaches taken with respect to these issues in Canada and in other jurisdictions with comparable systems of government;

That evidence adduced in the first session of the 35th Parliament by a special joint committee on the code of conduct be deemed to have been laid upon the table and referred to the committee;

That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;

That the committee have power to report from time to time to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;

That quorum of the committee be 11 members whenever a vote, resolution or decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;

That the committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report to the Senate and to the House of Commons;

That the committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;

That the committee make its final report no later than June 21, 1996;

That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the report be deposited with the clerk of the Senate and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to that House; and

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

Supply

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time with the hon. member for St. Boniface. My first comments respond to the last couple of interventions from the other side.

There was reference to the social security review and a trip members of the HRD committee made to Bathurst one Saturday afternoon following the social security review. I remind the hon. member for Lévis that at the time many of the representations from Bathurst asked us to convert the measure for eligibility for unemployment insurance from weeks to hours.

It is a very well received change in most corners, business, labour and seasonal workers. I am surprised that recollection fails the hon. member, that he was not aware of how important that change is to the seasonal industries and to our region.

Similarly, another comment was made with regard to the need to defend the interests of the less fortunate in society. I bring to the attention of the members of the Bloc that for those people who would earn less than $26,000, the outcome of the changes even before the amendments that have been promised is an increase of 11 per cent in benefits.

I think it is very important to recognize that while there are things that need to be amended in the bill, which I will speak to, let us not forget that by throwing out the bill, withdrawing the bill, an awful lot of good things will go with it. For that reason I cannot support their motion.

I remind the House what those changes need to be so that the record is clear in terms of some of the commitments that have been made, some of the statements by colleagues particularly from Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We need to fix what has become known as the gap, basically the way benefits are calculated.

As the bill presently reads, that calculation would be done on the basis of the last 14, 16 or 18 consecutive weeks. If you work in a pattern that sees spaces between periods of work all of those spaces would have the effect of decreasing benefits unduly, and that change needs to be made. I look forward to participating in the committee's hearings to make some suggestions as to how that might be done.

The divisor is an instrument that would allow the government to separate the measure of eligibility from the measure of calculation of benefits. That can be a good thing if it is used to allow people easier access to unemployment insurance in some instances while at the same time protecting the system from the possibility that some people would assume that access is their ultimate objective.

We have to be careful to make sure the divisor is not so great as to have a negative impact on the rate of benefits as a result of those calculations. It is very important that be attended to. Originally the discussion was around a divisor of 20. That would mean that if someone were eligible for unemployment insurance with what would be the hourly equivalent of 12 weeks of work, that would be divided by 20 and the result would be a very low rate of benefits. However, if the divisor were small enough-I will be participating in the discussion with the committee on that as well-it could be a helpful tool to allow people easier access to the system.

The final point is the intensity rule. It is very important to recognize the difference of the intensity rule as it is applied to people with low incomes as against the intensity rule as it is applied to people with high incomes.

In order to explain this it is necessary to understand the two principal objectives of the new employment insurance program. The first objective is to insure people against the loss of work or income replacement in the case of loss of work. The second objective is to offer income support or an income supplement in various areas where people simply cannot put together enough work, time or wages to sustain a family over the course of an entire year. Those two objectives are fundamental to unemployment insurance.

The income supplement objective has been hijacked by many people who apply the rules which allow the income supplement at very high income levels. People who are making $60,000 and $70,000 are the exception. I would want to be accused of using those exceptions to beat up on people who are blameless. However, there are people who have taken the annual supplement component of the UI program and who are using it to give themselves supplements. Very often they are not individuals. Very often they are businesses. Very often they are governments and large organizations which use that possibility to supplement incomes which do not require a supplement.

It is very important to understand the two functions of the unemployment insurance program. We can challenge the annual use of the system by people with high incomes. I doubt there are many Canadians who would disagree with that sentiment.

Despite the fact there are changes which need to be made, and I have every confidence they will be made, I want the House to know why it would be wrong to withdraw the bill at this time. There are many things in the bill which will help the people who need help, whether in the Atlantic region, in Quebec or any place with seasonal industries such as tourism, the resource area or in construction.

