Debates of Oct. 26th, 1998

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does take longer with some questions compared with others but I certainly will look into this question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it agreed that the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the amendment.

Supply

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, the member for Chicoutimi presented quite clearly the need for the government to extend the small weeks program, if only out of a sense of fairness, compassion and responsibility toward people with less income.

I would nevertheless like to ask the member a question. He knows that we support the Conservative Party motion. With this small weeks pilot project, we have realized that many regions in Quebec and Canada are not currently covered by the plan and should be.

The problem does not necessarily lie just in the high unemployment regions. In low unemployment regions as well, people not covered by the plan are currently living with the effects of not having the small weeks plan.

This may be the best example of the need to extend the plan in regions of high unemployment. Would it not be a good thing if we were, on reflection, to consider extending the plan to all regions of Canada?

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the very efficient work done by our colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques on related issues. Any issue touched on by Human Resources Development Canada is a social issue.

For the time being, it is extremely important that the small weeks program be extended, as this extension is anxiously awaited by some people. As part of a more comprehensive reform, looking into everything that concerns the absolutely disproportionate surpluses in the EI fund, perhaps extending this program should be considered, if only to show a little more sensitivity.

I read an article, dated September 23, in which Michel Vastel said “Elected representatives show an increasingly appalling insensitivity to the demands of ordinary citizens”. I agree with our colleague's comments. There is an extraordinary difference between what he said and the remarks made by the Reform Party member, who considered this measure to be completely superficial and unproductive, while knowing full well that some families could use a few dozen dollars more to have decent living conditions, not perfect ones, just enough to live at subsistence level.

It is extremely important to act quickly on extending this program and to do so as part of a comprehensive reform.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with the drastic changes of EI over the last five years, would the member not agree this is just an insidious example of this Liberal government's downsizing its responsibility on to the backs of the provinces?

An example of that is that as of September 1, after the TAGS program, close to 9,000 people in Atlantic Canada and Quebec had to apply for social welfare because the EI premiums were either very insignificant or none at all.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, our number one goal in this country should be to eliminate poverty, a situation for which the federal government is responsible. This same government enjoys a $20 billion EI surplus that is the result of measures that, as I said earlier, were taken by the previous government, measures like the GST, free trade and tax reform.

The federal government should take corrective measures to fight poverty. Instead of apologizing, we must put more pressure on the government to inject additional funds into everything that impacts on poverty, including health care, social programs and, of course, employment insurance.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

Previously the minister said: “In light of the fact that we do not have all the information required, I am afraid we cannot support the member's motion even though we recognize his good intentions”.

Recognizing his good intentions might be stretching it a little. We are certainly all concerned and want the pilot programs continued in one fashion or another.

I believe there is more than meets the eye here in terms of the intentions of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche when putting forward this motion.

I am pleased that the member does recognize the value of the important changes this government has made in terms of the previous unemployment insurance legislation, in particular as related to what was called the short week issue.

I also point out a little recognition. This really happened under the guidance and the hard work of the member for Kenora—Rainy River in his previous capacity as parliamentary secretary.

We saw that there was a problem in terms of short weeks. We brought it forward and he, along with a number of us, developed the process to fix that short week problem. We acted on it and we have had the pilot program in place for almost two years as evidence of where to go from here.

Some of the earlier speeches concern me. The acting leader of the fifth party said “There has to be compassion” and tried to leave the impression that the EI changes brought about by this government lacked compassion. The hon. member is flatly wrong. In fact this motion highlights one of the better examples of how we have been flexible and innovative in reforming the old UI system.

It would be useful to examine how the small weeks became an issue in the first place.

Under the old system of UI weekly benefits depended on earnings in the most recent 12 to 20 insurable week periods; that is, the weeks with more than 15 hours or $150 in earnings. That was over the last year or 52 weeks. Depending on the work patterns under the old UI system an individual's benefit could equal up to 146% of insured earnings from work.

