Debates of June 1st, 1998

Supply

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

The last comment from my hon. friend in the Bloc was that he cannot guarantee my safety in his riding because of the tension. This use of hyperbole, of gross exaggeration is so typical of when members of the Bloc Quebecois speak. It is ridiculous. We see this in its motion. It talks about the catastrophic effects of the reforms that we have had in unemployment insurance.

I ask the member, is it catastrophic that roughly one million more people are working today than were working in 1993? Is it catastrophic that the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.2% to 8.4% and is continuing to drop? Is it catastrophic that our job creation numbers in the last four months have been outstanding? We have created more jobs on a percentage basis than has the United States. Is it catastrophic that there were 171,000 new jobs in the first four months of 1998? Are these examples of the great catastrophe my friend in the Bloc Quebecois is talking about?

Is it catastrophic that the OECD is forecasting the highest growth, 3.8% for Canada, of any of the countries in the G-7? Is it catastrophic that inflation is at its lowest level in 30 years? When there is lower inflation we get lower interest rates and we get more investment by business. With more investment by business we get more jobs. The jobs that we already have in our economy become more secure as businesses invest in new plant and equipment and make those jobs more sustainable.

Is it catastrophic that our deficit has dropped from $42 billion when we took office in 1993 to zero today, again putting more pressure on lowering interest rates and higher investments by firms?

My final comment to my hon. friend about saying that the tension is so palpable that he cannot guarantee my safety in his riding, he should come to St. Thomas to see the new investments. He should come to see 1,000 new jobs coming out of investment by Magna corporation because of the upswing in the auto industry. He should come and see the new investment in a new truck plant by Freightliner which is a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. Both those plants will be making products for the world. It represents a confidence in this country I wish my friend across the way and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois shared.

I know the Liberals will talk about the good news all day today and the people in the opposition will talk about the bad news. Clearly one thing is true, that we are better off as a country than we were in 1993. That is why Canadians rewarded us with a second mandate and a majority government.

Having said that, any examination of the unemployment insurance system today, or the employment insurance bill, should acknowledge that the benefits to unemployment ratio has dropped. It has dropped from roughly 80% sometime ago to 43%. That on the face of it suggests a problem. We do have a surplus that is quite large. Both those elements taken together should cause us to reflect some on the cuts we made to the EI system.

Without getting into it in some detail, I had a discussion with front line workers in my local Canada employment office on Friday. They thought that sick benefits needed to be looked at. Right now the length of the term for people on sick benefits is 15 weeks. If we are going to make the system more generous we should expand the number of weeks available for sick benefits.

Another point which was mentioned in the meeting was that we need to provide more support for unskilled workers. If they get laid off from their job right now, the number of weeks on EI is calculated using a formula based on the number of weeks worked and the local unemployment level. We need to identify people within the unemployed group who are in particular need of greater support. Maybe we could provide them with longer term income support.

Older workers would also fit within this category. It may make sense that we provide older workers with longer term income support. An article in Friday's Toronto Star reported that Statistics Canada had said, and which all of us probably know anyway, that older workers take longer to find jobs and are more likely to exhaust their benefits.

Maybe we should take this time of dropping the EI ratio and the rising surplus to examine the whole issue of support we provide for older workers. Perhaps that is an area that could have some tinkering or some extra benefits.

Another issue that comes up is the whole issue of dropping the EI premium rate. The premium rate has to come down in a gradual and measured way. The thing we want to avoid is taking premiums up when we enter the next recession, which none of us want to see come soon. We all have to admit that the economy goes up and down. Eventually we are going to be in an economic downturn which would be the worst time to raise premium rates. It makes sense to lower them only when we are confident that lowering them is somewhat permanent and can work its way through the economy.

In the last three years the Government of Canada has dropped the employment insurance premiums paid by employees and employers by about $2.6 billion. This year alone Canadians are paying $1.4 billion less in EI premiums than they did last year. They are paying less because the government has reduced the EI premium rate four times in the last four years, from $3.07 per $100 of earnings in 1994 to $2.70 this year. This is the second largest reduction since the 1970s. The downward trend began when the government took office and will continue as fiscal circumstances permit. As premiums come down, it makes it easier to hire people and I think it is good news for all of us.