Before I get into that subject I thank the former minister, the present minister, the HRD committee and its members from all sides of the House. It has been a very vigorous debate, one which has flushed out beyond most people's expectations. In my constituency we have had forums going back almost two years on the issue. It is very important to Atlantic Canada. It is very important to my riding. I am thankful that so many people in my constituency have been engaged in the debate.

What are the good things in the bill we cannot afford to withdraw? The shift from weeks to hours; anyone familiar with seasonal industries will realize that when those industries work they work long hours. Consequently if a person works 70 hours a week, in this system that is worth two weeks. That is very important.

It is important that everyone recognize that to withdraw the bill would be to withdraw a provision which would allow 270,000 people three more weeks. On average in Atlantic Canada it would mean two more weeks. It would also make the system available to half a million Canadians who cannot now get into the system.

On the low income protection, if a person makes less than $26,000, with the new legislation they could claim up to 80 per cent. It is very important to recognize that provision would be gone with the withdrawal of the bill.

The high income clawback is a good thing. It takes out of the system all of those people who are making large amounts of money. They are the exception, but they are there. There are people working year round at minimum wage, paying premiums so the money can be given over to people making much more money on an annual basis. I believe that is wrong.

The employment provisions contained in the bill will take 39 programs to 5 and make them much more flexible. They will be administered by local communities which is another improvement.

Finally, the macro impact of this change in our region is significant, even though I support many of the provisions. Having said that, we have a transition fund which will allow us to make the adjustment. Generally speaking, it would be a genuine shame, subject to the amendments that I talked about, for our region to have this bill withdrawn.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague from Fredericton-York-Sudbury, with whom I have worked on the human resources development committee.

The question that comes to my mind following his speech is how will we get out of this situation? We know and people in the Maritimes know as well that this bill contains many important elements that are unacceptable. As of today, neither the minister nor the government have given us a clue as to which amendments will be proposed.

After reading the bill, we would be tempted to say that, if we have to accept this legislation in its present form, if we have to take the whole package, we would rather have nothing at all. We would rather have no reform than have the one contained in this bill. Nobody in Canada would be against a reform that would propose an active job creation policy. Nobody is against giving people an opportunity to work more or helping the regions that have seasonal industries to diversify. Why is there not, in this reform, an active job creation policy?

Where are the economic diversification measures that would help seasonal workers instead of penalizing them, accusing them of not wanting to work or saying that it is their fault that they have that kind of job? The government could have proposed a policy that would have given the regions that have seasonal industries a period of 5, 8 or 10 years to adjust their economy. If the situation has not improved at the end of that period, then it can draw the necessary conclusions. But there has to be an adjustment period.

I want to raise another point. At the end of his speech, my colleague talked about a new program, namely the transition job fund. Let us be realistic; we had a decentralized program, the job development program, which allowed each employment centre to make its own decisions, to make adjustments based on a local approach, and now, with the new transition job fund, each project has to be approved by the minister. We have gone back to the stone age in terms of decision making. Does the member really think that this is an improvement? Does he not think that the government should withdraw this bill rather than go through with it in spite of all the criticism it draws, especially in Atlantic Canada?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for the questions.

The first questions put were: Where are the amendments? What are they going to look like? I am a bit astonished, at this point, that anybody would not know what these amendments are going to be. I have a hard time distinguishing between the bill that is going to be and the bill that is in terms of my speaking on it. We have talked about these amendments so much. We have to fix the gap. We have to fix the divisor. We have to fix the intensity rule. I do not know how much clearer I can be.

As the member is a member on the committee, I think he knows exactly what I am speaking about. We will have an enjoyable three weeks attending to these things.

As far as confidence in whether or not these changes are going to be made, the member will recall how much resistance there was to two-tiered UI in the green book during the social security review. It is gone. The member will recall how much resistance there was to experience rating which is having one's premiums based on the likelihood of one drawing unemployment insurance. I am sure the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup realizes how bad it would be for his region and my region if that were to happen, notwithstanding the fact that the Reform critic on HRD is quoted in a New Brunswick paper this morning as saying that is exactly what we should be doing, restoring this back to original insurance principles, which I can only say would be absolutely devastating to Atlantic Canada, period.

