Debates of May 14th, 1996

Employment Insurance Act

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interesting question the hon. member raised. The areas of concern he presented have been discussed time and time again. There is nothing new as far as the answers are concerned.

We know that training is going to be the responsibility of the provincial governments. We know that the federal government will become a partner in any model the provincial governments develop. They will get the full support of the federal government.

The federal government in this bill definitely recognizes the responsibility of the provincial governments in programs for retraining, for the development of new skills, for the development of new avenues of hope with our young people and even our more elderly people who are searching for new careers. There is provision in the bill for the opportunity to create new models for those in seasonal employment situations, whether it be a supplement or whether the individual who is unemployed takes another type of job and receives a lower income which will be topped off with supplements.

There are avenues available for the creative mind. All we have to do, and the bill permits us to do it, is sit down in partnership and come up with solutions in which all Canadians in these different situations will benefit.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the hon. member. First, I remind him that there are many people who are unemployed in this country, and many more, perhaps twice as many, who are on welfare. In the answer he just gave to my colleague, the member essentially said that the federal government should continue to do what it is doing, namely to dump its responsibilities onto the provinces and let them fend for themselves.

The government wants the provinces to provide job opportunities to the unemployed and welfare recipients, through their programs. However, it reduces its transfers to the provinces by $7 billion.

Does the hon. member agree that the federal government should constantly offload onto the provinces the problems that it cannot solve?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is no shock to me the kind of question that is being raised. The member from the Bloc party is advocating that all responsibilities should be passed on to the Quebec provincial government. Then when we do give more responsibilities to the provincial government we hear complaints that we are abdicating our responsibility from the federal level. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get into my own comments, I want to commend you on the many interventions you have made on this bill on behalf of the people in Madawaska-Victoria. I did not want that to go unstated.

Every time I get up to speak to this bill and talk about some amendments we have proposed I seem to get distracted. I must admit to being distracted again.

My colleague from Gaspé in putting a question to my colleague from Thunder Bay asked what this bill does for seasonal workers. Very specifically, the bill puts value on their work rather than on their week. Someone who works more than 35 hours a week benefits from this bill. Even the CLC, which has not been an ardent supporter of this piece of legislation from the beginning, acknowledged that.

I am sure the economy in the riding of my colleague is not significantly different from that of the province of New Brunswick.

I am prepared to acknowledge and have acknowledged weaknesses in the bill where they exist. However, I would also expect that we have to acknowledge the existing strengths in the bill.

I believe the member specifically asked whether the government expected to extend the seasons. No. What we need to do is to extend the value of work. People who work 70 hours in a week because they work in a seasonal industry should get the benefit of those 70 hours of work. Those hours of work are very common in the kinds of industries in the communities we represent. With this bill, a 70 hour work week, based on conventional applications of UI, is worth two weeks. It is that simple.

In my own constituency generally the result will be that someone will get in with one and one-half fewer weeks of work because the value will be on hours and they will get as much as two weeks more of benefit. I accept the fact that if someone has not been a part of the labour force it is going to be tougher. However, we have to recognize where the value is.

I have mentioned the value of the shift from weeks to hours. In our case I believe that 85 per cent or 87 per cent of the labour force in the province of New Brunswick works more than 35 hours a week. That speaks to how many people will be advantaged by this.

Another benefit is the low income supplement. Very specifically, if the family income is less than $26,000 the benefits that will go to that family will increase by up to 13 per cent. For a single person that will not happen and I accept that, but let us recognize the strengths in the bill where they exist.

Finally, with the human resources investment fund, people who have not had access to programs before will have access to programs because there is a reach back. I am sure the member for Gaspé knows exactly what I am referring to. In the past, people who were not eligible for benefits were not eligible for the program. Now if someone has been on UI for the past three years or on sickness or maternity in the last five years they will be eligible for employment benefits. That is a significant improvement in the program.

I would like to get back to some of the comments by the member from Edmonton. He spoke of the need for an honest debate. He very nicely positioned himself and his party in terms of this debate. Basically he said if one cannot find work in Cape Breton or northern New Brunswick or in Quebec, move. They should where the work is.

I find that an unacceptable solution. We have a larger obligation than that. I have a lot of respect for the member from Edmonton and we share similar views on many things, but we do not share similar views on that.

He spoke of the need for a national guaranteed income. I have supported that concept for many years. What would he say to those people who say a national guaranteed income will create dependency? Basically they will throw his argument right back at him on that question. I would not throw that argument back at him. I agree with those concepts. I agree we have a larger collective responsibility to each other.

The hon. member referred to the fact that very often people take UI just because they do not like their job. It has been my experience that it is not the case. People on UI would much sooner be contributing premiums than drawing benefits. As an Atlantic Canadian, because from time to time that argument is thrown back at us, I take great exception with the suggestion that people for the most part are on UI as a choice. I do not know of very many people who would not prefer to pay premiums than draw benefits.

There was a reference by the member about water running up hill and something to the effect that there is no point in trying to impose our political will on the natural order of things which would see Canadians move to those places where the jobs are and that is a natural law and cannot be affected. I draw a different analogy.

Essentially what the member was saying was that people are on their own. Basically we have equal opportunity. They can go to school and they can do all of these things. Fundamentally when all is said and done they make their own way in this world.

I see it as the same analogy as throwing a baby off a boat into the ocean as a way of teaching them how to swim. I do not see it that way. I accept the challenge of the member that we should have an honest discussion about this. I am certainly prepared to do that, for that is not the way I see a country proceeding in a civilized way.

There was a reference to the fact that some parts of the country do not have the economic base. They do not have the jobs. They do not have the same economic viability as other parts. The reference was they never have, they do not and they never will. That is not the case.

Our part of the country which right now benefits from these programs at one time had one of the most booming economies in the world. We joined Confederation. Early in Confederation our part of Canada was very affluent, very successful and by being part of the broader country and buying into national policies basically changed our trading patterns from north-south to east-west to help develop the country. Consequently we paid a price for that.