The 1998 EI premium rate was set by the employment insurance commission with the mandate given to it by the EI Act. In making the announcement last November, the government said it had gone as far as it prudently could in lowering premiums at that time. The rate provides for a cumulative surplus at the end of 1998 in the range of $15 billion to $19 billion, depending on economic performance. Some of us would say that this huge surplus of $15 billion to $19 billion is a catastrophe. Let me tell the House what is a catastrophe.

Prior to 1993 we had a UI expense that had grown from roughly $8 billion annually to about $18 billion annually. It was a social program that was fundamentally unsustainable and cried out for reform. If we had not dealt with that problem the people who would have been hurt the worst would have been the unemployed themselves, because eventually the program would have collapsed on itself and we would have had no program.

The premium rate must also be set at a level that will ensure the EI account will have sufficient funds to pay benefits even during a recession. The government wants to avoid raising premium rates if and when there is a downturn in the economy. A major increase in EI premiums during such a time would be harmful to the economy and to Canadian workers.

Canadians remember only too well what has happened in the past when the previous government lowered premiums one year when the times were good and raised them up the next year when times were bad.

During the recession of the 1990s the account went into a $6 billion deficit. Major cuts to benefits and sharp premium rate increases were used to stop the account deficit from getting worse.

We can all remember the bad old days when we were cutting benefits basically in the depths of the recession. In effect the program acted as a destabilizer rather than an economic stabilizer. That is exactly what we want to avoid in the future, keeping in mind the unpredictable nature of the business cycles. The experience of the last recession taught us a lesson and provides guidance for future decisions.

The current surplus makes prudent provisions against rate hikes in the event of unforeseen economic and global changes. Being prudent now means we will not have to cut benefits and raise premiums when the unemployed premium paying workers and employers can least afford it. Being prudent means that we are prepared to respond to unpredictable shifts in the labour market. Being prudent also allows the government to address unemployment where it is most severe.

The rise in the EI surplus gives us a flexibility we did not have before. I would suggest that the hon. members from the Bloc not use such ridiculous terms as “catastrophe” and appreciate that the economy is in far better shape than when we took office and give us the credit for that.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London talk about the EI fund and the money that was in there and how well the economy is doing.

The discussion today about the $15 billion or $16 billion surplus in the EI fund reminded me a little bit about the famous Jim Carey, a Canadian of course who has done very well. In one of his movies, called “Dumb and Dumber”, they found a briefcase full of money. They were in the process of returning it to a lady in Colorado Springs, travelling across the United States, and when they discovered what was in it they decided to borrow a bit to finance expenses along the way. By the time they got there and returned it, it was full of IOUs.

That seems to me a good analogy to use for the EI surplus. Supposedly we have a surplus in the EI fund, but there is nothing there at all. It is just a line entry in general revenue and there is nothing there. The analogy I think is pretty good, “Dumb and Dumber”.

The member talks about how well the economy is doing. We have an economy where we export a lot of product to the United States. Forty per cent of our GDP comes from exports. But I notice in the last 30 some years that our unemployment rate has been about 4% higher through good times and bad than that of the United States. We can actually chart it. In the 1980s we can see the 4% spread. In good times and in bad times it is always there.

I wonder what the hon. member's explanation would be as to why Canada is in the position where it always has an unemployment rate which is 4% higher than the United States which is one of our major trading partners.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted with the question that the hon. member has asked me. I suggest that any understanding of basic economics would provide the answer.

We provide more generous social programs. We can walk down the main street of the city of Toronto and then walk down the main street of a city like Detroit and see the difference. When my hon. friends were in London last weekend, if they had driven two hours and gone to the city of Detroit, down Michigan Avenue, they would have seen a host of differences between the way things are done in the United States and Canada.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

They all have jobs.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

They all have jobs, my friend is shouting across the way. Then perhaps he could have taken two hours on the weekend and driven down Michigan Avenue. He would have seen that they do not all have jobs. A number of people are homeless. A number of people are suffering. There is an underclass in the United States which does not exist in this country. Why? Because we have more generous social programs. When people fall out of work they are not as desperate to find jobs. They know they are not going to lose their health care benefits, at least under a Liberal government. What would happen, God forbid, under a Reform government, who knows. But they know they are not going to lose their health care benefits if they become unemployed. They know there is a social program to take care of them for a while. We have higher unemployment because we have better social programs.

