Mr. Volpe:

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.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the Hon. member for Burlington.

Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset, listening to the Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe), that I never heard a more poorly informed speaker since I have been in the House of Commons.

Mr. Volpe:

Did you listen to your own Minister?

Mr. Kempling:

He talks about entry-level skills. An additional $100 million is being devoted to training, including a new program to meet the needs of growing industries especially those in the service sector. The Member does not know what he is talking about. He is

talking about cutting and we are talking about spending more money.

On this Bill, I want to talk about labour skills. I do not know whether the Hon. Member who just spoke ever worked a day in his life, or whether he ever had callouses on his hands, but he does not sound as if he did. I want to talk about labour skills and upgrading those labour skills and how that will help us to ensure that our industries remain on the leading edge of competition in the global market-place. That is the purpose of our labour force development strategy as set forth in Bill C-21. Within the programs in Employment and Immigration, there is one entitled Skill Shortages. In that program, every four months we list the skill shortages province by province. The gentleman from Newfoundland who asked a question earlier-the Hon. Member from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Mifflin)-after we have completed this, I will show him the list of skilled jobs that are crying out for employees in Newfoundland. I have two pages of them here. I think he will be surprised when he has a look at them.

That is the basis of how we are going about this. Canada today wants to do more than hold its own in an era of global competition. Canada wants to excel. To do that, we need to embrace technological change. We cannot afford to lag behind other countries when it comes to improving productivity through high technology product development and enhanced trading of our labour force. We realize today that many of the machines that are being used in industry are-

Mr. Walker:

Where did you work?

Mr. Kempling:

Do you want to know where I worked?

Mr. Walker:

Yes, very much so.

Mr. Kempling:

I was working long before you were born.

Many of the machines that we use today cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and require people to operate them. They are not just ordinary lathes, drills and shapers. They are very sophisticated, computer-controlled machines that are required in order that we can be productive and profitable in our business operations. Therefore, we cannot afford to lag behind other countries when it comes to improving productivity through

June 7, 1989

high technology product development and enhancing the training of our labour force.

The extent to which technology can be harnessed depends upon the skills of the people who direct, maintain and operate it. In this context, the development of a skilled work force will be a determining factor in our future prosperity.

A recent report of the Economic Council of Canada shows that 85 per cent of all companies surveyed expect to be using computer-based technology by 1990. That is only a year or so away. It also points out that those companies that adopt new technology are generally companies that are growing faster and becoming more efficient than their competitors. The result is clear. We have a responsibility to direct our resources into education and training so that we will have skilled people to make industry competitive. We are talking here about a shared responsibility involving the federal Government and the private sector; in fact, a shared responsibility that involves all Canadians.

The labour force development strategy is designed to put into practice these objectives, to rechannel our resources into improving the amount and quality of skills training. It is also encouraging industry to take a leadership role in training as their counterparts have done in Japan, the United States and other leading economic powers around the world. In addition to increased training for employed Canadians, we will also under this strategy use the unemployment insurance program for more constructive ends. Greater emphasis will be placed on actively developing workers rather than providing passive income support. What we are saying is that instead of giving them a cheque when they become unemployed, we will train them and give them a skill that will allow them to go into the market-place and maintain an active job.

Today in Canada we spend almost $12 billion on unemployment insurance and only $1.8 billion on employment programs designed to get people back to work. It is evident that if we want to prepare people for jobs in the 1990s, we must help them become equipped with the skills that the 1990s will require.

Bill C-21 therefore provides a major expansion of active employment programming within the unemploy-

Unemployment Insurance Act

ment insurance program. It commits the vital resources unemployed workers need to get back to work in productive long-term jobs. The current budget for development uses in the UI program is just over $400 million per year. The measures contained in Bill C-21 will see this grow by over three times to an expected full implementation budget of over $1.4 billion, not the cut-backs that the Members on the other side are talking about.

