Garry Breitkreuz

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 1994 the Toronto Star reported that 70 per cent of Canadian parents stated they believed it is sometimes necessary for parents to use physical force to correct their children's behaviour.

We are given to understand that the federal government is currently reviewing section 43 of the Criminal Code. Can the minister advise the members of this House who is conducting the review, the cost of the review, and when members of this House can receive a copy of it?

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

In 1991 the federal government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time a debate has been under way in Canada regarding the right of parents to spank their children. Section 43 of the Criminal Code currently

protects parents who use reasonable physical force to discipline their children.

Can the minister advise this House whether or not he is currently considering a repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments but I cannot agree with the analysis here. If one had a horse missing one leg of course one would not buy a wooden leg or prosthesis for it. That is not going to fix it but that is what this government is trying to do. It is tinkering with the system.

It is making little changes here and there. It is like putting a wooden leg on a horse. It is not going to win any races and that is the same with the programs that it is trying to tinker with, trying to change. It is just like putting a wooden leg on a horse. We cannot do it that way. We have to establish some sound principles. We have to decide what is important. Is this an insurance program or is it a welfare program? That is the basis on which we should put our UI program.

I do not believe in penalizing people and hurting them. We have a welfare system in place. It has a certain job to do. Let us make sure it is doing the job and let us make sure the UI insurance program is doing its job.

I quoted the numbers. I do not see how anyone can argue with them. Employees contribute over $8 billion to this program. Employers contribute over $11 billion. Just think what we could do with that money if we left it in their hands and let them administer these things. We would not have the problems we have now. However, when government gets involved it takes $5 to do what someone in the private sector would only take $1 to do. That is the key thing we have to remember in all this. We can argue all these fine little details but we need to make some wholesale changes.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Bill C-17 on April 14 during second reading and again in the report stage. I am pleased to be given so many opportunities to talk about the reforms to unemployment insurance and our income security programs.

In my previous speeches I summarized the changes to the unemployment insurance program. Of the six major changes proposed by the government the Reform Party supports five.

We used these previous occasions to encourage the government to go even further. I would like to use an illustration as to how we feel at this time.

If I went out to buy a horse, looked at it and it looked fine, and I began to examine it, I would start with the mouth. I would check its teeth to see how old it is and I would walk around it and check its feet. If I came to the back and I found a leg missing I probably would not accept it. I would not want to buy that horse. That is how we feel about a lot of these changes to the unemployment insurance system. It looks good but there are some flaws in it.

I listened to the complaints about changes to the unemployment insurance by the Official Opposition. Its concerns show us just how off track the unemployment insurance program is. It proves that unemployment insurance is perceived as a way for social engineers to redistribute income. It proves that unemployment insurance is no longer a true insurance program but a glorified welfare program. The Reform Party would like to change all that. The Reform Party wants to return unemployment insurance to a true insurance program, not a welfare program. We want to get this standing on all four feet, sound and well supported.

Reformers take great pride in getting the principles right before us, starting right at the beginning in reforming the program. The government has launched a two year process to reform our social programs and not once has the minister described the principles on which the government's reforms are based. We find this appalling that no principles have been put forth which this program would stand on. Canadians deserve better.

I challenge the minister and the Official Opposition to ask their constituents some hard questions about the future of our social programs and the future of our unemployment insurance program. I did not describe unemployment insurance as a social program because it is not, it is an insurance program.

If we are going to truly reform the system, then we have to start with two fundamental principles, two fundamental questions. First, why is the government in the unemployment insurance business? Second, why is unemployment insurance compulsory?

Reformers do not think that the government is qualified to answer these questions, but know that the Canadian taxpayer and the workers and the employers who pay the bills are. Reformers have been asking Canadians what they think for years now and we believe it is time the government started asking the same people what should be done.

If the government has the courage to ask ordinary Canadians what they think, it will be surprised by the answers. Here are some of the questions, and I want to spend most of my time outlining the questions that the government should be asking.

First, would taxpayers like to have social programs designed so that they eliminate all duplication between the federal government and other levels of government? Would they like programs designed that way?

Many Canadians see unemployment insurance and welfare as basically providing similar support for the same people. They see little reason for two large bureaucracies, one federal, one provincial, doing essentially the same thing.

It is time to make clear distinctions between income supplements and income insurance and to clarify exactly which level of government is responsible for delivering those services.

I also believe that the level of government that is closest to the people is most often in the best position to effectively administer these types of programs.

Second, would taxpayers like to have social programs structured to lessen the dependency on the system and encourage clients to become economically productive? This is the question the government should be asking.

Third, would taxpayers agree that our social programs should be designed in such a way as to encourage administrators to achieve the stated goals of the program, for example lower unemployment?