If hon. members would stop heckling and listen for a bit they would also have heard that in the last four months our economy, compared to the United States, has out performed the American economy.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

So why is there 4% more unemployment?

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

There is 4% higher unemployment because we have better social programs. When a person falls out of a job in Canada they are not faced with the same desperate problems as they are when they fall out of a job in the United States. We are not prepared to tolerate the same things that the Americans tolerate. We are not prepared to tolerate a permanent underclass.

If we were prepared to tolerate a permanent underclass the way they do in the United States, we would have lower unemployment. If things are made more desperate, people will take jobs at low wages, even though they would prefer not to.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to strive mightily to focus my remarks through you. I know that I sometimes tend to get into a dialogue with members across the way, but I will try to avoid that if I can.

I find what is going on here to be quite remarkable. This is an attack on our success. The normal tactic of an opposition party is to attack the failures, the shortcomings, the shortfalls. The normal approach—

[An hon. member]

Attack the workers and the poor.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Listen to the member from the NDP. I am going to get to the NDP even though we are addressing the Bloc's motion. I think the NDP's position in all of this should be aired publicly so that we can see exactly what its solutions are.

This is really an attack on the success of this government.

How can we possibly be running a surplus when we have been reducing premiums? The NDP would probably shout their solution, but the reality is because the economy has never been in better shape. The reality is that unemployment has been reduced from 11% to 8%. In fact, as all members know, when this government took power in 1993 it inherited an unemployment insurance premium plan that was at $3.07 for every $100 of income. Today it is down at $2.70. We have reduced the premiums.

How does it work? Premiums are reduced, which means there is lower revenue, but there is more of a surplus. I think the equation is simple. There has been a successful reform of unemployment insurance to make it employment insurance.

I do not really consider employment insurance to be a social program. I know it is referred to as that. The NDP, of course, would say that we should just jack up the premiums. That would put more of a burden on business which, at the end of the day, would cost jobs. We all know that. But I do not consider it to be a social program. Welfare is a social program and an important one for people who need that assistance.

We could say that our health care system is a social program. But to me employment insurance is not unlike workers' compensation at the provincial level. There is a premium and for that there is coverage. It is more of a business plan.

In this country if, through no fault of their own, a person loses their job, the company downsizes or it is seasonal employment, whatever the reason, this national government will stand behind them to help them survive and to help with retraining. It is not done to the extent that the NDP would do it. The NDP would just give everything away.

One of the things I find interesting about this is that we are actually debating government policy in a motion put forward by the Bloc. The wording is outrageous. It tries to say that it is catastrophic. It is just nonsense.

I was sitting here thinking about Bloc members. Why are they here? Why are they in this place? It is really quite amazing. They are putting forward issues on government policy when we all know why they are here. They are here to tear the government apart. They are here to tear the country apart. That is why they are here. That is their mandate. That is their goal.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry recently made a speech in the United States. He explained the reason the Bloc wants to separate from what the Americans were saying is the greatest country in the world. The Americans were having some difficulty understanding how a party which had been elected democratically to the House of Commons could actually be travelling around the world advocating the break-up of this country.

The Americans are pretty straightforward. They are straight shooters. It is pretty clear to them that they would not allow that in their government. They would not allow that in their democracy.

The member was making a speech. He said that the reason they want to separate from Canada is that they want to have a more democratic society. Can you imagine a society more democratic than Canada, which would actually allow a party to be elected which is subversive and which wants to tear the country apart? How could we possibly get more democratic than that? That is their agenda. We know that.

I find it interesting that the Bloc members would put forward a motion today that deals with an employment insurance fund which they do not want anything to do with anyway. Or do they think they can separate from the country and still tap into a national employment insurance fund? Maybe that is the game. Maybe that is the thinking. They can keep their national jobs if they separate from Canada. It is truly amazing.