We are convinced that Canadians want to work. They want to be part of a productive and contributing force in the community. That is why we are proposing that UI claimants who have viable business plans in hand be able to capitalize on those benefits to help defray business start-up costs. We have many people working in a business for a number of years who have a desire to get out on their own. Perhaps the business environment has changed for them. Perhaps they have other interests and we are looking forward to interviewing those people to see if we can help them get into their own businesses.

The beneficiaries of such a plan go beyond the enterprising worker to include the entire community. Instead of workers sitting at home, or-let us admit it-participating in an underground economy, they will now breathe the same air as someone with a legitimate product or service to offer. We are also proposing that claimants be able to receive some portion of their UI payments in a lump sum as may be necessary to help finance their move if they wish to relocate to an area where job prospects are more plentiful.

We are not forgetting the displaced and older worker who is sidelined by a plant closure or a setback in the local economy but whose talents and experience this country cannot afford to lay aside. We propose a substantial increase in funding for educational upgrading, retraining and job-finding resources to help the older workers regain their place in the market-place. This is a fact of life in some of the more industrial areas of Canada where older workers on occasion find themselves taking early retirement. They then find early retirement rather boring and decide they would like to re-enter the labour force but find that their skills should be upgraded so they can take advantage of the new machinery and technologies being used today in industry.

June 7, 1989

Unemployment Insurance Act

Complementary to these training initiatives, we are also changing the UI Act to reflect the realities of today's work place. This means, in effect, respecting both the principle of equity and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why we have proposed the following major changes: Making 15 weeks of maternity benefits available during the period of a child's birth; making 10 weeks of parental benefits available to natural and adoptive parents to be shared by either mother or father; ensuring that claimants are able to draw a combination of maternity, paternal and sickness benefits up to a maximum of 30 weeks; making UI available to those who delay retirement past the age of 65.

This is another fact of life in this country. We have many people who reach the age of 65, who still have many years of productive life ahead of them, and who do not want to sit around. Many of us know neighbours and friends who reach the age of 65. Their company policy is that they must retire and they find themselves at loose ends with nothing to do. Some of them, of course, become consultants. In fact, I was watching a television program the other night in which a 92-year-old gentleman was being interviewed by a young lady. She said, "What do you at 92?'' He said, "I am a consultant''. She said, "Who would consult a 92-year-old man?" He named a list of companies that are all in the Fortune 500. She said, "What do you charge an hour?" He said he charged $1,500, and she said "You wouldn't have many takers at $1,500 an hour". He said, "My dear, I have enough work ahead of me to last me until I am 108". I stood up and cheered because that is the kind of experience that is out there that can still be productive in our society and we should not let these people go.

We have made these adjustments to the UI program because Canadian society has changed. Canadian men and women now want to be equal partners at home and at work. We have a responsibility, therefore, to make the UI program relevant to that reality. We also have a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that the unemployment insurance program is efficient and economical, and that it does not provide a disincentive to work. In part, we want to be able to finance some of these improvements by raising the qualifying period for unemployment insurance in areas of low unemployment, and we propose to increase penalties for those people who quit

their jobs without just cause or who fraudulently collect benefits. There is a substantial underground economy in this country and, in fact, in all the western countries. We want to see those people go back into the regular taxpaying community.

It should be noted that when New Zealand went to the value added tax, it found 225,000 more people in business than before the tax was put in. In order to get the advantage of the claim back on the tax, they had to be registered. There were 225,000 underground businesses operating in New Zealand that the Government knew nothing about.

I am not saying that there are that many here, but there is a substantial number, which we all know about but do not like to admit. Our goal is to strengthen the unemployment insurance program so that it truly serves as a safety net for those in need, especially in those areas that are not participating in the fast growing economy. To do nothing more in their interest would be an admission of defeat for thousands of unemployed Canadians who desperately want to work.

One of the largest groups in our economy who are disadvantaged are single mothers. They are caught in a welfare trap, living in subsidized housing and relying on that cheque once a month to keep themselves going.