For anyone to suggest somehow we are inherently non-viable, I have a great deal of trouble with that. It is very shortsighted. New Brunswick right now is on a bit of a roll. It is recognized in Canada for getting its act together. Its economy is starting to grow.

However, if the government moves too quickly on these programs it will close down the economies of the region. That is why I felt so strongly that we had to pursue the amendments we were able to accomplish. We cannot close down the economies of our regions by moving too quickly on these programs. That is the reason for the amendments.

I thank those who have contributed to the honest debate.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, who is true to form, since I got to know him in the human resources development committee, and I know that he was sincere in what he just talked about. He seemed even to move you, Madam Speaker, because the points he made related to an area that you come from too.

In spite of all that he had a somewhat easier task today since he was speaking after a Reform Party member who was obviously attacking the unemployment insurance system head on. He found himself in a somewhat awkward position, almost in the opposition, and I would say to my hon. colleague from Fredericton-York-Sunbury that I think he would feel more at ease with us on this side of the House than on the other side.

Things being what they are, however, he is still sitting opposite, on the government side. I know he made some efforts, and he put forward a particular amendment. I am giving him a chance to talk about his amendment because we are in the House and, after all, are here to inform people. I know beforehand what he will say. I know that the three amendments he put forward for the Liberals do seem, at first glance, to soften a little the blow of the $365 million cuts, but nevertheless the budget goal remains the same: to find $2 billion.

In order to compensate for the $365 million forgone because of his three amendments, the government will have to go after abusers and repeaters even more relentlessly, and the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury knows it. Abusers are abusers, and all members agree that abuse should not be tolerated. But repeaters, according to the government, will be those who are on UI for five consecutive 20-week periods. They will get a one percentage point penalty each time.

People who will be affected are seasonal employees in the hon. member's area and in the Acadian peninsula we visited last year. People asked us not to do that. I remember it vividly. Both the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and I were deeply moved by these representations.

Today is a sombre day, because this bill provides for $2 billion in cuts, even after amendments to soften the blow. Benefits will be cut because the basic principle is still there. The one-week waiting period has been abolished, but the reduced earnings week principle remains. That will encourage more people not to report those reduced earnings. Obviously, this is a golden opportunity for abusers.

I have a question for the hon. member. He stood for the unemployment insurance plan, and he fought tooth and nail to have the minister make his bill less drastic. The hon. member managed to get a few amendments in to soften the bill's impact, but despite these amendments, this bill will take millions of dollars out of the economies of the maritimes and of eastern Quebec. Is the hon. member comfortable with this bill, sitting as he does on the government side?

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

Madam Speaker, I now sympathize with my friend from Edmonton when my friend from Lévis suggested I should be on the other side. We are always saying he should be on the other side. I have an understanding as to how confusing that might be.

The shift from weeks to hours will be beneficial to our region. With our amendments to fix some of the mechanical problems in the bill I believe it will be good for our region.

I recognize we will be taking a net $1.2 billion out of the system. I know the member is aware that there are many people who regularly draw benefits. I am not talking about fraud or misuse. I am talking about the fact that a program was put forward which allowed people who could not make enough money in a year to live on to supplement their income. That is what a part of the program is about. There are people who draw on the system who cannot make that argument. We may disagree on how many.

As the member knows, $800 million is going back into employment programs which will affect the income levels of people in the system. Therefore I believe we can take $1.2 billion out of the system and not negatively affect the program.

I have been engaged in the debate to make sure it happens at the top, not at the bottom. That is what the amendment is all about.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me on such a sad day. This is for the official opposition the last chance to rise in this House and speak against a reform that will affect all Canadians and all Quebecers.

A lot of things have happened in this House, including the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Some of the members of government at that time are still here and are about to deal a severe blow to regions like mine. This will hurt not only my riding, but also all the workers who now have the chance to work. They stand to lose their jobs and be hard hit, if their businesses were to go through a rough patch or the economy were to take a downturn.

It is with an aching heart that I rise today in this House to say again, loud and clear, what my constituents from the Gaspé area came here to say, last week, in front of Parliament. These people took a 32- hour bus ride at their expense, because the round trip takes 32 hours. They came here to ask very peacefully to meet with the Prime Minister in order to express their grievances, because nothing in this bill gives them hope for a brighter future after July 1, the day on which this infamous bill comes into force.

Where can we find the strength, maybe it is born of despair, to ask the government to understand their point of view and to postpone this bill, because I think this is the night we will be asked to sentence regions like mine to death? So, I rise today in a last-ditch effort.

I will review all of the issues, one by one. First of all, I want to mention the title of this bill, which is misleading. They call it employment insurance, but nothing in this bill guarantees that jobs will be created. On the contrary, it is more like deficit insurance. The people on the other side have started to admit that they hope to get more money out of the unemployed and to be able to set aside $5 billion at the expense of the jobless. It is outrageous, it is a disgrace. Five billion dollars.

There was a joke we used to tell when I was a kid. "If someone steals some chips in a store, he is called a thief". But if someone steals $5 billion, what is he called? A politician? I am not proud to be a part of Parliament on such a tragic day.

I would also like to mention three new irritants that will strike directly at people in the regions. I am talking about the eligibility rule, the rate of benefits rule and the intensity rule.

What does the eligibility rule provide for? A minimum of910 hours of work. We talked about this throughout the debate, but each time, we were subjected to time allocation, that is, in other words, we were gagged. What does the 910 hours eligibility rule mean when one works in the regions and according to the seasons? It means twenty-six 35 hour weeks. To my knowledge, there are not many seasonal jobs that make it possible to work that long.

And what of the rate of benefits rule? They try to make us believe that the irritants are now fewer. Does putting a plaster on a wooden leg reduce the pain? No, it does not. The bill, as introduced in the House after prorogation, provided for the dividing of consecutive work hours. This is not true any more. Now the work hours will be divided by the higher of the following: with the unemployment rate in our region, 14 weeks, or if one is lucky enough to live in a region with a lower unemployment rate, a greater number of weeks or the period worked. But what is the most vicious, I would say, is that this will have to be within a 26 week period. This bill, once passed, will compel people to concentrate their hours of work.

