House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1993, with 66% of the vote.
Summer Jobs For Students March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should send me a copy of the press release he is referring to. All I can tell him is that, this year, we managed, with the finance minister's help, to contribute another $60 million to the creation of summer jobs for students.
In total, $120 million will be spent this summer on jobs for young people attending post-secondary institutions.
Manpower Training March 21st, 1996
No, it is not the same thing.
What is happening is that the Bloc Quebecois never says the same thing from one day to the next. Their rambling is very difficult to follow.
Manpower Training March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I think that some kind of a consensus has been reached, even between us and members representing the opposition in this House. In fact, if you listened to what I was proposing to the Quebec minister responsible, all we are waiting for now is for a Quebec delegation to come and tell us what they have to propose on the basis of the Quebec consensus and what is already provided for in Part II of Bill C-12-
Manpower Training March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to emphasize again the good faith demonstrated by all those involved in this issue.
On March 18, I sent a letter to the minister responsible for this issue in Quebec, in which I said, in essence, the following: "I do recognize the fact that there is a consensus in Quebec and that the province is very serious about taking charge of the active measures relating to Quebec's labour market, as indicated in the motion passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on December 4, 1995. Moreover, I fully agree with some of the principles set forth in the document received from you. These principles-the need for integrated active labour market measures, partnerships, decentral-
ized decision making, result-oriented action-are perfectly in keeping with those outlined by the Government of Canada in Part II of the bill. It would seem to me that they are also closely akin to the positions taken by many of our colleagues from the other provinces, as described in the document issued by the ministerial council on social policy reform".
My hon. colleague should be reminded of the fact that we had already put this proposal forward before this gathering took place in Montreal and Quebec City this week.
Manpower Training March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly do our best to respect the interests of all concerned during these negotiations. I have no reason to believe that we will not have, between officials of both governments, discussions that will be profitable to both levels of government.
However, I must point out to my hon. friend that all the other provinces of Canada also attach a great deal of importance to this whole issue. That is why our offer to withdraw from the area of manpower training applies to all the provinces. I hope that an agreement can be reached as soon as possible with Quebec as with the other provinces.
Manpower Training March 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the letter we sent yesterday to the Government of Quebec will serve as a basis for the negotiations both parties will undertake in good faith. In fact, we will hold talks with all the provinces, because this is an approach that will be made available to all the provinces, not just Quebec.
In light of Quebec's suggestion that the basis and terms of negotiation be laid, of the ministerial document received from the other provinces, which also showed an open mind, and of Part II of the employment insurance legislation currently before Parliament, we should have enough principles, bases and parameters to be able to find a way to transfer responsibility for manpower training to those provinces that want it.
The Budget March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if I appeared to be smug about any of our accomplishments I want to dissipate any notion of that kind because I think it has been a mighty struggle. I make no bones about it. I have said it in this place and in many other places that had one of my friends, the predecessor to the present Minister of Finance, been given the opportunity to do what he wanted to do in 1985 and 1986, I think Mr. Wilson would have been able to arrange the affairs of this country in such a way fiscally at least that we would be much better off today.
That is why I complimented my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister for backing him. We have begun the process of going from a situation where the deficit to GDP ratio was 7 per cent and we have got it down now to 3 per cent. The minister has made an undertaking to go to 2 per cent. I know it is not as fast as my hon. friend would like to see it move. At least after many years with various stripes of government going in the
wrong direction, I hope that my hon. colleague would at least respect the fact that over the last couple of years the current Minister of Finance has been moving toward balancing the budget.
Besides that an interesting part of all of this is when we get to the cashflow situation which allows us to eliminate borrowing. In other words we will be able to operate on a current account with enough cashflow to be able to pay for our day to day needs.
There are a number of indicators out there. I understand how frustrating it must be for people who would like to have an instant solution to a very longstanding problem. We will continue to do the best we can to get a very difficult deficit situation under control. As Canadians who understand this recognize, we cannot start to do anything about the debt until we have cleaned up the deficit. We are on the way to doing that. I do share the view of the hon. member that we should get to balanced books and begin to pay down the debt as soon as we possibly can.
The Budget March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi raised several questions. As far as the debt and the deficit are concerned, this is a mammoth, long term undertaking. We are familiar with the problem that exists in Canada, one that Quebec will also recognize, judging by what the Government of Quebec has had to say recently. This is a problem all governments in the country have to deal with.