Many single mothers have been to my office, and there is not one of them whom I met who does not want to work. They want a productive job and want to contribute to society but they do not have skills. They do not want to be a net recipient of welfare.

Many single mothers who are asked if they can go to school for a certain course will say they cannot do so because they have no transportation and cannot afford a baby-sitter. Our Government will provide funds for baby-sitting and transportation to see that those skills can be made available to them so they can find productive work in our society and enjoy some of the benefits we have in this country. They do not want to be left in that welfare trap and we have a responsibility to help them as much as we can. We have a responsibility to foster a training culture with the Government acting as a facilitator in encouraging the private sector to contribute to a greater share of the skills development.

June 7, 1989

I was in Washington some 10 days ago at a meeting of the American Iron and Steel Institute, where I learned that the American steel industry, on its own, is putting $200 million on the line to upgrade the present employees of the steel industry. Rather than providing people from the industry with skills to work somewhere else because it is downsizing, it is recognizing that the very useful and productive machinery it will be installing in the plants will require employees who can operate those machines. The industry is investing $200 million of its own money, just as a down payment. If we are going to be competitive we will have to do something similar to that.

The Elon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe) stated in his comments that businesses provide some two to three hours training per week.

Mr. Volpe:

Two to three weeks.

Mr. Kempling:

A recent Statistics Canada study shows that Canadian businesses provide an average of only two hours of training per year. Is he suggesting that current levels of training by Canadian businesses are sufficient and that there is no room for improvement? That is nonsense. There is much room for improvement. If we are going to remain competitive in the global market, we will need a large supply of skilled workers.

Thirty per cent of our Gross National Product depends on our ability to export, we can only export if we are productive and competitive in the market-place. Part of the training culture means never giving up on the unemployed worker who needs timely assistance that will propel him or her back into the workforce. Bill C-21 provides an important shift in that direction. It is a Bill that dares to face up to the future and I am pleased with it.

I believe it is a timely Bill that will give us what we need. When one looks at the job lists at Canada Employment and Immigration offices throughout the country to see the job shortages in the market-place, one can see that there are not the people to fill them. I am sure all Hon. Members have people come to their offices asking if they can bring in skilled workers like tool and die makers from other countries because Canada is not training enough tool and die makers here.

Unemployment Insurance Act

Let me illustrate by referring to one job list for example. It lists such jobs as geological technician, prospector, landscape architect, marine surveyor and a job for claims staking.

Incidentally, these are jobs in Newfoundland. There are jobs for a systems software programmer, application programmer, mini-micro computer specialist, human services worker, mental retardation worker, day care worker, dispensing optician, dental technician, net assembler, logger, drilling machine operator, diamond driller, scoop tram operator, mining helper and the list goes on.

These jobs which are going begging in Newfoundland include ones for a dragging and flotation operator, leaching operator, first-line supervisor, quality control inspection, a machinist, sheet metal worker, welder-fitter, stone cutter, optician and the list goes on. There are two and a half pages of jobs just for Newfoundland alone. Every province has a list of jobs like that which are going begging because the labour force does not have the skills to fill those jobs. Our duty is to help fill those jobs. That is what Bill C-21 is all about.

Mr. Langdon:

Mr. Speaker, I have three comments I want to make to my hon. friend, the Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). First, let me suggest to him that it is not a question of whether Members on this side of the House or Members on that side of the House have a sense of the desperate need for training in this country. Certainly that is something to which the commitment on this side of the House is at least as strong as the commitment on the other side of the House. In fact, what we see in our constituencies is significant cut-backs by the Government in the kind of funding for training which has been possible for people who are out of work. I do not think training is the issue.

In considering the comments by the Member for Burlington, there is one clear point that I want him to pin down more carefully.

He talked about the importance of what he called an underground economy. Certainly my experience with what, as the Member said, all of us recognize as an existing underground economy, is that the people who are part of that underground economy are more often

June 7, 1989

Unemployment Insurance Act

people who are themselves employed and are doing part-time work and unregulated work.