What will the construction worker tell me, in February, when I ask him to go over to my house to repair the door knob, while I am in Ottawa? He will tell me that he would prefer to see my door knob break in May because May is included in his 26 week period of work, and because he would then have the opportunity to group together his weeks and to concentrate his hours of work. This was just another example. Fishermen and lumberjacks are not the only ones who will be affected. This is an important point.

The intensity rule is another measure that strikes directly at those who work in regions. In an effort to soften this intensity rule, i.e. the 5 per cent penalty, a limit was established and it was decided that those with family earnings that are less than $26,000 in total will be exempted from this rule. But I will come back on this issue later.

How can someone who earns $26,000 and has a family of four believe that he will have a decent life? He will only survive. Therefore, I think the intensity rule will once again hit hard those regions that depend on seasonal work.

It is sad, but I would like to remind our viewers that the official opposition, in spite of its goal to promote sovereignty, has tried by all acceptable and recognized parliamentary means available to do its job and represent the people, to support victims of the job shortage. But, every time we tried, we were prevented from doing so. Every time we tried, we were gagged.

I tried in vain to extend a helping hand, to say that we need to build a partnership, that we need to build a relationship based on trust because I think the government needs the public's trust to be able to implement such changes. Unfortunately, the members opposite did not understand.

It is appalling or, should I say, frustrating for a parliamentarian like myself who has tried to use all available tools. However, I would like everybody in this House to know that it is much more appalling and frustrating for the victims of the job shortage, who will see their benefits reduced as of July 1.

I fear the public's reaction. I am scared. I am even afraid, since we do develop relationships in this House, that some of our Liberal colleagues will have a very hard time when they go back to their ridings after the House adjourns for the summer. Each one of these

members will have to face his or her constituents. I hope they will remember what happened on May 14. I sure hope so.

In closing, I would like to tell the government that, if it wanted money, why has it not decided to get it from those who have large salaries? As mentioned by the member for Mercier a few moments ago, the maximum is being brought down from $43,000 to $39,000. I would like to add that, while we are doing our job, people are waiting.

Why have MPs not been asked to contribute to the fund? Why have senators, who, I think, do not work much sometimes, not been asked? The government could have taken contributions from their salaries to give that money back to people who do want to work and who do not sleep on the job.

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

Madam Speaker, Ontario puts a significant amount of money into the system. For every $1 working men and women in Ontario put in, we receive 76 cents back.

In 1993 Quebecers received $1.29 for every $1 they put into the system. Under the new EI system they will receive $1.32 for every $1 they put in. Based on how shameful the member feels it is, can he explain to me what is so disgusting that for every $1 Quebec puts in it gets $1.32 out of the system? Is that not fair? Is that not equitable? Is that not compassion?

That is an important question to ask because coming from Ontario where we get only 76 cents for every $1 we put in, we think we are being very fair. We are trying to make the system work for other regions that are have not. I would certainly like to know the response of the member when we look at the raw facts and the numbers. From 1993 to 1996 the amount Quebec is receiving has gone up, not down.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that on the last day, on a day I should perhaps call a national day of mourning for the people of one region, someone has the nerve to stand up in this House and provoke us by comparing people from different regions and making distinctions between people from Ontario, from Quebec and from New Brunswick. Does he mean that there are second class citizens in Canada?

I can hardly control my anger, but my anger is nothing compared to what awaits them if they dare visit some parts of Canada where people believe that their occupation is a noble one. If those people are told that they must compare their situation to what Ontario got-Madam Speaker, how is it that when the Department of Industry allocates its research and development funds it is always the same who receive the lion's share?

And they say that they paid to much in unemployment insurance. This is shocking and appalling. There are words that I do not want to use because I want to follow rules and because I want to be here to vote against the bill.

Speaking about comparisons, we can say that we were had last Thursday. The Minister of Fisheries chose to publish his new fee schedule exactly at the time the Quebec government was bringing down its budget. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did say: "Yes, it is true that in Quebec you are going to pay a little more for the navigation aids that the Coast Guard will offer". When time comes to do some Quebec-bashing, they do not hesitate, but they deny it. They do it when the media's attention is on something else in Quebec City. But when times comes to face the facts, they prefer to hide.

How can we make them understand? I wanted in good faith to work here. I wanted to make them understand, but, on the last day, they want to make a comparison. If they want to compare apples, let then let us compare apples, but when we are speaking of money and remuneration like that, I wish they would put everything on the table. This is not the case presently. They are making comparisons about people who want to work but who, since there are no jobs, need that economic stabilizer that unemployment insurance is.

I will conclude with the following point. Can you cut firewood in downtown Toronto? Can you fish lobster and other species in downtown Toronto? No. Tell us if we are not welcome there, and if that is the case, so long, folks.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, from here on, all those speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois will limit their speeches to 10 minutes.

Following on my colleague, the member for Gaspé, I would also like to add the voices of the constituents of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to this debate. It is true that today is a sad day for all Canadians and Quebecers. It is also sad for the regions.

This is the last time we will be able to express our views about this plan to reform unemployment insurance. I am therefore speaking from the heart, but I do not expect to be any more successful than my colleagues, who worked tremendously hard on the human resources development committee, in getting the government to budge. I realize that our cries are falling on deaf ears.

I must simply say to you that there is no need to rush at this time. We could-and I implore the parliamentary secretary-we could take the time to review the whole issue of unemployment insurance.

For my region, it will mean approximately $25 million less in the economy annually. And yet, we still have the highest rate of unemployment in Canada, and have had for years. I must tell you that this reform is unfair towards a region such as mine.

This is not what we need in the region. We do not need a blow like this. What we need is help finding a solution. People from my region are proud people who are not afraid to work. We want to find a solution.

This reform is a direct hit on students, women, and seasonal workers. And yet, they made their opinions known, they were consulted, they even sent petitions here. What became of these consultations? All across Canada, these consultations were just a sham. No attention was paid to them, and why not? Because the reform was based on preconceived ideas, on false principles.

