Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleagues across the floor speaking in support of this legislation. It amuses me, to say the least.
We find these reforms supposedly made to the unemployment insurance act are really cosmetic changes that in essence centralize rather than decentralize.
This whole reform to the unemployment insurance program will not help create any jobs. It will probably be instrumental in bringing job loss to the part time workforce.
I would like to speak to the government's promise in the budget speech that it would not raise any taxes. I find that quite funny because here we have it adding a 7 per cent payroll tax through a change in the unemployment insurance program. This 7 per cent payroll tax will affect part time workers, the young people who are trying to enter the workforce in part time employment while they are going to school, many of whom are trying to help finance their education.
This will be a great loss to them. It will also be a loss to part time workers who happen to be mothers trying to get some work experience to get back into the workforce when their children are old enough to go to school.
For these young people and moms who work part time this change in the unemployment insurance act will reduce the number of jobs available to them. It will add a tax burden to the employers as well as to these part time workers. I find it a bit hypocritical that the government said in the budget it would not bring in any new taxes but then brings them in under program changes.
This 7 per cent payroll tax is likely to affect about 2.23 million jobs. That is not a small number. It is a substantial number of first time jobs and part time jobs which will be affected by the legislation. Our party is very concerned about that.
Our party is also very concerned about the lack of changes to maternity benefits. Presently there are two benefits, a maternity benefit for natural parents and a parental benefit for both natural and adoptive parents. Under the present system a natural parent may be eligible for both benefits up to 30 weeks, whereas an adoptive parent is eligible only for a minimum of 15 weeks.
The Reform amendments to the legislation repeal both of these benefits and introduce one new child care benefit for which all
parents, natural or adoptive, may apply. This benefit is for a duration of a maximum of 15 weeks.
We have heard adoptive parents tell us they feel very discriminated against under the present legislation because they are eligible for only 15 weeks where natural parents are eligible for 30 weeks. We in the Reform Party believe there should not be any discrimination in government legislation. Therefore we would like to see this discrimination removed.
The Reform child care benefit would eliminate any inequities or discrimination between these different types of parents. It would avoid making any value judgments as to whether natural or adoptive parents are more deserving of certain types of leave, longer leave, et cetera. Instead they would all be eligible for the same period of benefits, 15 weeks.
These changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are positive moves and something which should be supported by government members.
We also find great difficulty in a promise by the government during the referendum debate of last fall when it promised it would transfer manpower training to the province. Under this legislation it is reneging on that promise and keeping control of manpower training at the federal level. The government has failed to meet this promise and that changes should be made to bring the dollars for manpower training under the jurisdiction and control of the provinces.
The Reform Party believes that although there are changes which need to be made to the unemployment insurance programs, the government has fallen far short of meeting some of the great needs the country faces. We do not feel its changes have done anything but add more dollars to the coffers for the federal government to spend recklessly.
It is undermining job creation. It is undermining young people in their attempts to enter the workforce. By not addressing discrimination of parental benefits and maternity in the legislation it is certainly continuing the discriminatory practice.
I urge government members to consider the amendments placed before the House by the Reform Party and give them due consideration to improve the legislation they have put before the House.