As for what I had to say about those who organize demonstrations, I think accuracy is in order here. The French language press reported what I said with extreme accuracy. What I said is that I understand why people who are worried and nervous participate in demonstrations. I understand why they express their concerns and seek change. This is why we have said, ever since the month of December, that we would be proposing changes to bill C-12.
What bothers me somewhat is the presence of professional agitators in communities where they would normally rarely, if ever, be seen, people who do this for a living year round and earn very high salaries. They travel around to exploit people who have serious and legitimate grievances.
This is how I see it, and I have never been embarrassed to call a spade a spade. I must say, in all frankness, that the professional agitators who came into my riding did not spare me with their comments either. They said exactly what they thought of me. We will exchange views but, at the end of the day, I hope that we will have managed to find solutions for those affected by the changes.
I find this still hard to understand, because when I spoke just now about job creation I mentioned two funds totalling $1.1 billion. As for the summer jobs, which are described as window dressing, the fund has gone up from last year's $60 million to $120 million yearly, only for the program to create jobs for post-secondary students.
If, for Bloc members and for my hon. friend from Chicoutimi, $120 million this summer is merely window dressing, there are plenty of young people across this country who would like to have their windows dressed in this way.
The Budget March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Calgary asks excellent questions and I want to address each of them.
First, we have to be very careful with respect to the principle of insurance as it applies to employment insurance. I have spoken to people who are involved in the insurance business. For example, I do not know of anyone who has bought death insurance. Agents usually try to sell it as life insurance. They do not sell sickness insurance. They sell it as health insurance. All of my adult life I have had term insurance. I hope the hon. member for Calgary will understand why I am glad no one has collected on it yet.
We have to be extremely careful because insurance can have different functions. There has to be a sharing. People who have full time jobs and long attachments to a job are probably extremely pleased that they have never had to go to the employment insurance system for support.
We have to be extremely cautious when we make the changes to retain equity and fairness. People told me on the weekend that they were prepared to change places with people who felt there was too much unemployment insurance money going into certain parts of the country. They would exchange the unemployment insurance cheques for the full time jobs that existed in certain parts of the country, for example, in the automobile industry in Ontario. I say that knowing my friend is from the great province of Alberta. There is always a need to try to keep some balance.
I agree we have to look at the surplus. The hon. member asked what the amount is now. We have just come out of a deficit position. We have been running a surplus on current account but there was an existing deficit in the UI fund. In the last few months, probably since December, we have moved into a surplus position. The budget documents indicate that we may get to approximately $9 billion to $10 billion in a couple of years.
I do not think there is any doubt that the Minister of Finance would be prepared to tell my hon. friend that there is a level at which the surplus has to be controlled. I will indicate my interest as well. The member would know that the surplus is merely a myth in the sense that it is a liability the government has when it uses it in the CRF because it is a debt owed to the employment insurance fund.
Although it is useful in managing the deficit to some extent, in the final analysis it will have to be used to protect against a downturn in the economy. We want to avoid the kind of scenario we had a few years ago when the country was in a recession and premiums were going up when companies and individuals were least able to pay them. I take my hon. friend's comments seriously. We have to look at where we are going to put a ceiling on the surplus.
To answer another point he made, I do think the right way to go about it will be to make some dramatic changes in the premium rate because it is a payroll tax. It is a disincentive. We can address that in the next 18 months if we continue on the present trend of an increasing amount in the reserve. Jobs are also being created in the private sector that will allow for premiums to be adjusted downward.
The Budget March 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to say that when describing the people from my riding I never make a distinction between big or small, rich or poor. I have a great respect for all of my constituents and I am perfectly aware that there are serious concerns every time we have to discuss social programs. What I regret is when those concerns are exploited and that is something I have no intention of doing today.
My hon. colleague made a few comments on big companies, including one I would have thought the hon. member would be particularly proud of because of its international reputation in the
aerospace area. But I will leave that to others because I would like to speak to a particular point.
The hon. member for Frontenac asked me what there was in the budget on job creation. He forgot to mention the $800 million in the reinvestment fund included in the employment insurance program we are proposing, $800 million when fully implemented. There is another $300 million transitory fund specifically aimed at helping regions where the unemployment situation is the worst. Of course, for my hon. colleague, that $1.1 billion was not important. Apparently, he did not even notice it when reading the budget.