Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech most interesting. Although I am not in agreement with a number of his points, he has raised a fundamental question.
We are told that people must stay home and wait for work. Should they not be mobile across Canada? To that, I reply that people are not just economic beasts of burden. They are not just consumers, they are human beings with families who have lived in a region for several years, often several generations. They have the right, in my view, because that was how Canada was developed in the past, to economic development tools allowing them to develop their region. There is no region in Canada where employment cannot be developed, no region that cannot be helped to turn itself around, develop and take pride in its development.
The approach suggested by Reform members is essentially to go back to the situation that existed before 1935. In this connection, I would like to quote Prime Minister Bennett, who said at that time: "During the years of anguish you have just experienced-he is speaking about the Great Depression-you have seen the great weaknesses and abuses of the capitalist system. They have led to unemployment and misery. In order to meet the new needs, we must reshape the capitalist system so that it serves the people better, and distribute the benefits more equitably among the various classes and regions of the country".
When governments decided to distribute the benefits, was it not more with the idea of allowing a program that had shown its worth to be a good economic regulator and to ensure that individuals could develop in their own regions?
In closing, I would like to say that it is true that Quebec has long received more unemployment insurance than it paid in premiums, but that was linked to unemployment. Last year, in 1995-96, it was not one and a third dollars for a dollar, but a dollar for a dollar that was spent.
In the end, will the position that the hon. member is defending, which is to take away from the unemployment insurance system any role as regulator, not have a negative effect greater than the possible benefits to Canada?