We are going to be delivering the programs that create jobs in the communities to the communities. In my case, there is a human resource development office in Fredericton that will be making the decisions. I am sure that taking these decisions out of Ottawa and larger centres and giving them to the communities is exactly the kind of progress we want. It was suggested during the social security review that we need to bring more flexibility into the system.

A significant number of times during the social security review people came before us and said: "The biggest problem with the program is that you have to be getting income benefits in order to get employment benefits". We have changed that. Now people will be eligible for employment benefits even if they are not drawing income benefits. That is another reason why we cannot support this motion.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to set the record straight and, second, to bring a matter up for discussion.

You are probably aware of the fact that the Employment Insurance Act provides for the modernisation of the Canadian unemployment insurance system, which is 50 years old, and for the revision of federal employment programs. In fact, the Employment Insurance Act will establish a two part re-employment assistance system.

First, the revised insurance benefits. Income support will continue to be provided on a temporary basis to recipients while they are looking for work. The benefits were revised to give more value to the work effort.

On the subject of hours, the insurance system is based, not on weeks of work but on total hours worked.

As for earnings, each dollar earned is taken into account in the benefit calculation. The higher the total earnings during a reference period of 16 to 20 weeks, the higher the benefits paid upon becoming unemployed.

Regarding the intensity rule, as you know, the benefit rate will be gradually reduced based on the number of previous weeks of benefits.

Finally, as regards the family supplement, this new supplement will raise the benefit rate of low income families with children. This means that claimants whose family income is lower than $25,921 could see their benefit rate increase by 7 per cent on average.

Second, the active employment benefits. The 39 programs which are currently centralized will be replaced with an employment benefits program focusing on set goals.

It is estimated that 400,000 individuals will receive direct assistance in their job search through the five measures put forth: wage subsidy, income supplement, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and development grants and loans.

These five measures will be tailored to individual needs and will support the jobless in their efforts to return to work. These are flexible tools, which will be tailored to meet the needs of local communities as well.

Our goal is to ensure that everyone is treated with fairness. We want the population as a whole to be treated fairly. Low income families with children will get increased protection, thanks to a family supplement. This is one example.

Here is another one: some of the new rules will be applied gradually to give individuals and communities time to adjust to the new situation.

Third, jobless people in regions with a high rate of unemployment will need fewer hours to be eligible.

People earning $2,000 or less per year will get a refund of their premiums through the income tax system. Small businesses will be eligible for a temporary refund if the amount of the contributions that they pay over the next two years increases significantly.

All claimants will be allowed to work on a temporary basis and to earn at least $50 per week without their benefits being affected. The program will take into account all the hours spent working. Regions where unemployment is high will get proportionally greater support.

These measures are designed to facilitate the program's implementation, to be fair to all Canadians, and to be receptive to the needs of regions and communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to share, with you and with members of this House, some comments made regarding this bill. I am not referring to comments made by members of the opposition parties, but by people who look at this legislation with an independent mind, if you will.

Raynald Langlois, president of Quebec's chamber of commerce, said: "As regards vocational training, the proposed legislation provides an interesting approach to reduce, if not eliminate, useless and costly overlap".

Yvon Charbonneau, a member of Quebec's national assembly and a former union leader, said: "At this point, the Quebec government's responsibility is to go to Ottawa and start negotiating directly and immediately".

Here is another quote: "The Conseil du patronat du Québec feels this is the first true federal overture in the manpower training sector. Consequently, the CPQ hopes that Quebec will agree to hold real discussions on this proposal with Ottawa". This from Ghislain Dufour, chairman of the Conseil du patronat du Québec.

There are other headlines and comments. Le Soleil stated: A good test for the good faith of the Government in Quebec''. And Jean-Jacques Samson, in <em>Le Soleil</em> , stated:The minister's plan is an invitation for provincial governments to negotiate an agreement on labour which will be a good test of the good faith of the Government of Quebec''.

Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, in Le Devoir , said: Under the new plan, claimants with children whose family income is under $26,000 will become eligible for benefits of up to 80 per cent of their salary. This is an excellent measure''. Alain Dubuc, in <em>La Presse</em> , commented:The minister has broken the wall of inertia and has launched the process of change''.