Moonlighting.

Mr. Langdon:

Call it moonlighting, if you like. They are people who in fact are taking the skills which they have got, often in the construction field but there is a wide section of other parts of our economy in which this is true also. They are working outside, in a kind of shadow economy for which they do not pay taxes. They do not make contributions to various benefit programs, et cetera.

The question which I would like to ask is what makes the Member think, and what evidence can he point to that in fact it is people who are facing unemployment and suffering the deprivation which the situation of unemployment has put them into and which this legislation is going to worsen, that in fact it is people who are unemployed who are part of that shadow economy or that underground economy? Certainly I do not see any evidence to that effect in the experiences that I have had with people who are, if you like, moonlighting.

I would like to raise a last point with the Member. As somebody who is concerned and has expressed his concern in the past about the arbitrary exercise of government power, I wonder how the Member would justify the parts of this Bill which, as the news release from the Minister put it, indicate that there will be people who will be excluded from some of their benefits in the future if they refuse, as it is put quite clearly here, a suitable job.

The question is, who decides what a suitable job is? The answer seems to be that a suitable job will be something which bureaucrats in a government bureaucracy will themselves decide is a suitable job. Is that in fact the kind of arbitrary power that we should be giving to the unemployment insurance authorities in this country? Is that not in fact quite a dangerous mechanism which puts far too much authority to act in quite an arbitrary way with respect to individuals who are searching for work in their field or searching for work which will support the family which they have to support, and yet are told in an arbitrary way that they have to accept a given job or else they are cut off benefits for a penalty period?

Is that really the direction that we should be taking to an increase in that kind of arbitrary government authority?

Mr. Kempling:

Mr. Speaker, what the Member calls arbitrary government authority or bureaucratic authority has always been there. As long as the Unemployment Insurance Act has been in place, where jobs were available, if people were not taking the jobs, someone had to make a judgment call. Someone has to say: "Is that person capable of doing that job?" I will readily admit that there are errors. I have seen them, and I am sure the Hon. Member has experienced them in his constituency the same as I have. There are things like a 50-year old woman refused a job as a gas pump jockey. I do not blame her. I would not take it myself. We always get those distortions but by and large, I think they are fairly reasonable.

On one occasion I had a lady come to me and say that she was a comptometer operator and she could not find a job as a comptometer operator. I had to think because it has been so long since they have used comptometers in business. I think the last one I saw was in a museum. She was a comptometer operator and she would not take a job in an office doing any sort of clerical work unless she could operate a comptometer. To me, that was a very unusual decision on her part. She was subsequently told that if she did not take a job that her funding would be cut off. She subsequently took a job in an office. We run into that sort of thing.

I think the people in the Canada Employment Centre offices try to be sensitive to the individuals out there. If they get an individual who is not being altogether forthright with them and arbitrarily refusing employment, they bring them in and interview them and try and determine the reason why. The individual has a source of recourse to appeal and ultimately they can come to their Member of Parliament, which none of us really want, but they can ultimately do that and appeal the matter that way.

As far as the underground economy goes, I mentioned that because if anybody believes there is not an underground economy, he is not in the real world. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it either. If a person wants to have two jobs or three jobs, there is nothing wrong with that, if they can do it, if they can and stand it. I recall when my son was going to college, I think he had three jobs beside going to school. He was pretty proud of it. He is proud of it today, and I was proud of him for taking that sort of initiative. However,

June 7, 1989

there are people who we know are unemployed who are drawing unemployment benefits and who are also working under the table. When they are found out then of course they are dealt with by the administration because that is not what they are supposed to do.

There is a fair little bit of it going on particularly in the large cities. There are all sorts of jobs. I walk up the main street of some of the towns and cities in this country and see day jobs offered, "cash at the end of the day." There is all kinds of it out there. There is nothing wrong with a person taking it but the point is, they have not declared their income and the Minister of National Revenue takes a dim view of that sort of thing.