Fourth, would taxpayers like to have social programs that are financially sustainable? In particular, should the unemployment insurance program be self-financing? I wonder what the answer would be if we asked taxpayers those questions.

Fifth, if the government is going to initiate large scale reforms to our income security system and unemployment insurance programs, should the government hold a national referendum to ask for the approval of the majority of Canadians? If we make all these changes, should they not be given some say in the final outcome?

Six, would taxpayers prefer to have the UI program operate like a true insurance program, meaning that workers who make repeated claims on the system and employers who repeatedly lay off workers would have to pay higher premiums for the higher risk that they represent?

Seven, would taxpayers like to make our income security and unemployment insurance programs truly accountable? Would Canadians like to receive annual statements indicating how much they paid into each program and how much they received in benefits?

Eight, do taxpayers think that income security programs should be targeted to those who need them most?

Nine, would taxpayers prefer to have income security programs and the unemployment insurance program treat all Canadians equally regardless of the area in the country in which they reside? Should they be treated equal no matter where they are? While reformers believe that Canadians have a right to live anywhere they want in this great country we also believe that no one has a right to become a permanent ward of the state.

The next question is would taxpayers agree that the goal of the unemployment insurance program be to minimize and if possible eliminate all abuse to the system? I am sure that people would agree.

Eleven, do taxpayers think that the unemployment insurance program should be administered by the workers and the employers who pay the premiums? Further, let us ask if workers had a choice would they ask the government to administer the UI program for them? Would they hand over the reins? I think not.

Twelve, do taxpayers, workers and employers think that the unemployment insurance program should be completely voluntary, or should it be compulsory as it is now? That would be a very interesting question to ask.

Thirteen, would workers rather have a choice about where they invest their UI premiums? Would workers get a better return on their investment than the UI program offers them?

Reformers asked the government how many jobs would be created if workers were investing their UI premiums for themselves rather than sending the $8.3 billion to the government to redistribute. If they had that money to invest I wonder if there would not be more jobs created in this country than at present.

Fourteen, would unions not be able to provide unemployment insurance for their members if the workers they represent chose to contribute their premiums to the union rather than send them to the government? Would that not be a very interesting question to put to the workers and see what their answer would be?

Fifteen, would employers like to have the choice about where they would invest the $11.7 billion in UI premiums? Would they like to have some choice as to where to put that money?

Employers pay more UI premiums than their workers. This is a cost of labour for the employer and is really money coming out of the pockets of the workers. How many jobs would be created if employers were allowed to invest that $11.7 billion that is spent on UI premiums if they could invest them back in their company? What if they could put that money into training programs, into research, into development, into export and market development, capital improvements and expansion? The changes would be phenomenal if they had a choice as to what to do with that money.

On February 23 the Minister of Human Resources Development said in this House that reducing UI premiums will create 40,000 new jobs in this country. The Canadian Labour Congress in a brief to the standing committee on human resources development stated if seven cents off UI premiums resulted in 40,000 jobs created then reducing premiums $2.80 would create 1.6 million jobs, and we would have arrived at full employment.

That is what I call a real job creation program. What would employment be in this country? It would be zero if we created 1.6 million jobs. To be fair, the CLC is sceptical that if we reduced premiums that far it would create that many jobs. Reformers are not that sceptical.

Reformers believe that $1 left in the hands of workers or employers for them to invest is worth $5 in the hands of government, a ratio of one to five. Reformers have a much different vision about income security and income insurance programs. Reformers believe in asking Canadians what they think. Reformers believe in giving Canadians a choice. Reformers believe that changes as big as the ones proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development should be ratified by the people in a binding national referendum.

These are huge decisions that we are making. That department alone administers $69 billion. The people know better than the government what needs to be done, and we ought to give them that choice.

For years now the polls show us that in many cases our government is doing the exact opposite to what the majority of Canadians want, whether it is on capital punishment, going easy on criminals, failing to cut government spending or on the unemployment insurance program. It is time to not only listen to the people but to act on what grassroots Canadians are telling us.

Reformers trust the people to make the right choices for this country. Reformers believe that democracy is not something that we practice once every four or five years in the voting booth. Reformers believe that democracy is something that has to be worked at and each and every day we serve our constituents as members of Parliament.

I have told the constituents of Yorkton-Melville that I am their voice in the House. I sincerely hope that each and every member has the courage to ask the tough questions and to represent their constituents' wishes in the House as Reformers do every day.

Let us get our UI program on a solid foundation. We would not buy a horse with three legs. We would make sure that horse is solid and firm. That is what we have to do. We have to get principles in place.

[Excise Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few minutes but I want to make several points. I was going to take the opportunity to go through Bill C-32 point by point, but time does not allow that. I will simply summarize what our position is and then make a few supplementary remarks.