Jean Jacques Samson, in Le Soleil , stated: ``The new employment insurance proposed by the minister was designed to reduce costs, indeed, but it has many other merits, the main one being that 500,000 part time workers will become eligible. This measure is well adapted to one on the new realities of the labour market''.

There is more. The Ottawa Citizen stated that the plan is reasonable, practical and urgently important''. The <em>Financial Post</em> stated:The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''. The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``Responsible and fair''.

The Halifax Chronicle Herald stated: The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''. Sharon Clover, vice-chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce:These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work''.

What about other regions of Canada? It was stated in the Ottawa Citizen that the minister's plan is ``reasonable, practical and urgently important''.

The Financial Post stated: ``The federal government has taken some much needed steps in re-orienting the UI system. There are many positive features with the minister's proposals''.

The Winnipeg Free Press stated: ``responsible and fair''.

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald stated: ``The minister has recognized the needs of the poor in Canada by providing additional benefits to those with family incomes of less than $26,000''.

The vice-president of the Chamber of Commerce, Sharon Glover, stated: "These changes go a long way toward needed improvements, removing some features which previously had been a disincentive to work".

I have indicated clearly what this particular piece of legislation is all about. I have quoted people who are not members of the opposition, who were there in part to embarrass the government, to try to destabilize whatever project it brought forward. I have quoted neutral third parties who have looked at it with a detached eye. These are the kinds of comments they have made.

If I have more time, I have much more to say about this. May I have an indication?

[The Speaker]

I am sorry, but the member only has about 25 seconds.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 25 seconds I can reiterate that I would welcome questions from my colleagues with respect to the descriptions I have shared as well as the quotes I have put forward. These were not from members of the opposition, but from people who have looked at this with some objectivity. Perhaps they would like to share the views of their own champions on this issue.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very broad general question of my hon. colleague from St. Boniface concerning the nature of employment at this time throughout the world. We are aware that the problem affecting Canada and Quebec is not peculiar to ourselves. One has only to look at the rising unemployment levels in virtually all of the usual industrialized countries at the present time to realize that the nature of work is in the process of being totally redefined.

We understand that there is an increasing trend toward robotics and computer assisted design, which means higher production, better products, and fewer and fewer people involved. This is a fundamental problem. We will recall Henry Ford's saying in the early years of this century: "When I start production, I will make sure that my workers earn enough to be able to purchase what I am producing". Today we are doing the very opposite. At the very moment that companies are recording the highest profits, they are laying off the most people, and in the medium term, within ten years or so, there will be a fundamental problem everywhere in the world: no one will be able to afford the products available for sale any more.

My question to the hon. colleague is a general one, therefore. He has kept abreast of this issue since entering the House, and therefore during several mandates now. I would ask if he does not think that the time has come on the international level for countries such as Canada to start redefining the concepts of work, wealth and production?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, which I consider of prime importance. Yes indeed we must study more and discuss open-mindedly the whole concept of work, the way we work and the way we used to work. We must look at the changes that have occurred not only in Canada, including Quebec, but throughout the world.

It is true that things are done differently, dramatically so. This is no doubt the reason, and I want to share this with my colleagues, that, the government's speech from the throne promoted job creation primarily in the sense of ensuring our finances were in order. But we did the same in the budget. We want to be sure we create a better climate for creating jobs, which is what we want for all the Canadians we represent.

But I come back to the key point my colleague made. Yes, indeed, we must examine, we must look and we must consider what the future holds, because, like him, I think things will be different again. If we look at the last decade, we can see a major change. And if we look ahead into the next decade, I think there will be as many changes.

This is why I support this bill in principle. We are well aware it can stand improvement. But, we also know that it meets certain needs today. I will give you two quick examples. When we include the people working part time, we meet their needs. There are other measures, however. Some should perhaps be added; some should perhaps be improved. But as my colleague said earlier, certain adjustments will be made.

However, I entirely agree with him on the fundamental issue. We have to look at what is happening, what has happened and what will have to be done in addition to what we did to improve things for workers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the floor. I hope his question will be brief.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Indeed, it will be very brief, Mr. Speaker.

