Douglas Young

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware, he could not have asked the same question last year, for the UI fund had no surplus at that time. In fact, there was a deficit.

Obviously, changes in situations such as what has happened with the unemployment insurance fund must be taken into account. At the moment, however, what needs to be kept in mind is that the amendments made to the bill before the House at this time will result in improvements to situations that have been recognized as a result of presentations made by those interested in making fair changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The opposition's assistance in this would have been appreciated.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our very best to listen to everyone who had anything substantial to say. The problem in this whole process, as those who attended committee meetings and followed our hearings soon realized, is how widely divergent the views held by the various witnesses were.

As far as those responsible for creating jobs in this country are concerned, namely small and medium size businesses, the original act, let alone the amendments, went much too far and was way too flexible. For the Canadian Labour Congress on the other hand, we were much too strict and demanding.

In a situation like this one, the role of government is to try to strike the happy medium and find solutions which, as far as possible, meet the chief requirement, which is, in this case, to help those in need.

I would like to stress the fact that, if there were problems in committee, if some suggestions were overlooked, it is because we did not manage to address every representation that was made. But for the most part-

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for two years now, we have been trying to overhaul the unemployment insurance program, or employment insurance program, as it is now called. During these two years, hundreds of groups, organizations, companies and individual citizens were consulted and, since December, when the bill was introduced in this House, presentations have been made and briefs submitted by all kinds of people from every region.

Some people were worried and they expressed their concerns to us. Over the course of a few weeks, the committee to which this bill had been referred heard a number of witnesses, who, again, expressed their views, concerns and worries.

Meanwhile, government members were diligently looking at ways to resolve grievances and claims that were recognized as legitimate. Out of this committee study came amendments that will cost the employment insurance program some $365 million.

These amendments will address the issue of benefits paid on the basis of the number of weeks worked and, in part at least, the problem with the intensity rule, by excluding households making less than $26,000 a year, as well as, to some extent, the issue of the dividing factor used in calculating the benefits to be paid to recipients.

That said, I must admit that we did not achieve perfection. And whatever was achieved, we achieved without any help from the opposition.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 19th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-22 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Canada Pension Plan, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think every member of the government understands the importance of protecting the Canada pension plan. Every member of the government understands the dangers of any plan that is subject to the kind of changing demographics that are involved in Canadian society.

The process that has been initiated of which I am sure the hon. member is aware is one that will provide an opportunity for Canadians who have an interest in the matter to express their views.

As much as the hon. member would like to know the views of the government, which this process will allow to come forward, I know we are all waiting with bated breath to know not only the views of the hon. member as to the future of the Canada pension plan, but also the views of his party on how it should be financed.

[Canada Pension Plan, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that nearly everyone who has looked at the Canada pension plan agrees on: it has to be reorganized to ensure it is sustainable.

The process put in place to evaluate the future of the CPP is one that we look forward to the hon. member and his party participating in. Canadians have a right to know what the government believes should be done with the Canada pension plan. However, it would be very important to know what the third party feels should be done in order to protect future income for senior citizens.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 15th, 1996]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage (with further amendments).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Rrsps, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge is always with comprehension. There is no doubt about that.

What we are dealing with here is undoubtedly an effort to be equitable. There is no question the hon. member has stated the record in terms of the reduction to age 69.

Whatever the alleged tax grab may have been as a result of that change, if the hon. member would look at the cost to taxpayers, the benefits made available to people who want to avail themselves of the RRSP, going back over the years where they missed making maximum contributions, the hon. member would understand this.

If she takes the time and the care to look carefully, what has been retained by the government in terms of the change at the upper end will be more than compensated for by being more generous to people who were not able to make maximum contributions to the program through their working life.

[Rrsps, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the budget brought in by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, was to deal with problems such as the demographic change taking place in this country and elsewhere in the most fair and equitable way.

I would have thought the hon. member would have made reference to the fact that the proposals made by the Minister of Finance allow for those people who wish to take advantage of RRSPs to go back as far as they can to pick up those years where, because of child rearing or for other reasons, they were unable to make maximum contributions.

The proof is in the pudding. As one looks at the reactions across the country to the proposals made by the Minister of Finance with regard to RRSPs and other elements of the budget, they have all been very well accepted by people who understand them.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-11, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39, on page 18, with the following:

"partment of National Revenue, the Department of Supply and Services or Canada Post, or the".

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 76, be amended by a ) replacing line 12, on page 25, with the following:

"76. (1) Paragraph 33(2)( a ) of the Old Age Se-''; b ) replacing line 17, page 25, with the following: ``Canada or Canada Post, or to the Canada Employment and''; and c ) by adding after line 32, page 25, the following:

"(2) Paragraph 33(3)( a ) of the Act is replaced by the following: a ) the Minister of National Revenue or any person designated by the Minister of National Revenue for the purpose may, for any purpose relating to the administration of this Act, make available or allow to be made available to the Minister, or to any officer or employee in the Department of Human Resources Development designated by the Minister for the purpose, a report providing information available to the Minister of National Revenue with respect to any applicant or beneficiary or the spouse of any applicant or beneficiary; and''.