This attack on the success of the government by a party that wants to destroy the country is sending a message to Canadians. Obviously the opposition parties are out of things to find the government at fault for, so now they are starting to attack the things the government does best. What do they want?

They say there is no surplus. What did they say when there was a deficit? They said that it was horrible. Insurance premiums were too high and there was a deficit in the fund. It was real then.

I heard a Reform member say that there is no money in the fund, that it is just a line entry. When it was overdrawn there was sure as heck real money missing from the pot, so why can they not now admit that there is a surplus?

Again I use the analogy of “Dumb and Dumber”. I think Reformers were making the sequel to “Dumb and Dumber” in London on the weekend. I will leave it to the imagination of the House to determine who was dumb and who was dumber. I will be anxiously awaiting the release of that wonderful new movie. Maybe one of the members opposite will play Jim Carey in the sequel.

I have compiled what I consider to be the top 10 facts concerning what this government has put into place and succeeded with in terms of employment insurance reform.

Fact number one: In 1997 premiums were cut by $1.4 billion. Since we have taken office the premiums have been cut by $4.5 billion a year. We have reduced premiums four times in the last four years, from a high of $3.07 per $100 of insurable earnings under the Tory government to $2.70. It is even lower than the $2.80 forecast in 1997.

Fact number two: Last year this Liberal government under this Minister of Finance had the second largest reduction in employment insurance premiums in the history of the country.

Fact number three: $2 billion is available to the provinces.

Fact number four: 69% of part time workers are women and under employment insurance approximately 270,000 women in part time jobs have their work insured for the first time.

Fact number five: The 1998 budget contained a premium holiday for young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24.

Fact number six: This new measure builds upon the new hires program that ends in 1999. All firms are eligible for this program.

Fact number seven: These and other measures will save $1.4 billion in payroll taxes for workers and businesses in 1998 alone.

Fact number eight: The budget builds on the youth service Canada program currently funded at $50 million per year.

Fact number nine: It is true that EI revenues are important to achieving our fiscal targets, but employment insurance premiums are part of government revenues and benefits are part of government expenditures. You cannot flip-flop and have it either way.

Fact number 10—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Since many members wish to speak, in order to hear as many questions as possible, I will take two one-minute questions.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I feel personally concerned by the remarks made by my colleague, who is asking members of the Bloc Quebecois what they are doing here.

Does he think that the 22,000 voters in the riding of Saint-Jean who voted for me all did so by mistake? Democracy being what it is, 44 of our members were elected to this place and sent here by their constituents.

As far as democratic values are concerned, I think we must recognize that any decision made by the voters is the right decision. I wish the hon. member would not continually hassle us with that.

Earlier, he alluded to the nasty separatists bringing in a catastrophic motion. Is he suggesting that the premiers of Ontario—Mike Harris—of Alberta, of New Brunswick and of Nova Scotia, who would probably vote in favour of the motion before us if they were members of this House, area completely out of touch? Is he suggesting that they too are separatists? In my opinion, Mike Harris is not the biggest supporter of Quebec's sovereignty.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Harris could be called an anarchist, perhaps, not a separatist.

To respond to the member, the final point that I could not make does respond. The employment insurance commission and its actuary have recommended that the government maintain a substantial surplus in the fund to prevent the need to raise premiums in the event of a recession. That 10th and final point is very important.

I am sure there were people who did not vote for the hon. gentleman and they should not be disenfranchised. If they truly believe in democracy they should not have members travelling around the world under the guise of representing parliament telling people in other parts of the world that they want to separate so they could have a more democratic society. That is absolutely outrageous.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Charlotte, Hepatitis C.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about the good things the government has done.

Before the government came to power I was old enough to watch television and I remember that at that time the Liberals said they would get rid of the GST. They never got rid of the GST. One Liberal member had to give her resignation and came back after an election.