How is the member for St. Boniface going to explain to a person who received $400 a week, who worked 42 hours a week for 10 weeks, that, after January 1, 1997, the amount to which he or she will be entitled will be divided by 16 weeks and that-because the work is seasonal-benefits will be cut by 50 per cent and the benefits collected will be $125 per week? What is fair about that system?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to further consider that. If my colleague has clear and precise suggestions to make in this case as well as others, the government and the minister would be quite ready to consider them.

We, on this side of the House, are very open-minded and ready to remedy any inequity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Prior to resuming debate it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie-Grain; the hon. member for Delta-Canadian waterways.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago in the first throne speech of the 35th Parliament the government promised to make Canada's social security system responsive to the economic and social realities of the nineties.

After two years of extensive and expensive travel by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and countless expensive studies and testimonies by bureaucrats and experts, the cosmetic changes to the unemployment insurance were a real letdown. After listening to Liberal doublespeak for the last two years I cannot say that I am surprised.

Canadians are realizing the government's idea of an action plan really only amounts to a play on words: employment insurance or unemployment insurance. Only the name has changed. The program will remain as unworkable as ever.

Consider the goods and services tax. Scrapping the GST in Liberal terms means changing the name to the federal sales tax.

The Liberal definition for maintaining universality for old age pensioners seems to be combining the old age assistance plan and the guaranteed income supplement plan to come up with a seniors' benefit that most seniors will not qualify to receive. This is truly amazing since the Liberals scoffed at the Reform Party's 1993 election proposal to base seniors' benefits on family income. At least under our plan we suggested that benefits be reduced when family income reached the level of $54,000. Under the new Liberal seniors' benefit, couples whose total income exceeds $45,000 would see a drop in their pension benefits.

The member for Guelph-Wellington suggested that parties to the right of centre have a difficult time coming up with social programs. She should look at the province of Alberta. Its main problem at the moment is what to do with a budgetary surplus. When we as taxpayers and as government are paying out some $48 billion a year in interest that severely handcuffs the government to come up with any social programs.

Canadians are catching on that Liberals make great election promises which unfortunately are very conveniently forgotten immediately after the votes are counted. When it comes to legislation they also fail miserably. Bill C-12 is a prime example of this.

It is hard to imagine how the government could come up with a plan that could anger so many people. The consensus from all sides is that this is a flawed bill. Despite the musings of the new Minister of Human Resources Development that he will sweeten the bill, it will be another step backward for those Canadians who want to reduce their dependence on government social programs. The government somehow thinks it can win votes and maintain its popularity by perpetuating the social welfare system. Insurance means insurance, whether it is called employment insurance or unemployment insurance. The reason this bill should be withdrawn is that it does not resemble insurance in any way, other than the fact that it needs to have premiums paid into it.

Let us talk about insurance the way Canadians understand the concept. For instance, if you own and operate a motor vehicle you are required by law to purchase and maintain insurance on that automobile. If you have an accident or if the car is stolen you receive some monetary compensation. Also if your house burns down and your insurance premiums are paid up, you would be entitled to some monetary remuneration as long as you did not set the fire.

The unemployment insurance program is not a true insurance plan. It includes wage supplement programs, training programs and other add-ons that drain the resources of the employers and employees who fund the program.

The day the Minister of Human Resources Development unveiled his long awaited proposal for reforming the unemployment insurance program, Statistics Canada reported that full time employment fell by 64,000. In reply to my colleague opposite who

says that government creates jobs, this shows exactly the converse. The number of people with jobs dropped by 44,000 to 13.5 million in November. This is the worst monthly performance in more than three years. The proportion of young people in the labour force is at a 20-year low of 61 per cent.

In answer to these problems and in an attempt to look like its two-year review is worthwhile, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced $800 million for training benefit programs and another $300 million for disadvantaged areas. One has to wonder if these new programs are nothing more than slush funds set up to provide temporary jobs just in time for a new election.

The former Minister of Human Resources Development said that the jobs fund could be used to support local infrastructure projects. Does this mean that there may be more make-work programs and expensive projects for seasonal exploits like perhaps bike paths or exclusive boxes in sports stadiums or perhaps a canoe museum?