They said to themselves "Now then, we are going to reform the system, for too many people are taking unfair advantage. There are people who are cheating the system. We find it hard to understand, there are jobs out there but nobody to take them". Instead of looking at this situation, the decision was taken to try to get at everybody, yet it is not true that everyone is out to cheat the system.

Moreover, at no time in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, and even less so publicly, has the government laid its impact studies on the reform out on the table. They have been incapable of telling us what the effects of the reform would be on students, on young people. There has been nothing to show what the effect will be on seasonal workers.

It is only when the thing comes into effect that we will see that perhaps somebody has goofed, that this might not have been the way to go, but by then it will be too late. Far too many people will have had to pay, and to pay through the nose, for this unjust reform.

My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois have said that, yes, reform was needed, a review was needed, but the review needed to be fair and honest and to allow everyone to benefit from it. That is why my colleagues in the Bloc have moved amendments, amendments which I am not even sure have been looked at properly.

I sat through six hours of the committee's meetings, and from what I saw, the folks across the way paid no attention to what my colleagues were saying. The apparent attitude was "No problem, we will just wait and see how it turns out. We have a plan, and that is the way we will go".

I think that they are on the wrong track, for this reform does nothing more than to encourage people to hold down more than one job, and the jobs involved are mainly precarious ones. This reform will also bring pressure to bear on wages, not upward pressure, but downward. This gives you an idea of what can happen.

Under the old system, seasonal workers, for example, had to try to accumulate the required number of weeks in order to become eligible. Under the new system, they will have to negotiate a number of hours of work with their employer in order to reach the required minimum. You can imagine easily what will happen in small industries, in small and medium size firms where there are no unions. This will cause serious problems between employers and employees. This will have a negative impact on the reform as a whole.

This piling on of salaries will inevitably lead to the creation of "McJobs" all over the place. They will say to someone: "I offer you ten hours of work this week, but do not come in next week. Then the week after that you will again work ten hours". This vicious circle will prevent many people from becoming eligible.

The result will be that people will hold simultaneously an increasing number of jobs. One "McJob" here, one "McJob" there, a better one in order to accumulate a sufficient number of hours. This situation will lead to family unrest, since there will be a social impact, because of irregular work schedules for instance. This new work pattern or work schedules will force people and families to adjust. Children and the mother are often the ones who have to bear the consequences of such changes.

Since you are telling me that my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that this is a sad day, considering that we are going to vote on this bill tonight.

I would like to tell you about three workers from back home who recently explained their situation to a reporter.

These people said, and I will be very brief: "Instead of taking it out on the unemployed, the government could come up with much more effective decisions. It could take the surplus from the unemployment insurance fund and try to create jobs, provide better training and so on, by creating legislation prohibiting overtime for example. Workers at Alcan have shown the federal government that, with less overtime, jobs can be created. In this case, the government must get involved, because the system has to get started.

The workers at Alcan did it. More than 200 jobs were created, and that is not counting indirect jobs. Moonlighting as well must be monitored. The federal government missed the boat in failing to keep its promise to create jobs.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading debate of Bill C-12, the employment insurance act.

I feel most privileged to have worked on the human resources development committee examining the bill. I enjoyed the thrust of debate with members opposite as we strove to improve the bill for the benefit of all Canadians. I sincerely believe the bill and the process undertaken speak well for democracy.

In my experience as a farm leader I appeared before many parliamentary committees and in my experience as a parliamentarian I have never seen such substantial changes made to a bill in the interest of the people from whom we have heard. Improving the bill to address the concerns of people is what this process was all about. It has been a very long process.

The green book on social security reform was tabled a little over two years ago. When that paper came down I held a couple of public meetings. People were very concerned about the direction that might be taken by human resources development in terms of social security review. A committee went all across the country with members from all parties in attendance. The committee heard over 600 presentations. It heard a lot of concerns about the two tier system and where we might be going on UI. It came back with what I think was a wonderful report, on which part of this legislation is based.

A seasonal industry task force was set up. Its report mentioned how important seasonal industries are, that seasonal industries do not work only during one season but create economies downstream. They create full time jobs in industries other than their own in terms of the products and services they need within the seasonal industries. Seasonal industries are made up of full time workers who are highly skilled and much needed in those seasonal industries. The government took that to heart and took those issues into account in terms of the preparation of the final stages of Bill C-12.

When Bill C-12 was introduced I held public meetings in my riding, as did many of my colleagues. We expressed as members of the government our concerns internally and publicly on the bill. We said publicly that there was a problem in terms of some areas as they impacted on the seasonal industries, and we moved to correct those changes.

We also recognized some very good points in the original bill. It is an hour based system. It gets rid of the 15 hour job trap. The part II benefits include $800 million for reinvestment in such programs as wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships, skill loans and grants. Those are important points.

I have made it clear from the very beginning that scrapping the bill was not an option. We are dealing with the realities of the turn of the century. We need improvements to the bill and we will try to achieve them. We must work as members of Parliament toward improvements. The former minister and the current minister agreed and showed an openness for change.

We heard concerns. One was from Jacinta Deveau:

At a time when corporations are making record profits and yet still laying people off, now is not the time to start increasing qualifying times or decreasing benefits particularly for those people who must resort to applying for benefits, must do so for longer periods of time and in greater numbers; add this to the competition for fewer and fewer numbers of jobs sought only not by those people caught in the corporate downsizing and adjustment but those in seasonal and non-full time job occupations and you have a recipe for disaster in the Atlantic region generally and P.E.I. in particular.

We did not bury our heads in the sand when we heard that concern. Government members moved to correct that concern. We corrected it in several ways. That concern we corrected by fixing the gap and improving the divisor. We are certain the employment measures will move some distance to improving the job situation.

We did not take the position to scrap the bill. We listened and moved to make improvements. That is very different from what I have heard from members opposite.

The hon. member for Mercier, the critic for the Bloc, talked about the lack of debate. On the night of the filibuster those of us sitting on the government side wanted to debate the substantive issues to see if there were other areas of improvement. Is the hon. member asking us to do away with the employment measures which will help people to get jobs? Is the hon. member asking that we scrap the benefits for low income families? Is the hon. member asking us to go back to a system which had within it a 15 hour job trap that trapped mainly women in part time jobs? This bill improves that situation. Members opposite should recognize that.

