I thank my colleague for the question. It gives us an opportunity to highlight the deceptive nature of this Bill and the reason why it must be brought to the attention of all Canadians in order that they, as well as Members of the House, can address it with the vigour it requires. It has to be changed.
According to the Estimates presented for 1989 in job development, the area my colleague the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin) referred to earlier, there will be a $53 million cut. This is a Government states that its two-pronged labour development strategy will include a new training ethic. It is taking away $53 million from job development programs where the long-term unemployed are given an opportunity to develop skills.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker), asks what happens to youth and to women who re-enter the market-place. There has been a $50-million cut. Does this sound like a sincere approach to developing a training ethic? Does it sound like
June 7, 1989
Unemployment Insurance Act
a serious approach to developing a market for labour in this country?
In the question of skills investment, the Government, which already made a very meagre contribution, is cutting a further $1 million.
My colleagues would probably be interested in knowing that in job development there was an average increase of 18.5 per cent in salaries for those people who were part of a job development program. Those individuals who were gaining $240 per week, as I cited in my presentation earlier, have an opportunity to increase their productivity and their remuneration. I am sure it will scandalize all Members of the House that in the area of job entry, where the Government has cut $50 million, youth and women who re-enter the market-place were capable of improving their remuneration by 45 per cent and 56 per cent on average.
Finally, in the area of skills shortages, the Government is cutting an additional $8 million. It is important to keep in mind that participants in the skill shortages program were capable of improving their remuneration on the average by 8.3 per cent per annum.
Obviously, on the questions of productivity, increased remuneration, and allowing people to contribute more productively in taxes, in consumer spending, and by withdrawing from government social programs, the Government is going in the opposite direction.
Subtopic: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Sub-subtopic: MEASURE TO AMEND