The government brags about replacing 39 centrally controlled programs with five benefits. What it really did was camouflage old ideas into a new package. Shades of the GST, more renaming and more repackaging.

When I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development in December about changes to the delivery of training programs, he said that we really should be transferring resources to the people, to the private sector, to communities. I would like to know why the government does not transfer labour market training exclusively to the private sector where the marketplace can create real jobs and that way Canadians can look forward to training that is specific to the economy and the jobs that they may be entering.

How does the minister reconcile his department's continued involvement in training programs when the Prime Minister announced that labour market training would be the sole responsibility of the provinces? The provinces will have to enter into agreements with the federal government on programs and their delivery and if they do not sign a deal with Ottawa no federal training money will be spent there. Instead the money will be earmarked for other programs for the province in question.

This is an arcane idea that somehow the government believes that it can keep provinces in line by manipulating the purse strings.

When the Liberals last revamped unemployment insurance in 1971 it was a tool to redistribute income on both class and regional lines. This time is has brought in a $3 million job fund designed to create new permanent jobs in disadvantaged areas.

What it really amounts to is a pay off to Atlantic Canada premiers so they will not complain about being short changed by not receiving complete control over training programs.

The hon. member for Mississauga West complained that Ontario was tired of supporting less prosperous provinces. In that case she should support the Reform plan to turn UI into a true insurance plan.

Bill C-12 will generate huge tax revenues of over $1 billion but it will increase business costs and it will kill off the creation of part time jobs. The government is still trying to make it look as though it is fulfilling its red book promises of jobs, jobs, jobs.

When will the government realize governments do not create jobs, governments are good at creating debt and that taxation is the killer of jobs? It will be about the time that hell freezes over and Satan learns how to play hockey.

The 7 per cent payroll tax on part time workers will be used to fund the $800 million of employment benefits. It did not take the private sector long to figure out that it was to bear the brunt of yet another tax grab. As it stands, the provisions of the legislation will have a detrimental effect on both part time employers and their employees.

Take for example the fast food industry. An owner-operator of a quick service restaurant in my constituency told me his costs would increase by 30 per cent if Bill C-12 is passed into law. He employs 90 people, many of whom are students working to defray university tuition costs. He says his customers are very price sensitive. In other words, he is unable to raise his prices. He will have no choice but to cut back on employee hours and reduce the number of new people he hires in his business. Taxation kills jobs. He went on to say that implementing the payroll tax would run counter to the government's job creation objective.

As I said earlier, the real killer of jobs is high taxation. Small business people realize it, students are coming to grips with it and soon Canadian voters will tell the Liberals they have had enough taxation.

Incredibly generous benefits introduced by a former Liberal minister were left basically unchanged until the mid-eighties when attempts to tighten the system were met with cries from the left and social activists. The Tories backed away from the far reaching reforms which were required, reforms which should have taken place at that time.

Now as a result of procrastination by governments for 20 years we have a Liberal government saddled with a $579 billion debt, a debt which will have grown by $100 billion after three years of this Liberal government. It still has a social conscience that it finds extremely difficult to finance.

There is the old saying that if something is not broken do not fix it. However, the employment program is broken beyond repair. When that happens we have to park it and start over. The government only has one option: scrap it. I mean really do away with it. It should not harmonize it and it should not change its name. It should replace it with a new system that provides

Canadians with a true insurance plan to protect them in times of temporary job loss.

The amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast should be supported by all members of the House if they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's dissertation.

I heard him say scrap the UI bill. I heard him say scrap the GST. I wonder what else he wants to scrap around here. I do not here much about responsibility of the Reform Party. I do not hear it saying for $15 billion with GST revenue where that money is to come from; `poof' out of the air I suppose.

The bottom line says harmonize and make it fairer for small and medium size businesses. I travelled on the committee across the country and that is what people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in the maritimes told us. That is what we will do as a government.

The hon. member remarkably starts talking about UI and how people are looking for jobs more and more everyday neglecting that this economy is creating jobs as we are talking here today. The reason why there are more people looking for jobs today is what is called labour force participation rate. It means as one person gets a job there is a second person who has given up looking up for a job two years ago and suddenly decides they want a job too and then joins the labour force and starts looking for a job. That is good. That is positive.