I will list some of the other improvements we have been able to accomplish through this debate. Members on the government side have fixed the gap, the dead weeks. We have managed by making amendments to the legislation to take out of the calculation base those weeks that would have been considered as zero earnings. We have fixed that gap to the benefit of seasonal workers and of workers generally.

We have changed the divisor to make it more uniform across the country. It will be the regional rate plus a divisor of two. That does two things. It sets some stability and it ensures for business that there is an incentive out there for people to find work instead of simply going on UI.

We have fixed the intensity rule to a great extent. We have ensured the intensity rule does not apply to low income families with dependants. There will be a method of receiving an intensity rule credit for those who work while on unemployment.

This is in part based on the concerns raised by some of the people who have been demonstrating. In order to ensure that these good amendments that Liberal members have made are secure into the future, the power of a future minister to change the divisor by regulation has been deleted from the bill. In the future changes will be made in the House and not by the executive.

I am pleased with what has been accomplished. I will admit that one good amendment was moved by members opposite. We supported and it was incorporated in the bill. It goes to show what can be done if the opposition is more co-operative instead of saying "scrap the bill". We really do not want filibusters. We have made great strides forward.

The minister said that the bill is not perfect, that there are some areas of concern. However, as a government we do listen and we make changes to meet the needs of people.

In closing, I would like to quote Alice Nakamura. I think she is right on target:

You have proven wrong all those who told me this reform effort was a waste of time. Bill C-12 tackles the serious problems with our present UI program, making use of the best available research about how our labour markets and social programs function. And it is a bill that pays careful attention to the real life problems of transition. It strikes a careful balance between the desperation of people who cannot find enough work and have depended on the income from UI benefits and the desperation of economic analysts who recognize the threat which trends in our present UI program pose for our economy and the future employment prospects for Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Malpeque may have tried to console me a little bit by reminding me that the Liberal majority had approved an amendment introduced by the members of the Bloc. As the author of this amendment, I only want to point out that this amendment was about adding the two words community agencies, omitted by the Liberal majority, as entitled to federal grants in order to create jobs. I only wanted to ensure that they would not forget this important aspect.

Despite this modest amendment, the only one they deigned to accept out of some fifteen that were moved, one fact remains. Since the member mentions it, I want to remind him that the Liberal majority introduced 42 amendments in Committee. Those amendments have been approved, of course, since they have a majority. Those 42 amendments were introduced in committee-I remember-by various Liberal members, sometimes by the parliamentary secretary. When questioned on the substance of these amendments, I must say that, most of the time, in 75 per cent of the cases, it was public servants who answered. Why? Because these amendments were obviously written by public servants. What type of amendments were they? Technical amendments to reinforce clauses of the bill, whether some members like it or not, aimed-forgive my language-at catching more people red-handed and at reinforcing penalties against those who abuse the unemployment insurance system, but this is not said.

They say that they have improved the bill. Granted, but they do not say that the objective was to eliminate such abuses. The three amendments improve the system, but the three amendments presented to the House could only be moved by the minister. Everybody in the House knows it, but it is something we have to say for the record because people outside the House do not know this. We, in the opposition, have been criticized for failing to propose any amendment. We were told that we were criticizing the bill but had no amendment to propose. There is a parliamentary rule that says very clearly that as soon as an amendment involves changes of a financial nature, it amendment must be moved by a minister of the crown.

This is why the opposition could not move such an amendment.

You will understand that, otherwise, we would have proposed quite a few amendments to eliminate the negative impact of the $2 billion in cuts which come on top of the $5 billion in cuts made as a result of the previous federal budget and Bill C-17. I wanted to make this comment.

Now, for my question. In her speech, to which the member for Malpeque listened, the member for Mercier reminded the House of a statement, to my knowledge the only statement, by the economic development minister of his own province, Prince Edward Island, who said how bad it was going to be for the economy of Prince Edward Island, which is a top performer in the area of job creation. I would say that in Prince Edward Island, apart for government services, jobs are only seasonal.

There is no farming in winter. He pointed that out. Fishing too is only in the summer. And as far as tourism is concerned, people who like PEI come mainly in the summer. Does the member agree with the statement made by the economic development minister of his own province, who said that this bill was bad? Also, does he agree with the government's figures according to which, from now on, Prince Edward Island, with a population of only 170,000, will lose $11 million every year?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the member is just about filibustering. The amendments that we accepted concerning community organization were important. We saw them as such. They are two very important words.

We did listen to the discussion of Bloc members opposite on the gap and we fixed it.

I want to get to the point-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government has made jobs and growth a priority. That is the underlying theme behind the reforms of the new employment insurance system. Coupled with this theme is the need to create a fairer and more balanced system.

The people of Guelph-Wellington support the government's endeavours to encourage a greater effort to help find Canadians work and to achieve a system that is more affordable and easier to administer. They know that deficit reduction cannot be successful if it is accomplished solely on the backs of the unemployed. They also recognize the inefficiencies of the old system.

Reforms to employment insurance are a part of the government's efforts to restructure the federal government. This is a unique time in our nation's history. The federal government is responding to communities like Guelph-Wellington that have told us to make the system fairer and more balanced.

Let us look at the highlights of this legislation. Changes have been made to make the system fairer to youth, to women, to low income families and to workers in seasonal industries. Tough measures have been brought in to crack down on fraud and most important, work initiatives have been strengthened.

I am not happy with the level of unemployment in Canada. Just a few moments ago I was talking to a colleague from Quebec who is also not happy with those levels.

My own community's unemployment rate is approximately 8 per cent. I find that unacceptable. I know that people in Guelph-Wellington want to work. They want to provide for themselves and their families. From the outset I have encouraged the government to go beyond simply offering basic income support for people in my community who unexpectedly find themselves out of work. Unemployed Canadians must be given a better chance to get back into the job market.