The intent of the original new EI legislation was to base benefits on earnings from work within a continuous period. This design ensured that benefit levels were more reflective of the normal flow of earnings from employment and there was incentive to work even small weeks as every hour at work would count toward eligibility, duration and benefit level. It was, however, seen as harshly impacting on individuals with gaps in their employment.

One of the most illustrative examples of this happens on a potato farm where an individual works in the spring for an extended period of time, with long hours, for about six weeks. They have a fairly slack period during the summer months and then again have heavy employment in the fall during harvest.

What clearly was happening was that an individual would be called back for a half day to grade potatoes for four hours. As a result of coming back for those four hours of work, the gap created a short week, which created a very serious reduction in the individual's benefit level. Certainly the individuals did not want to go to work with this serious impact. The employers found themselves with the problem of getting workers to come in for the very short period of time. That was not the intention of the EI act. The intention was that every hour would count.

As a result of the earlier gap issue, the legislation was amended to enable individuals to ignore up to 12 weeks of no earnings within a 26 week period when calculating their benefit levels. However, that improvement, ignoring weeks of no earnings, resulted in a disincentive to accept a small week. That is, in some instances it was better to have a week of no earnings versus a small week with low earnings because it would have an impact on future benefit returns. If a week with low earnings was included in earnings, the individual's average earnings and thus benefit level would fall and that worked against our stated purpose in terms of the employment insurance legislation of having every hour count. Therefore, fixing the gaps issue created the small weeks issue which we then brought in the fix for.

I am very pleased with the way we on this side of the House responded. When the problem came to light, the Minister of Human Resources Development asked a group of Atlantic MPs, of which I happen to be one, to talk to Canadians and to find solutions. We decided to pilot test a system whereby small weeks could be bundled together or where they could be excluded in the calculation of average weekly earnings in the determination of the EI benefit.

So far the results have been encouraging. About 130,000 claimants have benefited from these pilot programs, including a high proportion of women. Together their benefits have increased by about $19 per week.

These projects are well received and effective. However, they are slated to expire next month, which brings us to the following questions. Do we extend the pilot projects? If so, which project? Do we extend the exclusion pilot which is in place in western Canada or do we extend the bundling project which is in place in eastern Canada? The bottom line in both pilot projects is the same. The benefit levels for EI participants are the same under both projects. I can see how someone would want to make sure the program continues, especially when that program is delivering and being helpful, as has already been proven.

We need to wait for the facts. Once we have all the facts and we have sifted through the evidence we will all be in a better position to say whether or not these pilot projects have accomplished what they were intended to accomplish in the beginning.

That is why I come back to the question of whether there are so-called good intentions on the other side in terms of proposing this motion today. From my position I say that this program is needed and it needs to be continued. However, today may not be the day to make that decision. There were a lot of changes in terms of the EI legislation. There are other areas where there has been injury and there are other areas where there has been improvement. We need to monitor all of those aspects. We cannot just come to a quick, hasty fix. We have seen the kinds of Tory fixes in the past under the old UI legislation. When we came in we had to reconfigure, change and improve upon those quick fixes.

We need to take some time. We need to be very careful and cautious. We need to make sure the evidence is there in terms of what needs to be done, in terms of which program should be kept, how it should be done, and in terms of what other measures we should improve before we get into opening up the Employment Insurance Act.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting the riding of the member for Malpeque, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. His riding is similar to mine in many respects, with a rather high unemployment rate.

I would like to have his comments as the representative of the Minister of Human Resources Development. A former BC Mine worker from my riding came to see me. During the period when he received EI benefits, he worked as a pallbearer at the funeral home, earning $22 each time. So he had 10 small weeks with $22 in income, one with $44 in income since he did it twice that week, and another with $66 in income since he did it three times that week. When he applied for EI benefits for the second time, the department took the last 26 weeks with earnings, which meant 12 small weeks and 14 weeks when he was working as a miner.

Louis-Philippe Roy, from Black Lake, earned $375 as a pallbearer, and his EI benefits were cut by $1,734. He lost $102 a week. Therefore, because this unemployed miner earned $375, he lost $1,359.