The underground economy is something that all Governments are concerned about. I think by giving people skills that they can enter into a more productive job, that is one way of overcoming that problem.

The Acting Speaking (Mr. Paproski): Well, a very succinct question and an answer, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence. The Hon. Member's time has expired.

Mr. Volpe:

Most assuredly, yes, Mr. Speaker. I really do not want to have a response to my comment. However, I do want to correct the record lest the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary get away with vilifying the unemployed, or conveying the impression that there is some connection between good social programs and the unwillingness of people to work.

Yesterday, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace put on the table for the consideration of all Members of the House an indication that there are other countries in the world, countries such as Austria, Norway, Sweden and, I dare say, the United States in which the social programs and the level of insurable earnings much exceed that of Canada. I say that primarily in respect to the first three on the list. Sweden, for example, is at a rate of 95 per cent. Under this Bill we will be dropping our insurable earnings to 60 per cent. In fact, the unemployment rate in Sweden is half our own.

Unemployment Insurance Act

Second, I cannot let the Hon. Member perpetrate the old misconception that there are a great many cheaters out there. In fact, last year only .02 per cent of all UI participants or claimants were cheaters.

As a last comment, I would like to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he would like to match curriculum vitae in all sectors of employment, perhaps he will pale in comparison to my own. I speak without false modesty.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

If the Hon.

Member does not want to say anything in rebuttal, then the time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Hillsborough on debate.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today in debate on Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act.

On April 11, 1989, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) announced the federal Government's intention to reform the Unemployment Insurance Program. This position was directly opposite to promises made by the Government during the 1988 election campaign.

The Unemployment Insurance Act, as most people in this room at this time realize, was originally introduced in 1940 by the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. N. A. McLarty. The fundamental purpose of the Bill was to promote the economic and social security of Canadians by supporting workers from the time they leave one job until they get another.

Inherent in this legislation was the fact that unemployment insurance was to be protection against unemployment. It was a limited measure with the theme of giving income protection to those who lost their employment after having been employed for a period of time. This insurance benefit was to be a person's right as established by past contributions.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s the unemployment insurance program was readjusted in response to myriad circumstances. However, coverage remains universal.

June 7, 1989

Unemployment Insurance Act

Two significant changes occurred in the principles inherent in the original Act. They were the coverage of self-employed fishermen and the introduction of supplementary benefits which later became seasonal benefits.

Throughout the 1960s and the 1970s the legislation continued to change in response to socio-economic conditions. As we head toward the 21st century and the end of five decades of UI as we know it, the Government is proposing sweeping changes to one of our social programs. They are changes that have been introduced in the wake of the serious inflation and relatively high unemployment of the early 1980s coupled with increased regional disparities.

The unemployed are now being told that they are obligated to contribute to the easing of the federal deficit. How much do the poor of the country have to pay to finance a deficit reduction plan? Employers and employees under the present Unemployment Insurance Program pay into the fund knowing that the money will come back to them in the form of benefits should they become unemployed, sick or pregnant. Under the new legislation they have no guarantee that the money they paid into the fund comes back to them.

It is highly probable that a worker in an economically depressed region of the country would contribute to the unemployment insurance program for a work period and then not be able to draw on this program if his or her weeks of employment fall short of the magic number of the Government's graphs and charts.

The Minister stated yesterday that it was foolish to believe that there would be a flow over to the provincial welfare systems of each province. I would like to know what these workers will do if this is not the case.

The Minister has claimed and even bragged about the Government's plan to retrain these people. Retrain for what? A job that could send them half way across the country? In my opinion the Government is hypocritically using the pretext of adjustment to finance its deficit reduction plan at the expense of unemployed Canadians. I cannot support this legislation for it is not an adjustment. It is no more than a massive cut by Government. How then will these Canadians pay their rent and buy their food?

The deficit and deficit reduction has been the Government's main target. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to balance the budget within three years. Prior to the 1984 election the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that there would be no drastic reduction in the deficit until interest rates and unemployment levels were lower.