Reformers are going to come out opposed to this bill basically because we did not want the tobacco tax to be reduced in the way it was. You may find it rather surprising that Reformers would oppose a tax reduction. One of the reasons we were elected was to reduce government spending so that taxes could be reduced but in this case, we cannot agree with what has been done for the following reasons.

My constituents have told me this as well. They did not like the way the government responded to the criminal element by reducing taxes very quickly. They would have preferred that the government look at the enforcement problem first and address some of the other issues, maybe apply an excise tax on the exported tobacco products.

More and more people will be encouraged to smoke. We already see this happening among our young people. For this reason we cannot support this reduction in the tax.

Because of this increase in smoking we will have long term health costs for Canadians which have not been factored in. The government should have done some planning in this regard, some investigation as to how this would affect our health care system. That is a priority with people. They have told us that above all else we should preserve our health care system. We should not cut back on costs and this will probably increase the costs rather than reduce them.

We should also have tried more aggressive enforcement measures. Seventy per cent of the cigarettes were brought in through the reserves. Maybe there was a way to address that problem.

We would have liked to have seen a new export tax on tobacco products tried before the lowering of taxes took place. We could probably have worked together with Americans in this regard but now they look at us and say: "The Canadians have reduced their taxes, so we don't have to increase ours. It doesn't work".

There will also be a problem between provinces. There is a smuggling problem between Canada and the United States and now we are going to have a smuggling problem among various provinces. How will that be addressed? What will happen in that regard? I realize some measures have been taken here to try to control that, but it could be a problem.

In February when Bill C-11 was introduced we pointed out that when the criminal element sees that the profit is no longer there for tobacco they will turn to other things. As my colleague has already admitted, they will probably begin importing alcohol and other things.

We support the imposition of the new excise tax on exported tobacco products. Senior officials informed us that before the tax changes were implemented, between 30 and 40 per cent of the total production of tobacco manufacturing in Canada was exported. The tobacco companies now agree that only 3 per cent was legally consumed in the United States. This shows the extent of the smuggling problem. It could have been controlled at this end before it even went to the states.

This law now allows tobacco manufacturers to export 3 per cent of their production tax exempt. Reformers believe that this new export tax should have been tried before lowering the tax.

The legislation implements measures to ensure that unmarked tobacco products sold to Indians on reserves in Ontario and Nova Scotia are taxed at the same rate as marked tobacco products sold in the two provinces.

Also retailers and wholesalers are owed an estimated $150 million in rebates on excise taxes on tobacco products held in inventory when the excise tax was reduced. The minister cannot issue the rebate cheques until this legislation is passed. While we oppose the reduction in tobacco taxes, retailers are likely to get upset if we delay the bill. We do not want to hold it up for that reason.

Finally, Reformers support the adjustment to the fines for illegal possession or sale of unstamped tobacco products. We believe that those who are breaking our laws should be punished. We also support the health promotion surtax, an increase of 40 per cent of taxes paid on profits by the tobacco manufacturers. We feel this is a positive measure. On most of these measures we support the government. However, on the reduction of the tobacco tax we cannot support it.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from some of my constituents. It is with regard to section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada whereby convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are now able to apply after 15 years, and whereas they feel that the murder of a Canadian citizen is a most reprehensible crime, they request that Parliament repeal section 745.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure, on behalf of some of my constituents, to present two petitions to the House.

The first petition deals with the drug RU486 which has been used in the abortion of human children at an early stage of development.

Their concern is that the administration of RU486 has caused the death of at least one woman to date and has caused serious health problems in other clinical trials in France, and that the only proven use of RU486 is in the abortion of young human beings.

Therefore, they petition the House to withhold the approval of RU486 and prevent the marketing and testing of this drug.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I made the point that we could not accept the omnibus bill here. There are parts of it that we agree with but there is a part that we disagree with and therefore we have to vote against the whole thing because of one element, and that is not acceptable. I want to continue my remarks with regard to Bill C-17 and the Unemployment Insurance Act with the fourth point that I was making.

The bill will increase the minimum amount of time a person needs to qualify for UI from 10 to 12 weeks. The Reform Party supports this measure and would ask the government to consider making it tougher for repeaters to continue to get UI benefits.

The fifth point is that the bill will allow more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs or are fired with just cause to collect benefits. The Reform Party is opposed to this measure because there are now 43 just cause reasons which allow job quitters to collect UI. Need more be said?

Finally, the bill will reduce the length of time a worker can remain on claim and include specific provisions for areas of high unemployment. The Reform Party supports this measure because it will encourage workers to move to areas where there is a better chance of finding work.

As members can see, of the six major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act the Reform Party supports five. Had the bill been only addressing these specific changes, the Reform Party would be voting in favour.