That means that Louis-Philippe Roy contributed, involuntarily of course, $1,359 to the $20 billion in accumulated surplus.

Because the unemployment rate exceeds 10% in the riding of my distinguished colleague from Malpeque, small weeks can be adjusted into one single week, but this cannot be done in Thetford or in Black Lake because these communities are part of the greater Chaudière-Appalaches region, which includes the Beauce region where the unemployment rate is very low.

I just wanted to draw to the attention of the House the flagrant injustice of which Louis-Philippe Roy was a victim.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question of the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic. However, I cannot on the floor of the House of Commons get into the specifics of an individual's case.

His point illustrates why we need to take a little more time to look at this. I think what he is suggesting is that the small weeks pilot applies to only 29 of the HRD regions for employment insurance. The area he is talking about may be an area where the small weeks pilot does not apply. If that is the case, then that is evidence to show how useful the small weeks pilot is.

I suggest to the member that he bring the specifics of that case to the Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources Development. Then we could look at it and use it as evidence in terms of this monitoring.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have the highest regard for the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Oceans who comes from the beautiful riding of Malpeque.

However, one of his comments greatly disturbs me. Earlier today I presented to him an EI statement from somebody in Nova Scotia who got $25 a week EI, and if a person was married with children they got $31 a week.

I would like him to respond to the interim leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who indicated that we must have compassion in our rules and changes. Where is the compassion when somebody who has worked most of their life gets $25 a week or $31 a week? Where is the compassion from the government there?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, again we are dealing with a specific case and we do not know all of the details.

Did this individual and his family only manage to get two weeks of work last year? Is the result that the divisor was 12 or 14? Is that the reason the employment insurance is so low? I do not know because I do not have the full details of the case.

I can tell him that we are working in other areas. The minister spoke very eloquently in his speeches about some of the other programs that we are working on. It is not just an employment insurance pilot project situation that we are dealing with, it is the total situation in terms of job employment measures and labour market training. Those areas we have to grapple with as well. We on this side of the House will improve those areas so that these individuals will not find themselves in this kind of situation.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque gave us a great cross-section of the small weeks problem and how we are trying to resolve it.

During an earlier interchange the member for Saint John said that some people in the House need a history lesson with regard to their attitudes toward Atlantic Canada. She was responding to a question of mine. I was basically asking why the premier of Ontario was questioning whether that province should continue utilizing the employment insurance system to the extent that it does. He has often pointed out that Ontario, cash flow wise, is a net loser through the employment insurance system. It is certainly not the feeling of the government or Liberal members, but it certainly was seemingly odd that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party here was taking major exception to the premier of Ontario whose very view that is.

Most of us understand the importance of underpinning our economy wherever it is, whether it is in Oshawa, Durham, the maritimes, Sydney and so forth. These are very important aspects. I was interested, because I thought the history lesson should be directed at Mike Harris.

The motion before us today says “in order to make adjustment projects a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act”. These pilot projects which are under way are to address the issue of small weeks. Most of us can see it is some kind of idiosyncrasy of the legislation that was written. This happens in many things. I worked on another issue, the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. It is amazing how many times things are written down with good intentions and when they actually get out in the public domain, they seem to have some unintended results.

This appears to be one of those very areas where it is possible that we discourage people from seeking employment because they have less than full weeks of employment. The result is that it reduces the average. Therefore in small ways they are better off not working at all than working.

I am sure the intention of the EI reforms was to make it a major incentive to gain that extra hour of employment. That is what the average Canadian would like to do. Rather than sit at home, he or she would like to be employed even if it is only part time, which is a positive thing.

The government is trying to deal with this issue. However the order today simply talks about extending it, enshrining it. I am concerned about that because here in Ottawa we do not do enough program evaluation and accountability. These two projects, while they are coming to fruition and cycling out of the system, if you will, up until November 15, it is clear we have not had the time to sit down and actually evaluate what impacts those two solutions to the problem are having.