People are saying there are jobs being created and I will go out an look for one. That is positive. That is not negative.

We talk about the cost of small and medium size business. The government reduced the unemployment insurance rate from $3 per $100 to $2.95 per $100. That is good. That is positive. That reduced small and medium size business costs and is employing people. Let them increase their employment.

The hon. member talks somebody in his constituency who will end up paying more UI, and that may well be if he is hiring students. What he neglects to mention are the people working in part time employment, possibly less than 15 hours a week, who never could access the system before. He is saying it is quite all right that those people cannot access the unemployment insurance system. He thinks it is fine that because they chose part time work they have to pay benefits but have no way of receiving them. He thinks that is a fine situation.

The bottom line is this legislation attempts to make a connection between getting people back to work. It gives them an incentive to find work. It even gives them incentives to get a lower paying job if they have to do that. It provides a top-up credit to them to access new employment to get people back to work. That is not something you scrap, that is something you applaud. I wonder if the speaker could address some of these issues.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to reply to my hon. colleague.

He asks me how I will come up with the $16 billion the GST generates. It was the Liberal Party that went door to door in October 1993 and said it will scrap it, abolish it, throw it away.

The question should be asked of the Prime Minister and particularly the Deputy Prime Minister how they will come up with the $16 billion. It is not my question to answer.

The hon. member makes the point of the five-cent reduction in premiums. That is five cents, one-twentieth of 1 per cent; five cents on every $100 of earned income. We were told this huge reduction, five cents on $100, will produce 25,000 jobs. That must be the new math, the Liberal math perhaps.

Following that reasoning, why do we not bring down the premium a full percentage point and create half a million jobs? We could reduce it 2 per cent, 3 per cent. We would have to import people to fill all the jobs in this country if we followed the reasoning of the members opposite.

The member opposite says we can create jobs, and maybe we can. Private industry can create jobs, private enterprise can. I do not believe for one minute that governments can create jobs. Every government over the last 25 years has said it would create jobs and that it is capable of creating jobs. If this is true we should all be working at two or three jobs.

I think the problem is being attacked from the wrong end. If we did not have to pay $48 billion in interest to the international bankers every 12 months, $4 billion a month in interest, we would be able to fund social programs, unemployment insurance and medicare to the fullest extent. If the government had followed the Reform plan it would be sitting over there debating what it would do with the surplus next year and not about how it is saddled with all this.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, under the EI changes and the family supplement some 350,000 claimants and low income families will be guaranteed a supplement. That works out that all claimants and low income families with children will average 7 per cent more in benefits.

I ask the member if he thinks that is a bad thing for low income Canadians and whether his party agrees that is a necessary step under these legislative changes. Does he think we should scrap that

as well and leave low income Canadians to drift in the wind, as some of the issues he put forward today suggest?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify one thing. I did not suggest for one minute that we should let anything, to use the hon. member's words, drift in the wind.

I am suggesting that whether a low or a medium income earner or wherever one may be in the earning ability we would all benefit if we could lift this millstone of debt off our necks. This is something the Liberal Party has not address. If it really wanted to do something, not simply for low income earners but for every resident, it would get control of the debt and start living within its means and cut those interest payments down. The money that would be saved could be put to all kinds of wonderful uses.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The member for Mont-Laurier-Sainte-Marie has the floor on a point of order.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Mr. Speaker, not Mont-Laurier. I would be pleased if it were the case, it would be very nice, but I am not that much of an expansionist.

Today, we held up the proceeedings of the House because of a motion brought forward by the Reform Party. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to continue with the debate on the official opposition's motion until 8 p.m. at the latest, on the understanding that the question be deemed to have been put at 6.15 p.m., as stated on the Order Paper, and the recorded division deferred until tomorrow, at the end of the sitting.

I consulted with the Liberal Party, which agrees with this proposal. I did not have time to consult our colleagues from the Reform Party. There would be no delaying motion. This would simply give members who wish to speak to the official opposition's motion the possibility to do so.

I ask for unanimous consent of the House on this proposal.