This legislation addresses the fact that not every worker in Canada has uninterrupted weeks of work to qualify for maximum benefits. In this regard I have worked closely with construction workers. The building trades, by the very nature of their positions, work hard. The harder they work the faster they put themselves out of work. They have asked for changes to remove disincentives and changes to reward people for their work. They know that the previous system encouraged fraud and promoted the underground economy. Simply put, by encouraging people to work we can help drive the underground economy above ground. That is good news. It will encourage further government revenues and ensure that the workers are paid the wages that they deserve.

This legislation also makes the system fairer to youth, to women and to low income families. We have moved to counting hours of work instead of weeks, a direction supported by the building trades. In my discussions with constituents it was clear that whether a person worked 15 hours a week or 50 hours, both were treated the same under UI. We needed to address the reality that Canadians no longer work a 9 to 5 day, Monday to Friday.

Many of my constituents are holding down several jobs with different employers or work on contracts for periods of time. The one measure of work that means the same to everyone is the hour. The hour is the very same. The hours based system better reflects the new economy. It will insure a growing segment of Canada's workforce that currently has no protection whatsoever. With this important addition, 500,000 part time workers will have their work insured for the very first time, a move that will benefit woman and youth in particular. I hope that my Bloc friends will agree with that move.

It means that women working part time or earning a living at several jobs will now qualify for maternity benefits for the first time, a move that will strengthen the value of family and work. This provision alone recognizes the importance of the household and the Canadian family.

The legislation also includes a family income supplement for families with children earning less than $26,000. Certainly this is good news for families in Guelph-Wellington and across Canada.

I appreciated the special significance of the seasonal industry. Under the hours based system 45,000 workers, who today cannot qualify for unemployment insurance, will now qualify to receive benefits. I am pleased to quote the building construction trades represented by the Canadian office of the AFL-CIO: "We suggested a UI program where every hour worked and every dollar earned counted. The government has listened".

No discussion of employment insurance can be complete without paying some attention to the issue of fraud. Regrettably there are those who take advantage of our system. The vast majority of Canadians that collect unemployment insurance are doing so because they need some assistance while looking for work. They do not want to be unemployed and they are anxious to return to work. They understand the dignity of work to which the Prime Minister so often refers.

This legislation sends a strong message that fraud will not be tolerated. This applies to both individuals and employers. Companies that knowingly defraud the system will face stiffer financial penalties. If the company cannot pay the price its corporate directors will be held accountable for the loss. These ideas are new and they are necessary.

I continue to raise concerns brought to my attention by individuals, business people and unions. I am pleased that the minister has recognized a need to monitor these changes. The government will measure the impact of these reforms on Canadians workers, businesses and communities. The minister has acknowledged the need to see how Canadians are adjusting. Quality control efforts will mean that the employment insurance commission will make an annual report to the minister through its examination of how Canadian workers, communities and the economy are making the adjustment. I urge them to pay careful attention to the underground economy. We must continue to ensure that what we do does not encourage its growth.

The government has listened and we will continue to listen to make a system that is fair and balanced, fair for users, fair for taxpayers and fair for business. Through these changes we have been responsive to the balanced approach of jobs and growth and deficit reduction. Unemployment affects all of us, everyone.

We must continue to pay close attention to our core values as Canadians. These include fairness, balance and the dignity of work. Bill C-12 deserves our support.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, our Liberal colleague showed us the true objective of this bill. It is called the employment insurance bill, but as you have seen, there was an underlying concern to all her comments; the purpose of the new measures is to fight against abusers or pseudo-abusers.

The new Minister of Human Resources Development, when he first appeared before the committee, indicated that he wanted to ease the rules, but when he appeared the second time, told us about an extraordinary discovery he had made. He said there were approximately 120,000 cases of fraud in Canada. In fact, there are 116,603. He was asked if that was an increase. No, it represents a decrease because there were 131,081 cases of fraud in 1991-92.

I will be brief, Madam Speaker. Figures show that the last bill allowed the government to recover $272 million and they hope to recover an additional amount of $345 million with this new bill.

But, out of those $272 million, figures submitted by the parliamentary secretary himself show that only $93 million resulted from real fraud. Three quarters of the remaining $179 million were due to errors made by the unemployment insurance commission. These were errors.

So instead of passing legislation that is an insurance plan designed at fighting fraud, the government should have drafted legislation to prevent errors, which sometimes cause serious trouble, because the commission can go back five years.

Does the member agree that we should take more time and draft this bill in such a way that it will help public servants prevent errors, which most of the time are made in good faith simply because the legislation is not clear? Does she think we will improve the bill with last minute amendments? There were 42 in committee one evening. What does she think about correcting mistakes before we attack the pseudo-abusers, the pseudo-defrauders?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to address a couple of things the hon. member spoke about.

One is the time it has taken the government to look at this bill. It has been close to three years now, since the beginning of the election. It is tremendous to recognize. I see the parliamentary secretary to the human resources minister. It is a tribute to him and every colleague who has spent the hours day and night looking at this bill to make sure that we addressed a lot of the concerns.

As I mentioned in my speech, the building and construction trades are happy that we have looked at the hour measurement of time. That is what they asked for. They said that the government has listened. That is very important.

Also, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, this piece of legislation will allow Quebec for every dollar it puts in to get $1.32 out. It does not take a mathematics genius to figure out that putting $1 in and getting $1.32 back for people who need this program is significant and important. To vote against a bill that does such a thing is a travesty.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not here to filibuster like my friend opposite.

I was going to raise a point of order and suggest that if he wanted to speak again we would let him. Some of us could ask questions of him rather than having him talk for five minutes instead of asking members questions.

However, I want to ask my colleague a question. The Bloc again has attacked the whole issue of the hours based system, which as the member has mentioned is supported by almost everyone who understands the system. I suggest that the Bloc does not understand the importance of going to an hourly system.

The reason there is support is that there are 90,000 individuals who do not get UI today who under the new system which will consider claims on an hourly basis will be able to collect EI for the first time. Half of those workers are seasonal employees. I want to focus on the other half, part time workers. It hurts me to think the Bloc is not supporting this.