A theory among columnists and maybe even social engineers is that people are totally conscious about how government programs affect them economically and therefore they will always react in their best economic interests. There is some concern that in fact that does not actually happen and it is really the intention of the government to ensure that those people continue to have the incentive to work.

As well intentioned as the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche may be, I believe it is premature. We have not had the time to evaluate that program. We have to go through that process before we consider any concept of extending it indefinitely.

Part of the EI reforms tried to encourage the productivity of the Canadian labour force. This is something that is hard for people to measure. Canada's productivity vis-à-vis many of our trading partners is significantly lower. Some blame the unemployment insurance system; some blame other processes and some of our cultural differences.

The reality is that Canada's productivity has been increasing since this act has been changed. It is on that issue which I think it is very important that we get it right and in such a way that we do the evaluation and our homework and we ensure that we continue to be on the right course.

Obviously the minister has realized there is a problem. It is an unintended one. Obviously we do not want people to sit at home rather than work. Clearly there are some objectives we are trying to seek.

Some people look at the value of our dollar. Sometimes the value of our dollar is underpinned somewhat with the labour productivity factor. If our labour productivity factor does not improve, the Canadian dollar will continue to go down. This is the way international currency equates productivity. If we are less productive, it means that the value of our dollar is less vis-à-vis other currencies where the labour factors are more productive.

It is to that issue I think these reforms are attempting to address themselves. It is why we have to make sure we get them right.

Within that legislation were a number of ingenious concepts. One was the new hires program which the minister mentioned this morning in his lead off debate. My riding of Durham has a tremendous impact from the automotive sector and others. That program has been a great incentive for young people to get work experience because the first year of the employment insurance premiums are negated. We talk about the great surplus and so forth but right there are some people who are not paying into the premium system and it is a major bonus. By the way, it is small business week and we should be talking about that too. It is a great incentive for our small business community but it is also a great incentive for those young people to get some work experience.

We also do the same thing in our summer youth employment program. That is something which is taken advantage of by the young people in my riding to get that little bit of work experience so that they can access the labour market. I am sure most people in Durham and the rest of Canada want to work. They want to find the up ramp to the workforce.

The small weeks provision attempts to address the issue. The realization is that, although we are not sure, it may cause a disincentive for people to seek some employment rather than none at all.

Some of the members, especially in the NDP, have raised the concern about the deviation between unemployment insurance reductions and tax cuts and why somehow these reductions should go back to the people who actually put the money into the system.

Invariably tax cuts are assumed somehow to be benefits for the wealthy. The reality is that our country has a problem, which has been raised by other members, called bracket creep. In fact, the people being hit by an inflationary spiral are in the lower and middle income brackets, the workers.

It should be a policy of this government to take some of that surplus and direct it to people who make $20,000 or $40,000 worth of income. I am talking about the working poor. Some of these people hit marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% or 60% by moving from $18,000 to $20,000 worth of income. What does that do? It creates a barrier. People cannot get out of poverty. They cannot get out of that cycle of low income.

Why would it not be a great thing to shift that surplus from corporations to some extent to assist those people by giving them back the indexing of the income tax system. It would help them increase their disposable income. That is a lot more beneficial than some of the programs we talk about simply giving it back to the corporations which paid 60% of the employment insurance premiums in the first place.

In conclusion, as well intended as it may be, I believe this motion is premature. The motion should be rejected because we need to do our homework before making any decisions.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I was listening with great attention to the member for Durham. I have a clarification on a reference he made to the member for Saint John. I know there were little questions and responses between the two of them earlier in the day. I think I know what the member for Saint John was talking about in reference to Ontario and the premier of Ontario.

I think the premier of Ontario is rightly upset because Ontario's economy is very robust and we do not question that. I understand that the member comes from an area where the economy is going along very nicely, thank you very much.

The premier of Ontario was concerned that not very many people in Ontario collect unemployment insurance in relation to the rest of the country. Ontario constitutes about 40% of the Canadian economy. It is the lowest area in the country for benefits in terms of unemployed workers receiving benefits. The premier has a right to be concerned about that as they are paying in but not reaping the rewards. It is not that they want to because obviously it is better to have people working than not working.