I have a letter from the Prime Minister dated February 17, 1993 that states when the Conservatives were doing the changes to the EI it was a disaster. It was taking from the working people and it was not morally right. If he wanted to get elected in 1993 he would change all that. Change how, by beating on the kids and the parents of this country? That is how he did it. That is how the government got rid of the deficit and balanced the budget. They are proud of that? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the NDP solution to everything in the world is simply to spend more. “The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest”.

Would the member be surprised that the quote is from one of his gurus, the Hon. Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, a Labour prime minister who has finally come around to realize that you do not solve all the problems in the world by throwing more money at them.

That is what the NDP would do. That is what I saw them do in five years. Talk about catastrophic, he should have been in the Ontario legislature under Bob Rae for five years. I could show some catastrophes there. That is their solution, spend more.

It does not work anymore; a new reality. You must run surpluses, pay your bills and build a better country. That is what we are doing.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are again, another session of us giving the folks at home an update of what is happening in Ottawa.

To Henry and Martha in Rimbey, Alberta I say put your feet up on your chair and here we go. It is another lesson in what is happening with the EI fund. What it basically boils down to is a $15.7 billion surplus that is being collected by the finance minister. People are probably asking themselves where it is going.

It is not actually being set up in an EI fund. It is going toward general revenue, which means it is kind of being rolled along with everything else. Remember that Canada pension plan increase people are all feeling now. It is being rolled along with that as well. It is all really part of a tax grab. That is what it basically amounts to.

A lot of people will not qualify for employment insurance out of this fund. One, they are collecting too much money to even reasonably be able to pay it out. The other thing is that there are a lot of students who are paying into this fund who, because of the temporary nature of their work, will never qualify. Really it is amounting to a percentage tax on their income.

I ask for unanimous consent for this motion to be votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, basically what is happening is that there are students and part time workers who will never qualify for any benefits from the EI fund.

Self-employed people are not only paying the EI fund for an employee but because they are an employer, they are paying for being an employer as well. Therefore it is double the amount.

When they lose their job or if their business goes bankrupt or something happens they are never going to be able to collect on it. In these cases it is a simple matter of a tax. There is no linkage whatsoever to their employability.

Members have heard mention today that this is basically a phantom account because it is going into general revenue. It is a mythical account. It is as mythical as unicorns. It is as mythical as leprechauns, as mythical as that pot of gold. This is a pot of gold that the finance minister is hoarding. He always says it is there, it is over the rainbow. He says that if we ever run into trouble, it is going to be there for us. As a matter of fact, it is not. There is no fund. It is a joke. It is a cruel joke on behalf of the finance minister to all us taxpayers. It does not exist. It is all being rolled in through general revenue.

We have to appreciate the finance minister, the tax minister basically, for his humour on this. He tries to humour us and twist it by saying he is not the one responsible, that it is actually the auditor general who is forcing him to put all this EI fund as it were into general revenue, that he would not want to do it. He would not want to touch the idea with a 10 foot pole but the auditor general is the one to blame.

I do not know if we buy that. When the finance minister was in opposition he did not say payroll taxes were a problem for creating jobs. He did not say they were an obstacle in creating jobs. He said they were a cancer on jobs. He said that payroll taxes kill jobs. Now he sings a different tune. He obviously has a different set of glasses on now and has the gall to stand in the House and say he is saving up his slush fund, which does not really exist anyhow, this pot of gold, for a rainy day.

I do not know when he was telling the truth, now or then, one of the times at least.

Last year the EI surplus, the difference in the money that taxpayers put in and what was actually paid out, was $7.1 billion. Without the lowest interest rates in about 40 years and without the surplus in terms of employment insurance this government would not have a balanced budget. It would not exist.

Why does the government not come clean and make proper priorities? Right now we have a government that is still continuing, while it is taxing every working Canadian with this employment insurance that is bringing in over $7 billion a year beyond what it pays out, to give money to corporate welfare. There are still profitable companies receiving grants and subsidies. Bombardier was mentioned today in terms of a very lucrative contract it got because of contributions it made to the Liberal Party.

The government is continuing to spend close to $4 billion a year in foreign aid and on crown corporations like the CBC. Yet it is going ahead and sapping this money out of jobs.