Soon after, the agenda for economic renewal was tabled. With it came a grave warning of the tough times ahead. However, the commitment to deficit reduction did not last long. It became no longer a political priority. Perhaps this was because of the prosperity of the central Canadian economy in 1987. Perhaps it was because Government had fallen into disfavour with Canadians. Regardless, the initial plan to trim the deficit was scrapped. Now, today, we are facing one of those results.

I am an Atlantic Canadian. It is with much anger that I sit in this House as the Government attempts to ravage Atlantic Canada, one of the poorest regions of the country. It is one of the poorest regions but a part of Canada none the less.

I have watched the Government attempt to kill a large segment of the Prince Edward Island economy with the impending closure of CFB Summerside. What will happen to the civilian employees who will lose their jobs, not to mention the indirect jobs that will be affected, such as the gas station attendant, the clothing store employee and the hardware employee?

The Government states that these people will be retrained and move on down the yellow brick road to future success. I contend that the retraining road to success will have many cracks and gullies and will soon be filled by the unemployed workers.

The Atlantic economy has been hammered. We have had our transfer payments reduced. Our ERDAs have been put on hold. We have had cut-backs to VIA Rail. We have lost control of our fishing rights. This is to name but a few examples.

It is inevitable that Atlantic Canadians as a result of the Government slashing will now need unemployment insurance more than ever just to survive. However, even now, that system of support is being crushed.

Canadians, in particular Atlantic Canadians, have been listening to the tune "jobs, jobs, jobs'' for over four years now. "Unemployment is down and employment is up." Unemployment has not gone down in Prince Edward Island. It is the only province in Canada that has

June 7, 1989

seen its unemployment rate go up since September of 1984. Where are all these jobs, jobs, jobs?

Over the course of the parliamentary session I have listened to statistics spewed forth by the Government. It is always careful not to mention the 14 per cent unemployment in Prince Edward Island. Given this statistic, the Government's actions are nothing short of astounding to Prince Edward Islanders and, indeed, to all Atlantic Canadians.

We all know that the national unemployment rate has been reduced to 7.8 per cent down from 11.7 per cent in September of 1984. That is good. However, it is important to note that the Canadian Government benefited at that time greatly from a buoyant U.S. economy. Prior to the recession and under a Liberal Government the national unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent. Thus we are really no better off today than we were six years ago.

Newfoundland's present unemployment rate is 14.5 per cent. Nova Scotia's unemployment rate is 10.4 per cent while New Brunswick's is 12.2 per cent. Although these rates have been reduced, they are still much higher than the national rate. Given the Government's newest agenda, these rates will surely go up.

The Government has had almost five years to bring the federal deficit under control. It slips in and out of its promises of reduction. Now the Government is back on to it again. Canadians are sick and tired of having to pay a continually increasing price for government mismanagement. This is quite evident as reported today in the national media. Consumer confidence has sunk to its lowest level in five years. If the results of the recent provincial elections in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island have not sent a clear message to the federal Government, then yesterday's Angus Reid poll should. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians feel that the April Budget was unfair. They feel that their personal financial situation will be worse and that the provincial economy will suffer. It is obvious to most Canadians that the Government has gone too far.

Given that 50 per cent of Canadians feel that our economy is going to get worse, one would be correct in assuming that now is not the time to revamp the unemployment insurance program. What this legislation does in real terms is eliminate the Government's portion

Unemployment Insurance Act

of money formerly committed to the program. The Government is blatantly turning its back on the poor of this country. Based on current UIC spending, the elimination of federal financing will cut between $1.3 billion to $2 billion from the $13 billion program. Under the Government's proposed plan, there will be a reallocation of 10 per cent amounting to $1.3 billion. Of the $1.3 billion UI expenditures forecast for 1990, approximately $800 million will go toward human resource planning and skills upgrading of the labour force.