There are 45,000 part time and multiple job workers. For the first time they will be able to collect EI under this new system. Why would the member think that any party, whether it is a party that wants to break up Canada, which spends more time trying to break up Canada than worrying about workers in its own province, would be opposed to something that is good for 27 per cent of the population who are part time workers?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to understand how any party, namely the Bloc, could vote against a bill that would increase the eligibility for part time and seasonal workers, that would help women, that would go to an hours bank and that unions and construction trades have asked for. They have asked for this piece of legislation. It is inconceivable.

I hope Quebecers are watching this debate. Quebecers are going to gain so much from this. For every dollar that is put in, they will gain $1.32. This is very important. I thank my colleague for drawing attention to these points.

We have to help women. We have to help part time workers. We have to look at this hour bank system.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-12.

It is amusing to hear the back and forth between the Bloc and Liberal members as they talk about the changes to unemployment insurance. It is particularly amusing to hear Bloc members complain about how much they will lose. I would ask them to consider how much they would lose if and when they decide to leave the country completely. It would certainly be a lot more than they could afford to give themselves considering the kind of financial shape they would be in on their own.

I will offer some constructive criticism of Bill C-12. People across the country are very concerned about the whole issue of employment, without a doubt. There is no question it is one of the most important issues in the country today. The government spoke about it during the election campaign when it promised to create jobs, jobs, jobs. It is a commitment Canadians are waiting for it to fulfil.

One of the main concerns we have with this legislation is that it goes in the wrong direction. Granted, it does not go as far as the previous legislation went in the wrong direction, but it is still going in the wrong direction. We have a concern about that.

We say that we should not treat unemployment insurance as a type of social program. Unfortunately, the current legislation does exactly that. We say that it is bad for the country. We say it is bad for employment prospects for people. We say it is bad because it does not give people the type of hope they need and deserve. We are very concerned about that.

It is time to change the complete direction of unemployment insurance, which I will discuss in more detail in a moment. I will talk about why we want to go to a different plan by looking at the history of unemployment insurance in this country.

Going back to 1971-72, that is when regionally extended benefits first came into being. I would argue it is not sheer coincidence that at the time those changes came in, unemployment began to creep up and up. Until about 1971 or at least the late sixties, Canada had about the same unemployment rate as the United States. It was very low, in the range of between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. Shortly after those benefits were introduced, those two unemployment rates began to diverge. The Canadian rate went much higher while the American rate stayed about the same.

As the finance department has borne out, my point is that quite obviously when there are rich benefits which essentially reward people for remaining idle, we should not be surprised if people respond to those incentives by becoming idle. Do not be surprised if they do not run out and look for a job. Do not be surprised if they stay somewhere where there is no work. For me that is absolutely sensible. I am not at all surprised it happens.

I do not think we should be surprised when we bring in timid measures, such as we have today, that it will not really have an appreciable effect on unemployment. In fact, I do not think this legislation is going to create jobs at all. I would argue that this legislation will kill jobs.

One of the concerns we have with this legislation is that premiums will have to be paid by part time workers. People who work less than 15 hours per week will be paying premiums, as will employers.

Consider that one of the biggest job killers in the country today, which the finance minister has said over an over again, is payroll taxes. There are going to be payroll taxes for the very people who are feeling the pinch the most, those trying to get into the workforce. Young Canadians and very often women who work part time are the ones who are going to have their jobs threatened because the government is insisting on bringing in premiums for part time workers.

The finance minister has said repeatedly: "That is a job killer, that is a job killer, that is a job killer". Of course it is going to kill jobs. Absolutely.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

When did he say that?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Hon. members across the way are asking when the minister said that. The minister has said it many times in this House. When the hon. member was a parliamentary secretary and sat closer to the minister he probably heard those things but now that he sits so far away perhaps it just does not get down that far.

The fact is that payroll taxes kill jobs and hon. members across the way know it. Unfortunately, they are ignoring their own advice and are bringing in payroll taxes on people who are the most vulnerable in the job market today: youth and women who work part time. This bill is going to be a job killer.

I want to draw attention to a television program that was on CTV a couple of weeks ago. The program spoke about the difference between the unemployment insurance systems in Canada and the United States. It considered two very comparable economies, those of New Brunswick and Maine. In both cases we are talking about economies with lots of seasonal work. In both places there is work in forestry during one period, work in fishing during another period, some construction work and maybe some type of handyman labour and those sorts of things. However, throughout the year there is not a lot of full time employment.

It was very interesting that in exploring the differences between these two economies it was found that in New Brunswick there was a very high level of unemployment. However, in Maine which had almost the identical economy there was a very low level of unemployment.

The reporter quizzed government officials and employers about the unemployment insurance systems. It was found that Canada's unemployment insurance system is much richer and provides much better benefits than the U.S. system. The result is that New Brunswick now has what I can only call structural unemployment as do certainly many other places in the country. In the United States, Maine has far less than half the unemployment rate for an almost identical economy.

When the reporter asked some of the workers in Maine what the difference was, they pointed out that not only did they have very few benefits as compared to Canada, but the system was more experience rated. For instance, if employers laid people off they would pay higher premiums next time around. What happened is the employers kept people on even in their down periods because they knew that if they did not, they would pay higher premiums. This is not exactly a great revelation. It makes perfect sense to me but somehow that logic has escaped the government.

It showed an example of a large department store in Maine where traditionally people would have been laid off in slow periods, but in this case they were painting, doing work around the store that as clerks they would not normally do because the employer did not want to pay the higher premiums. The point being the current system rewards employers who lay off people. That is ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense.

Again I make the argument that although these reforms make the current system mildly better in so far as they do not provide a great a reward for laying people off, they still go in the wrong direction.

It is time to separate the unemployment insurance system from the idea of a social welfare scheme. We need a true insurance system. That is the way we must go. If we did that we would not have nearly the problems we have today. If that were done we would have a system that would reward employers for keeping people on the job and a system which would reward employees for staying on the job even when it sometimes looks like it may be more profitable to collect from a social program.

In this case if we had true insurance people would know that incentive has been removed and it would no longer be more profitable for them to go on to a government system. We very much disagree with the direction this legislation is taking.