Some economists had some things to say about this. A recent paper by Canadian economists Livio Di Matteo and Micheal Shannon found that for each one percentage point increase in payroll taxes it kills 44,400 jobs.

I ask the House and the finance minister, if he is watching, to dream with me. For every single percentage point he could lower the payroll taxes, whether CPP or EI, he would be creating more than 44,000 jobs. I ask him to please consider that and talk to that nasty auditor general who is forcing him to put all these funds toward the general revenue.

It is not just economists who are crying out about this. Over the length of my speech I will go through a number of groups that have problems with what the finance minister is doing with this. Some of the premiers have problems with this. Premier MacLellan of Nova Scotia has problems with this.

[An hon. member]

A Liberal.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

That is right, a Liberal. My goodness, imagine a fellow Liberal criticizing the EI situation. Premier Klein in Alberta, a Tory, is criticizing this. The Premier of Ontario criticizing this. I think many of the Liberals are elected in the province of Ontario.

We noticed that all these people are saying we should have a cut in the EI premiums because it will create jobs. Even the finance minister, once again a Liberal, the one who is making the decisions in this case, admitted when he was sitting over on the opposition side that cutting EI premiums creates jobs. Does the finance minister remember that?

Economist Dale Orr says the premiums could be reduced from $2.70 to $1.85 and still cover the benefit costs. That is now three economists, three premiers and the finance minister when he was in opposition. It is starting to add up.

It goes on. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business in a survey of 19,000 medium and small sized businesses in this country has come back with the results. More than half of respondents said that if the finance minister cut the EI premiums they would be able to hire more workers. I do not know who is a more credible source on job creation than the CFIB and 19,000 small and medium sized businesses.

Up to this point we have had politicians and economists but we actually also have people who work for the government. The government's chief actuary believes we could cut it down from $2.70 to $2.00 and it would still provide a cushion of $10 billion to $15 billion in the EI fund.

How could anyone go against all these sources? It is not just all these people. We have a combination of all the opposition in the House of Commons and, just for the spice of life, Bob White with the Canadian Labour Congress. If we have the Reform Party, the CFIB, Bob White of the Canadian Labour Congress, three premiers and other Liberals who are asking for a cut in the EI premium, how could anyone be against that?

I would like to go on with a few other comments to drive home a couple important points. Alberta paid $1.86 billion into EI in 1997. Members are probably asking how much Alberta took out. If we put in $1.86 billion, how much did Albertans draw upon? It was $670 million. If we do some quick math we come to the determination that it was in excess of $1 billion that Albertans paid in and never received anything back. That includes training programs, by the way. That is $1.19 billion.

The labour force in Alberta comprises 1.513 million people. That amounts to $786.52 that Albertans could have had in their wallets. Let me repeat that $786.52 was what the finance minister took out of Albertans' wallets to put into his pot of gold scheme which he says the auditor general was forcing him to do, if we can believe that. That is what Albertans could have had in their pockets as discretionary income to spend as they saw fit.

Albertans know that money in their wallets does a lot more than it does in the finance minister's wallet. Let me say again that Albertans could have had $786. That is what the finance minister is taking from Alberta workers. Shame on him.

Let us tally up some of the numbers. Payroll taxes per employee in 1993 dollars but measured in 1966 were $803. Today they are $3,272. That is a big increase. I do not know how any finance minister across the way could say he is doing a good job when payroll taxes have jumped like that. Does the House remember the 73% increase in the CPP?

At this point I give notice that I am sharing my time with the member of parliament for Elk Island.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid it is already too late. There are only seven minutes left in your speech. You should have told the Chair about it before.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we go for seven minutes more in terms of this lesson on employment insurance.

Let me ask a question for the folks at home. If the finance minister kept up his practice of taking $7 billion a year more than he gives back, what would that amount to by the turn of the century? It would be $26 billion. The finance minister plans to take $26 billion more than what he is giving back in employment insurance.

That is a big slush fund. That is exactly what it is, unfortunately, because it is going into the general revenue fund. We will never see it coming back. A lot of students will never be able to draw on it whatsoever. A lot of self-employed people will never be able to draw on it.