When I spoke on Bill C-17, I put the UI reforms outlined in this bill to a simple test which I referred to as the taxpayer's test. I would like to take my remaining time to discuss the principles we believe should be used to design and develop a true unemployment insurance program.

Reformers believe that the UI program is no longer a true insurance program. The system has been used and abused by politicians over the years. Now it is operating more like a social welfare program. People in many regions of the country are so confused that they now think unemployment insurance is a right.

Many Canadians see UI as an entitlement that comes without any obligations. A common observation for many workers is that "I have paid into it, therefore I am entitled to draw as long as I want". They proceed to do just that.

The majority of workers who have paid into the unemployment insurance program year after year and have never collected are tired. They are tired of paying the bills for the minority of workers who collect UI year after year.

Employers who pay UI premiums are tired of subsidizing other employers who use and abuse the UI program to keep a captive workforce. Reformers believe it is time to get back to some basic principles and return unemployment insurance to its original purpose, an employer-employee funded and administered program to provide temporary income in the event of an unexpected job loss.

We know that the Minister of Human Resources Development is currently trying to develop an action plan for the reform of social programs. Reformers would like the minister to keep these fundamental principles in mind. The government says it is listening. I hope this is true.

I will go through this list without explanation because I do not believe my time will allow it.

(1) Social programs should be designed to eliminate all administrative duplication between the federal government and other levels of government.

(2) Social programs should be structured so as to minimize economic distortions and disincentives and thereby encourage clients to become economically productive.

(3) Social programs fall into one of two categories, income supplements or income insurance. Both should be financially sustainable but only income insurance programs can be self-financing.

(4) Income insurance programs should operate on true insurance principles. This means the workers who make repeated claims on the program and employers who repeatedly lay off workers would have to pay higher premiums.

(5) Income insurance programs should be democratized, meaning they should be administered by employers and the employees who pay for them.

(6) Income insurance programs must be accountable. Every Canadian should receive annual statements indicating how much he or she has paid into the program and how much she or he has received in benefits.

(7) Income insurance programs should treat all Canadians equally, regardless of the area of the country in which they reside. Regionally based entrance requirements, regionally extended benefits and other forms of geographically based discrimination should be prohibited.

(8) Income insurance programs should be designed to minimize abuse of the system. It should be possible to virtually eliminate abuse of income insurance programs once they are made completely self-financing and administered by workers and employers.

(9) Any large scale reforms to the federally administered social programs should be approved by the electorate in a national program.

I believe if the government is serious about reforming the UI programs, it should seriously consider applying these principles.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Madam Speaker, I wish to explain to the House once more the reason for our motions. We are opposed to the government's use of an omnibus bill to implement the budget rather than introducing separate bills for each act it proposes to change.

Today I would like to comment specifically on the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I spoke to Bill C-17 on April 14 during second reading stage. At that time I said that the Reform Party was generally in favour of the changes to the UI Act, but argued that the government did not go far enough with its amendments. Even though we think that further improve-

ments to the unemployment insurance provisions could have been made, we are prepared to vote in favour of the UI changes.

However, there are other changes in Bill C-17 which we cannot support, such as the CBC borrowing authority provisions. Therefore, in order to register our opposition to certain legislation contained in the bill, we have to vote against the whole bill.

How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when we are forced to vote yea or nay to a block of legislation with such diverse concerns? How can we do that? Dividing the bill logically into its various components would facilitate the democratic process. It would also allow for meaningful votes based on the analysis and voter reaction of each part of the bill.

That is the reason for our motion. We are not trying to be obstructionists; we are being practical. We want the procedures of the House to be understood by the voters. An omnibus bill is not a common sense way of doing things. People sent us here to bring common sense ideas to Parliament. I think the voters would agree with our position on omnibus bills and the motions we have introduced today.

I would like now to specifically address each of the changes to Bill C-17 that we would implement in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am going to comment on these as I go along.

First, the bill would roll back UI premiums for 1995 and 1996 to $3 for every $100 in insurable earnings, down from $3.07. The Reform Party generally supports this measure but would ask the government to consider further reductions in payroll taxes. If jobs are created by doing this, why not find other ways to reduce payroll taxes?

Second, the bill will reduce UI benefits to 55 per cent of insurable earnings, down from 57 per cent. The Reform Party supports this measure but would ask the government to further reduce benefits to bring them in line with benefits paid by other OECD countries and to lessen dependency on the system.

Third, the bill will increase the benefits for those UI claimants with low earnings and with dependants to 60 per cent of insurable earnings, up from 57 per cent. The Reform Party supports this measure because it states: "to target payments to those people who are most in need". That should be the aim of our social program.

Fourth, the bill will increase the minimum amount of time a person needs to qualify for UI from 10 weeks-

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-17 be amended by deleting Clause 27.