The statistics speak for themselves. I will quote statistics released by the Department of Human Resources Development about a week ago. The statistics will bear this out.

In Ontario fewer than 30% of the unemployed get unemployment insurance, the lowest rate in the country. In comparing the 10 provinces and 50 U.S. states, Ontario is between Montana and Missouri and just below the average for the United States as a whole.

That is part of the point the member for Saint John was making and probably the member for Durham as well. What we are looking at and the premier is saying is let us look at what we are doing with the surplus because the surplus does not exist. Premier Harris is saying “You are taking more out of my workers and my employers than you have to”. The federal government is applying that surplus in the EI account against general revenues. It simply disappears. There is no account.

In terms of the EI surplus I would like to hear what the member for Durham has to say.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, you cannot suck and blow at the same time.

The reality is that within the province of Ontario we have the same kinds of things. There are certain areas in the province where there is high unemployment and there are net beneficiaries of the unemployment system. In other areas, for instance in my own riding, General Motors says that it puts in a buck and gets 60 cents back.

The point of the matter is that as a country we are bigger than the province of Ontario. The Progressive Conservative premier in the province of Ontario is clearly saying that we should amend the unemployment insurance system so we do not share that money with Atlantic Canada. So the coffee is cooking. Realize that for what he is saying. The Progressive Conservative leader in the province of Ontario is saying to hell with you guys. It is not something we believe in. We believe this is a bigger country than the province of Ontario but that is not the viewpoint of the premier of Ontario.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am pleased to speak to the supply day motion put forward by the fifth party in the House.

Many of the members preceding me have gone through the details of the program. I would like to talk to a few points which cause our party some concern. The first concern is that this program which is due to expire on November 15 of this year still is without any type of evaluation. While the supply day motion may have some merit, I think it is quite premature.

The Liberal member opposite talked about accountability. I know members of the government tend to choke on that word but we will accept the fact that the member was sincere in his comments. The SW program is probably one of those programs that should be evaluated before we decide to make it a permanent fixture.

The House would have been well served if the fifth party would have put forward a motion that tried to cure the illness rather than simply provide some medicine to look after the symptoms. We should be demanding from the government that it create an environment in Atlantic Canada where people can actually go to work.

The EI programs are fine and the benefits are fine for those who are temporarily out of work, but must we always be focusing on benefit programs? I believe the motion focuses on the wrong subject. We should be talking about what it takes to create jobs. That should be what the government and all of us in the House are paying attention to and not benefits. Let us get these people back to work again.

While we are talking about Atlantic Canada let us talk about the failure of the government, the Tory government before it and the Liberal government before that, and how they sold out the interests of the Atlantic Canada fishermen. Some years ago someone on this side of the House decided it would be a good idea to allow foreign boats to fish the waters off Atlantic Canada and reap the harvests. There was a bountiful harvest back then sometimes. They thought it would be a good idea to trade the interests of the Atlantic fishermen and Atlantic Canada in order for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to sell manufactured goods in return to those European countries.

Someone got shafted in that deal, and who was it? It was the Atlantic provinces and the maritimes. To boost the interests of Ontario and Quebec those governments simply sold Atlantic Canada down the tube by allowing this massive overfishing by foreign interests in order that they could sell manufactured goods from Ontario and Quebec in Europe.

That was a tragedy. The results of that tragedy, of that insane decision, are still going on today. That is why we are talking about how we provide benefits for Atlantic Canadians who have no jobs.

The focus of the government should be jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs are created by allowing the private sector to operate in an environment that is conducive to establishing a buoyant economy. They should be provided with low tax levels. There should be incentives for investors and business people to start new businesses and to expand their existing businesses. There should be some tax relief for employees of those companies from the massive burden heaped upon them by these governments. That would put more money in the hands of consumers which would allow them to spend the money within the economy and as a consumer driven economy it would grow.

