Mr. Bosley:

The Opposition always has a reason. In this case the Liberals will go back to doing all the good things in this Bill and spending more money on the other things. Isn't that amazing? In an election campaign, we

used to get that from people who called themselves the Albanian Communist Party. That group of people campaigned in every election, on every program. It was make the rich pay, make somebody else pay, make more money available by taxing somebody else, get more money into the system for the programs. I never thought I would hear that whole policy shift from the Liberal Party of Canada, but we hear it again. It was just voiced. Make somebody else pay for it. Is that the consequence of the new Liberalism? I do not have to worry for our successors. Members here will see what will happen in following elections if this is the new policy direction of the Liberal Party. Maybe I am not getting it. Maybe it is not that the old policy was good enough, the new Liberal Party wants to go even further and spend even more money. That would appear to be the new Liberal solution.

Mr. Walker:

Check the Budget.

Mr. Bosley:

An Hon. Member says check the Budget. I stood in this House and listened to Allan MacEachen, now practising his ways in a different place, argue that the solution to unemployment in this country-which is what this Bill is about, at least the safety net portions-is to raise taxes, raise the deficit at the same time and raise the spending of the Government. As a consequence of that for program spending-not interest payments-the consequence of increasing the share of GNP taken by government would enable the GNP to grow.

Your policy?

Mr. Bosley:

No, it is not our policy. You will find that under this Government the proportion of debt and of debt servicing and the share of GNP carried by the debt burden is in decline. This is the only way in which to put more money in the hands of private entrepreneurs to create work. That was not the Liberal policy of the time. The Liberal policy of the time was dead clear. Tax more, take more, and somehow the economy will grow more. The evidence was right before us.

I think Canadians are far too sophisticated now to believe again the rubbish that was attempted to be perpetrated on them by predecessor governments of the Liberal Party. I think when Liberals still sit on the other side saying "Oh, no, we'll keep the good parts, you like the older worker parts, good for you. We'll keep the good parts. We'll simply throw more money at training programs. We'll throw more money at this and we will

June 21, 1989

throw more money at that". That old Liberal policy is thoroughly invalidated.

I do not like to throw money at programs that have been proven to be inefficient. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is showing his usual capacity for keeping his ears closed and his mouth open.

Charlie, I will listen to your speech when you speak.

Mr. Caccia:

I have had enough.

Mr. Bosley:

We do not have the American practice, but since the Hon. Member for Davenport is exercised, I would be happy to cede the floor to him for a few minutes. It might get it out of his system.

Mr. Caccia:

Wait for 1992.

Mr. Bosley:

Oh, we do not have that practice. I will stay and listen to the Hon. Member for Davenport if he will listen to me.

Mr. Caccia:

I have had enough.

Mr. Bosley:

Oh, you have had enough? Well, the people have had enough of the kind of policy the Hon. Member for Davenport supports.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Caccia:

Wait for 1992.

Mr. Bosley:

I am perfectly happy to wait until 1993 and the next election.

The Hon. Member is convinced. Old Cabinet Ministers forget that they may remain old Cabinet Ministers if they adopt the same old policies that they adopted when they were new Cabinet Ministers years ago. They adopted policies that are utterly discredited by every economic institute in this country.

What this is about is clearly and simply a recognition that some of the issues in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the unemployment insurance program can be used in more efficient ways to do more good for those who need that help. That apparently is such a novel idea, so threatening, that Members opposite claim somehow that the poor or the powerless are hurt by an improvement in the training programs for those same people.

Training for what?

Unemployment Insurance Act

Mr. Bosley:

Training for what, says a Member? Training for the jobs of the future. What is the Member's alternative? Is it no training? I suppose the Member opposite has never done what some of have done, which is sit in Manpower offices and offices of the Commission listening and dealing with constituents who are trying to get every little bit of training out of the Commission they can get because they do not want to remain unemployed. They do not want to remain unemployed, whether they are 45 or 65, young or old, women or men.

One of the issues opposition Members ought to be raising, an issue I want to speak about briefly-

Mr. Walker:

You only have three minutes.

Mr. Bosley:

That is all it takes. It only takes three minutes. I have spoken to the Minister about this and I am sure this issue will be addressed. It is whether or not there is humanity in the officers at Manpower to do the matching that needs to be done. I believe that 99 per cent of the people who work at Manpower on the training program side are about as well-intentioned, generous and kind as can be, but they are so overworked in some ways that sometimes they do not have the time to do-

Mr. Caccia:

Because of your cuts to the Department.

Mr. Bosley:

Because we do not yet have the funds for the training programs, which is why this is changing so we will have more funds for the training programs. One then hopes that we will be able to use those funds in a more humane way. We have always known that we did not have enough money-