With the amount of money the government is taking out of the province of Alberta with its younger demographic and its lower unemployment rates because of the Alberta advantage, there is no way we will ever see that amount of money coming back. It just will not happen. Let us face it.

What will this actually amount to? The average taxpayer is paying $420 per year more than what he or she is getting out of the EI fund. In Alberta, as I said, it was as much as $786 a year. For every Canadian, if we average it out across the board, it is $420 the average Canadian is paying above and beyond what he or she is be able to collect in terms of programs, benefits, training or anything under this plan. Shame on the finance minister for these types of numbers.

One basic law of economics is that if we tax something we get less of it. Thus taxing jobs means we will get less jobs and therefore will have higher unemployment.

If the finance minister admits, as he did previously when he was sitting on this side of the House, that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation, he must know—he certainly did back then unless he has forgotten—that by cutting the payroll tax he will be helping to create jobs. Once again I say that for every point we are able to decrease payroll taxes we create more than 44,000 jobs.

If we go ahead and we figure out what has happened with the Canada pension plan, that being more than a four percentage point increase, and if we look at what we have in employment insurance where it is taking nearly a full point above and beyond what it should, that is five points right there that the Liberal government has put on job creation. It has taken 200,000 jobs at the very minimum out of the Canadian economy.

How can we argue with all the opposition parties and the unions? The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is arguing on behalf of job creators, the companies. Economists across the board and even government bureaucrats are saying that these types of things should be addressed. How can we possibly ignore that?

The only person who could ignore it is the finance minister who forgot his previous promises in previous statements and went ahead and took this money, along with the lowest interest rates in 40 years, and used it as an excuse to balance the budget. He still allowed corporate welfare, money going to people overseas to fund dictators and some outrageous programs in the country. How could he do that? I do not know how he justifies it?

I would like to bring home a little story from Alberta. It is pertinent in this case. Premier Ralph Klein of my province said that Canadian workers should be given a break and that the $5.7 billion EI surplus should be used to lower premiums. He got some agreement on that. It was not just the premier who was saying it. The representative of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Dan McLennan, said:

Certainly, we feel that the federal government could do a better job with EI—

It is not just Bob White with the Canada Labour Congress. Dan McLennan with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees is agreeing that the federal government could do a better job.

Let me run through the list one more time: Bob White of the Canada Labour Congress, Dan McLennan of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Premier MacLellan, Premier Klein, Premier Harris, the economists I have been quoting, all opposition parties, the finance minister when he was in opposition, and actual people within the government bureaucracy. I do not know how the government can possibly justify any of these things. It does not make any sense.

I will open it up now to allow some of my friends across the way to come forward with good questions as I know they will.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never heard so much rubbish in my entire life. This has to be the most regressive mathematics or antiquated theory I have ever heard in my entire life.

What is it that they are asking? Are they saying that if we were to charge retail taxes we should renovate supermarkets across the country? Or, if we were to charge taxes on gasoline we should fix up the pumps, bridges and roads? If we were to do this our government would not be able to function. Society as a whole could not function.

The member and his party have to remember that if today we are charging for insurance policies we are not spending it because the economy is doing well. What would happen if tomorrow the economic situation changed and we had a downturn in the economy? Is he saying that we should tell every employee in the country that we are sorry but the pot has run out of money because the Reform Party stood in the House of Commons and asked us to spend all the surplus we accumulated over the past three years during good times? Should we say that it is a bad time they will not be given anything at all? What a depressing approach these guys have come up with. It is absolutely terrible.

They are complaining about the government trying to get its house in order when it comes to the insurance policy governing CPP, the insurance policy when people retire in the future. They are telling us that we should not do that: How dare we provide Canadians with the proper insurance policy so that if they want to retire in the future there will be a little money for them. They are saying it is terrible for the government to provide a proper policy and proper protection for the people of Canada in the future.

Is the member telling the youth, people and workers of Canada that today the government should spend all the money it has in terms of surplus? Is he telling Canadians who are working today that tomorrow if they do not have work and there is no more money left in what he is calling a pot, which is not a pot because it is general revenue, not to expect anything from the government? If that is the case he had better not stand up at all.