A strong labour force strategy depends on a sound, full employment policy that supports research and development, post-secondary education and literacy initiatives. The more basic an education a person has, the easier it is to retrain. Given that in the near future almost half of the new jobs will require more than five years of combined education and training beyond completion of high school, the Government should be developing a comprehensive full employment policy.

Various labour, business and community groups have expressed outrage toward the Government's proposed UI changes. They firmly believe that these changes will lead to a drastic reduction in the number of unemployed people becoming eligible to receive UI. At the same time, Canadians feel that the proposals fail to address the facts, that the number of unemployed is poised to increase as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, high interest rates, not to mention the multitude of Budget cuts. These groups feel that the federal Government should be concerned with the expansion of the unemployment insurance safety net.

In addition, they firmly believe that the Government's proposal to pay increased amounts of money for enhanced training is not the correct approach. This is based on the principle that current job creation is in the low-paying dead-end service sector. Privatized training that subsidizes companies does little more than train people to fill low-paying jobs. Regions of Canada, similar to Atlantic Canada, can expect to suffer the most. My province of Prince Edward Island has an economy that is based on three major industries, namely, farming, fishing and tourism. They are all seasonal industries. A significant percentage of our labour force is dependent upon these seasonal industries. Why then would UI be important to P.E.I.? The answer is simple. One cannot fish

June 7, 1989

Unemployment Insurance Act

lobster in winter, nor will tourists visit our beautiful province in the middle of winter.

The Government's proposal to increase the number of weeks needed to work to be eligible is based on the assumption that the work is available. In some regions of Canada and in some industries, this is correct. But it is not correct in Atlantic Canada. The Government believes that the work is out there but people do not want to work. That is also not very often the case.

With respect to P.E.I.'s industries, as previously mentioned, we have a short tourist season. Where are these Canadians supposed to get the number of weeks required if their employers can only operate in a ten-week season? Can the federal Government actually expect these businesses to stay open after the end of the tourist season so employees can get the required number of weeks to qualify? I doubt that they would, especially after having paid into the program at an increased cost. To Atlantic Canadians, the proposed changes will be devastating and the proposed programs to replace the reductions of benefits are equally devastating because the whole thrust of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is to involve the private sector in training, and the training is geared toward a growth economy that is providing short-term jobs for a large number of private sector employers and a significant number of skill shortage occupations.

Mr. Speaker, this does not describe Atlantic Canada's economy, and certainly not that of my own province. As I have explained, P.E.I. has a unique economy and the present unemployment insurance program recognizes this. P.E.I. and the rest of Atlantic Canada have many strengths, but they also have many weaknesses which the present system addresses. I am quite sure that all Canadians would agree that they do not wish to have to rely on unemployment insurance. But given the disparities within our country, unemployment insurance has become an inherent need and is most certainly not abused by Canadians.

It was stated here earlier that in 1987-88 only 0.2 per cent of all UI claimants were charged with cheating. That is 5,507 claimants out of a total of 2.4 million.

Canadians have reason to be proud of their social programs. While I know there is a spirit of fair-mindedness, tolerance and compassion among all Canadians, I believe the Government is turning its back on the needs of many Canadians. If that agenda proceeds unchallenged or unquestioned, I believe it will lead to a steady erosion of the kind of Canada which provides security and opportunity for all its citizens.

The federal Government will somehow realize that its policies threaten to undermine the economies of the have-not regions of this countiy. The Government has a duty and a commitment to protect and promote economic development and social justice throughout all areas of this country. It has a responsibility to the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged. Since 1940 we have seen changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes aimed at improving assistance for workers and employers. We in the Liberal Party initiated many of these changes but we will not support such drastic measures aimed at increasing the difficulties of unemployed Canadians.

Mr. Thompson:

We want to put Canadians back to work. We don't want to keep them on welfare.

Mr. Proud:

I join my Liberal colleagues in calling for the Government to withdraw this Bill, to listen to the average Canadian citizen and come back to the House for the last Draconian piece of legislation.