Clyde Wells, the premier of Newfoundland, pointed out the current system had created a generation which has become dependent on unemployment insurance. The situation in Newfoundland is interesting and in another sense it is tragic because there is a generation of people who have come to rely on unemployment. I hope it is instructive for people in this place who are trying to design new systems that will lead to more employment.

The premier of that province acknowledged the system does not work. When we look at Newfoundland today and we see all those people who are on unemployment, has it not become obvious that no matter how good a hair dresser is in Newfoundland, no matter how much training they get, they simply will not get a job if there are no jobs available?

The finance committee heard from a person from the Gaspé region where there is 33 per cent unemployment, a social tragedy in the Gaspé region. Has it not become obvious the current system does not work when there are levels of unemployment that high? Is it not obvious that when people are kept in one place because of a system perhaps they are being denied opportunity, denying them the hope they deserve as Canadian citizens? That is absolutely ridiculous.

Clearly the solution is not in how we attempted to solve the problems of the past. That caused the problems. The solution is something different. It is time to move forward and get away from this system and go to a true insurance system.

In the 1930s many people in Alberta had to leave the land. There are special areas in the province where people had to abandon their farms because there was simply no way they could grow anything.

They left because it did not make sense to stay anymore. They went where the jobs were. That makes absolute sense to me.

However, the current system acts against that natural impulse. People naturally are drawn to where there are jobs. If we pay them to stay where they are, do not be surprised if they respond to that incentive. That is what this legislation does. It give them incentive to remain where they are. I do not blame the people for taking it. I blame governments for offering it in the first place. That is ridiculous.

We have that problem in my part of the country as well. Perhaps it is not as pronounced as it is in some parts of Atlantic Canada or Quebec, but we have the same problem.

The point is, no matter where the incentive is offered, people are people and they will respond to that incentive. Let us not continue to hold people back. Let us not continue to stifle their potential. Let us create an employment insurance program that is truly an insurance program, that is experience rated, that rewards people for continuing to be employed, that provides a disincentive for people to give up their jobs.

It is the responsibility of the government to create an environment for employment. One of the things the government decidedly has not done is create an environment for employment. It is little known but it is a fact that since this government came to power it has brought in revenue measures and tax increases amounting to over $10.5 billion. That is an amazing amount of money to take out of people's pockets. That kills jobs. That kills all kinds of opportunities for Canadians. That cannot continue.

Hon. members opposite are concerned about this. They should be. It is killing jobs. The hon. member opposite is obviously concerned about $10.5 billion coming out of the pockets of his constituents and Canadians generally.

The finance minister said payroll taxes kill jobs. I will expand on that. All taxes kill jobs. The more money taken from the taxpayers, the less they have to save. Those savings would ultimately go to creating new opportunities in the form of new business. The less money they have, the less money they have to spend on goods and services. Therefore there are not as many jobs for people in those industries. The hon. member opposite is complaining that his government is raising taxes. I do not blame him.

The finance minister the other day said "we did not raise any taxes in the last budget". If we stick to the letter of the law he was right. He raised some after it. He raised all kinds of revenue through various measures which amounted to billions of dollars. The new GST changes will exact approximately $1 billion from people in the form of a new tax or the removal of the input credit on used goods, something that constitutes $60 billion to $80 billion a year in the economy. That will take money out of people's pockets. That kills jobs.

There are all kinds of things the government can do to stop killing jobs and to start creating jobs. It has to stop raising taxes. It has to start moving toward a balanced budget, and not at a snail's pace. It has to announce a date. All the provinces have either balanced their budgets or at least have a plan to balance their budgets. The federal government has not even announced a date. It has not even acknowledged there is a problem.

If people judge the strength of the finance minister and the government by their ability to wrestle down the deficit, these guys come in dead last. They are weak kneed. They cannot meet the challenges.

We say to people to get on the government. Tell it that it has to balance its budget. Tell it that it has to start dealing with the deficit and debt.

One of the things that has to happen when the budget is finally balanced is that the government will have to start lowering taxes. Ontario is lowering taxes. Alberta is lowering taxes. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are lowering taxes. All the provinces are lowering taxes. They are creating jobs. What is the federal government doing? It is killing jobs. It is raising taxes. It is destroying opportunity.

The bill is only the tip of iceberg. Not only is the bill a bad piece of legislation, we say the government has not done the other things which need to be done to create jobs.

We say to the government that its challenge is not to tinker with Bill C-12, its challenge is not to tinker with unemployment insurance, its challenge is to fix it. Quit fooling around and create an employment system which will actually provide incentive for people to go out and get jobs instead of killing incentive. The government's challenge is to balance the budget and to lower taxes. That is what Canadians want and that is what they deserve.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was complaining about tax increases during previous federal budgets. He is right. We have eliminated some tax breaks and subsides to business.

We responded to demands from Canadians for more fairness in the tax system and more balance. One in particular is generating a lot of revenue. The hon. member may remember that Canadians were quite incensed that at a time of a depressed economy, at a time of dropping employment the banks were recording record multi-million dollar profits. He may recall one of the tax increases of which he is complaining was a surtax on those very bank profits.

Perhaps the member will remember as well the difficulties small businesses have been complaining about in their dealings with banks and service charges which consumers are complaining about. He may wish to tell Canadians whether the Reform Party does or does not support the surtax on multi-million dollar bank profits.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. The member raised the issue of surtaxes on banks and in the same breath spoke of service charges.

I wonder if the hon. member can tell me if she thinks the surtax raised service charges for small businesses or lowered them. Did the proceeds from that surtax get passed on to Canadian taxpayers or did they simply go to fund ever rising interest payments on the debt?

In both cases the consumer got nailed. Those surtaxes came back to people in the form of higher service charges, higher interest rates. That is how the banks made up the difference. Because the federal government has been so slow to pay down its debt and allows anything that comes in in the form of revenue to simply be spent right away, we are paying more because it has waited so long to deal with the debt and the deficit problem.

[The Speaker]

There are a couple of minutes left and the hon. member can take another question after question period. It being about 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.