The focus is wrong here. We should be talking about the obligation of government to create an environment that would allow the economy to become more buoyant and that would allow more jobs to be created in Atlantic Canada. That is where we should be focusing our attention. We should not be trying to simply put a band-aid fix on a very serious problem.

While we are on the subject of employment insurance programs I must talk about the massive raids the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government are embarking on in relation to the current surplus in the EI program. There will exist approximately $22 billion in the EI surplus. I am not saying that money is there. As a matter of fact there is nothing there but an IOU from our finance minister because he has already scooped it all.

The EI commission has clearly said that in order to sustain the EI fund and to provide a contingency fund for rainy days a surplus of some $15 billion would be required. That would be enough.

The finance minister is about to pilfer that fund to the tune of about $7 billion simply because he wants the money. He will change the law to get his hands on money that rightfully belongs to Canadian employers and employees. If that money were turned back in the form of reduced EI premiums, as the EI commission has clearly said and as the finance minister's own actuary and advisors have clearly said, massive jobs would be created.

The finance minister is not hearing anything about that. He wants to get his hands on that money, plain and simple, so that he can continue Liberal government overspending. Incidentally the government overspent its spending budget by some $3 billion last year despite all the crowing it did about balancing the budget and maybe having a surplus. In times like this that is atrocious.

What is even worse is that most of that overspending went to build a millennium monument for our Prime Minister who will probably be gone after the year 2000. He wants to leave behind this millennium project legacy which the government says will benefit post-secondary education. Billions of dollars will be spent to benefit only about 5%, if that, of all post-secondary education students.

The finance minister wants to scoop that $7 billion to make a legacy for his Prime Minister. He wants to build an election slush fund leading up to the next election so he can miraculously open the dikes and let the cash flow out. This is just a farce. I think members opposite realize what the finance minister is doing.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As much as I enjoy listening to the member, it is my understanding that we are in 10 minute speeches and he is splitting his time with his colleague next door. I am hoping that we could hear from his colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member still has 49 seconds left in his speech.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member from the fifth party would love to hear me speak all day about how mismanaged the government is under the Liberals. Eventually I would have to get to the performance of the Tory government that preceded it. Probably I should wrap up.

Let me get back to my main point. Although the motion may be an apple pie motion, it is premature. The program has not been properly evaluated and that has to be done before we would consider supporting the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Since there is a lot of interest in asking questions I would ask that members co-operate and keep their questions and answers short.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, this will not take long. The member should be congratulating us on foreign fishing. Whereas it was 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s, it is down to 2,000 tonne per year now.

The member for Prince—George Bulkley Valley has demonstrated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He must have been down there with the finance committee. That is what it demonstrates.

Is the member suggesting that the EI fund should be used for tax reductions rather than for employment measures? Is that what he is suggesting?

Second, would he not agree that the government is doing a lot in terms of creation of jobs through the transitional job fund, the Canadian opportunities strategy, the youth employment strategy, new hires programs and others?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member across by reminding him that he knows very well the best possible employment measure we can take is to reduce the taxation burden on Canadian businesses and workers. That is how to build a buoyant economy. That, contrary to what the Liberals say, is backed up by mountains and mountains of historical evidence.

We find that almost every country with a very reasonable tax regime has a buoyant economy. We only have to look to the province of Ontario where the Premier of Ontario has reduced personal income taxes by 30%. As a result, did Ontario bring in less taxes? No. Overall it brought in 10% more in taxes and the employers, the workers and everyone are far happier.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, when the Liberal government agreed to bundle small weeks to have more acceptable weeks, it agreed to do it in only 29 regions where the unemployment rates were the highest.

If the unemployment rate is 10.5% in one area and 9.4% in the neighbouring one, this does not mean poverty and hardship do not exist there.

I would ask my distinguished colleague whether he would support a motion asking the government to extend the program to every region in Canada where small weeks could be bundled to have more acceptable weeks so that a former miner at the BC Mine, Louis-Philippe Roy, is not penalized for having been of service by acting as a pallbearer for the funeral parlour.