Douglas Young

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are very aware of the possibility that the changes proposed in Bill C-111 could indeed result in a number of people being denied the benefits they have enjoyed for many years.

This is why my predecessor before Christmas and I, since I have been asked to take on the department, confirm that, with the resumption of the deliberations of the parliamentary committee-I am certain of it, because all members of the House have heard their constituents' claims and concerns-the members of the committee representing all parties in the House will sit down at the table later this week to begin the work that is part and parcel of the legislative process and which consists in making the necessary changes to Bill C-111, thus reflecting some of the concerns raised by my hon. colleague.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment, the program has not undergone the changes proposed in Bill C-111. The present surplus is the result of a fairly dramatic change in the country's employment rate.

No doubt the Leader of the Opposition is aware that, in recent years, the job situation has improved in the country, though it remains painful for those unemployed.

I would point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that, over the past three years, there has, each year, been a fairly small reduction in the contributions made by employees and employers to the UI program.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the proposed unemployment insurance program, we are all aware of the concerns that have arisen pretty well throughout the country and we have said clearly that, as soon as the parliamentary committee resumes its deliberations, we will raise, properly I hope, the question of calculating benefits for the unemployed and the intensity rule.

As to the surplus, I am sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware that, last year and two years ago, we were in a deficit situation with unemployment insurance.

Frankly, I would reassure the Leader of the Opposition that the surplus has nothing to do with the changes we are going to make to the unemployment insurance program. This program must reflect reality for both people looking for work and the labour market.

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's deep concern, which is shared by many people across the country, with respect to the legislation that is going to be brought back before the House and considered by committee as it relates to the intensity rule.

Perhaps the safest thing for me to say at this point is that we recognize in the existing legislation the need to go back and recognize that people who have been out of the employment insurance scheme for a few years, who have been unable to find work and who have had to resort to welfare or whatever, have a legitimate right to have access to training programs and so forth. We will recognize past history back three years and will try to find ways to include them in whatever new process is determined upon.

I would think that all of us are looking forward to next week when hon. members on both sides of the House from all parties will again be asked to sit on the committee that will consider the legislation that is going to reform the employment insurance situation in this country.

We will together, as a result of the very massive consultation that has gone on over the past few months, address the question of continuous weeks of work and the question of the intensity rule. I have no doubt, having been made aware of the goodwill that exists in this House and the questions that have been brought forward by interested parties across the country, that in its wisdom the committee will find a solution to a very difficult problem.

[Education, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed that the hon. gentleman would raise the spectre of gutting post-secondary education in this country as a result of the actions of the federal government.

The hon. member knows that the student community, having heard the news that the Government of Canada is doubling the amount of money thereby doubling the number of jobs that will be available next summer, knows this is a very good news story. I believe it is something that young people across the country were looking forward to.

To suggest in the same breath that Canada, compared to practically any other nation in the world, and the Canadian taxpayers are not shouldering their burden in terms of making a contribution to post-secondary education in this country is to say the least very misleading. Canada's educational system at the post-secondary level in terms of funding is at the top of the list on any criteria.

Any increase in tuition is very difficult for students and we recognize that. One of the ways we have attempted to try to allow young people to cope with that is by confirming early in the game, in the throne speech and the Prime Minister's speech, that this summer young people can look forward to twice as many job opportunities as a direct result of the actions of the Government of Canada. At the same time we are challenging the private sector and other governments at all levels to do the same thing.

[Employment, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure in these last few days before the budget we are all trying to communicate our respective messages to the Minister of Finance. Being the kind of person who listens well, I am sure he will take it all into account.

The hon. gentleman knows that the budget process requires that whatever is going to be announced in the budget be withheld until Wednesday afternoon, and we are all looking forward to that.

As a point of clarification, I would like to point out to the hon. member that during the last election campaign when Liberals talked about jobs, we recognized then as we recognize now that what governments at all levels should be doing is creating the environment and the climate to allow the private sector to create jobs. We are wrestling with that. It is not an easy task. We understand the impact of payroll taxes. We understand the impact of debt financing and the rest of it. But governments at all levels across the country are trying. Some, I think, are succeeding more than others. But a sincere attempt is being made to create an environment that will allow the private sector to create jobs.

Surely the hon. member would recognize that since I stood to answer the question, it would not be very appropriate for me to suggest that the government is creating jobs after what took place at Transport.

[Employment, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes the point that the government is still struggling to try to create a climate to foster employment. There is no doubt about that. It is not a problem that is peculiar to Canada.

However, the hon. gentleman should admit that the government has come a long way in establishing the fundamentals that are required for the private sector to get into the business of job creation.

Interest rates are at very low levels and comparable to those in the United States. We have inflation at 2 per cent or less. Unemployment is below 10 per cent.

I agree with the hon. gentleman. One way to correct one of the problems for which I am responsible, which is to take care of the unemployed, is to create jobs. Surely all of us can agree that the fundamentals are in place and that the private sector-I believe that the challenge the Prime Minister put to it is an appropriate one-are now in a position to get on with the business that business does best, creating jobs.

[Gender Equality, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the parliamentary committee meets again and reviews the legislation formerly known as Bill C-111 we can show why we feel it is essential to change certain aspects of the proposed legislation, precisely because the impact of that legislation on some sectors and groups was not acceptable.

Those who will closely follow this issue will realize that the changes that we think we can make will correct, at least to some extent, a problem which has been in existence for a long time and which could not be solved by the bill. We intend to continue to work so as to create a balance and treat all those who work with fairness.

[Gender Equality, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is a very important one. We are trying to apply, as a result of a lot of interest having been exhibited by individuals and groups very interested in this question, criteria to all of the programs we are considering as to what the impact would be in terms of equality across not just gender lines but also different age groups.

It is an extremely complex question. Although significant work has been done on it, I can only advise the hon. member that I am looking forward to discussing the matter with colleagues from around the world, members of the OECD countries. The capacity to analyze the impact through a variety of programs which we have the responsibility of administering is extremely difficult. I do not want to suggest in any way that we are delaying what we would like to achieve.

For example, I look forward to the parliamentary committee's being able to give us some direction on how we can address this extremely important question

[Manpower Training, February 28th, 1996]

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.