Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, December 3, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with silent prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Are there any introduction of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Persons with disabilities: initiatives to coordinate services

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I rise in the House today to inform the House of a range of initiatives to ensure better services to people with disabilities, in our policy of fostering healthy communities.

Responsibility for the current system of services to Yukon people with disabilities is shared by federal, territorial and First Nation governments. It is our policy to find better ways to deliver services so that those who need assistance can benefit to the greatest extent possible.

The initiatives that I speak about today encompass short-term and long-term approaches to coordinate such services. This is part of a national cooperative effort carried out by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for social services. It is a priority of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal as directed by the premiers, territorial leaders and the Prime Minister.

The federal Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. Pierre Pettigrew, recently invited the Yukon to enter into negotiations leading to an agreement on a new "employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative" - EAPD.

This initiative will replace the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program - VRDP - and was agreed to by Social Services ministers in October, subject to the resolution of outstanding funding issues.

The EAPD responds to a need identified by people with disabilities for programs that will allow them to overcome barriers that they face in preparing for, finding and maintaining employment.

Under the proposed agreement, the Government of Canada would match expenses each province and territory incurs to provide eligible employability programs and services, to an amount no less than each jurisdiction's current allocation under the VRDP.

In the Yukon, the maximum federal contribution would be $1.2 million per year, for five years, starting on April 1, 1998. This new framework means that some programs that are now cost-shared would become ineligible. Other programs, including new initiatives that fall under the framework, would qualify for financial support.

Negotiations will determine what is, or what is or is not eligible. However, the multilateral framework agreement provides a three-year transition period to complete and evaluate this new approach. This will protect our present programming and funding levels in the short term.

Another short-term undertaking, under the national programs and services to persons with disabilities initiative, focuses on developing a strategy to harmonize income support programs. These initiatives are directed at making the current support programs more integrated and effective for clients. The strategy focuses on three main areas: reducing barriers to work in income support programs; rehabilitation and labour market entry and re-entry supports; and, a joint action to streamline and coordinate the assessment process.

In each of these areas, specific actions can help harmonize programs better in the short term. For example, in the Yukon we will be reviewing the rules for social assistance earnings exemptions to determine whether they provide sufficient incentive for persons with disabilities to enter or re-enter the work force.

The Department of Health and Social Services will also consider ways to coordinate local case management practices to remove barriers to work.

For the long term, options will be developed for an integrated approach to ensuring adequate income support.

A national vision and framework has been developed to guide future reform based on the principles of equality and inclusion. It seeks to ensure the full participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of society.

This framework provides a common approach to achieving this vision by identifying objectives and potential policy directions in four key areas: citizenship, employment, disability supports and income supports.

Mr. Speaker, as a partner in the national initiatives, we have agreed to move ahead to develop an action plan for the short-term initiatives and to embrace the national vision as a guide to all our social policy reform.

In adopting this ambitious agenda, it is crucial that we consult with our organizations that represent people with disabilities, with service providers, and most importantly, with people using those services.

We look forward to many fruitful discussions with the newly formed Yukon Council on Disability. We will also involve other departments and agencies in our consultations, including the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, Yukon Housing Corporation and the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, there is much work to be done, both at the national and territorial levels, and we are pleased to be taking concrete steps to promote equality and inclusion for persons with disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and office of the official opposition, we are pleased to offer our full support to this initiative. The number of people with disabilities in the Yukon represents a significant and an important part of our population. Canadians with disabilities can work, want to work, and their working will benefit all of us to sustain a healthy community.

It is, therefore important that we assist the disabled and those with special needs to find meaningful employment. To do this, we must reduce the barriers that can sometimes prevent people with disabilities from entering the labour force. The employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative is encouraging; however, there are a number of questions that need to be addressed before we are able to determine whether or not it will actually help people with disabilities to enter the Yukon's labour market.

Perhaps the minister, in his rebuttal, could tell members of this House what the outstanding funding issues are that were mentioned in his statement. It is my understanding that the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons was funded at a level of $168 million, as of a year ago. With the replacement of this program, could the minister tell us if there has occurred a change in this level of funding - whether it has increased or whether it has decreased?

The minister said that the maximum federal contribution to the Yukon would be $1.2 million per year for five years. Is this amount an increase or a decrease in the funds that the Yukon currently receives through the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons?

What I'm trying to determine, Mr. Speaker, is if the Yukon would be better off or worse off financially under this new arrangement. It is also my understanding that, previously, $50 million of the VRDP allocation was spent on alcohol and drug problems. Will this still apply? Will provincial and territorial governments be required to designate a specific portion of their funds to alcohol and drug programs under this new program?

A report was prepared last year by the federal task force on disabilities, of which there were a number of recommendations that pertained to the VRDP, and that if any changes were to occur, that fund should be broad enough to allow it to support activities that, while not directly connected to the labour market particularly, indirectly affect people with disabilities to participate in the labour market.

Mr. Speaker, the task force also proposed a partnership and innovative component that would support research, demonstration projects, best practice, public awareness and education through partnerships within and between sectors.

Could the minister advise us if such recommendations have been discussed during his meetings with his federal or provincial counterparts, and if these issues are indeed negotiable?

Perhaps the minister could elaborate on what exactly is up for negotiation. What does the Yukon government view as being eligible or ineligible? Are these negotiations currently taking place, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, will Yukoners be given an opportunity to provide input before these negotiations are completed?

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Liberal caucus to support the new initiative regarding persons with disabilities. The change from employability assistance for people with disabilities initiative, or EADP, to the vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons program, or VRDP, will allow for a far more integrated approach to programming for persons with disabilities in the workforce and those wishing to enter the workforce.

We are most pleased that the minister will be consulting with a newly formed Yukon Council on Disability. Their input into the guidelines for the three-year transition fund, called the "opportunities fund", will be invaluable. Certainly, the people who serve on this council represent a wide cross-section of persons with disabilities and the organizations that support and advocate for them.

The cross-departmental approach also makes a lot of sense. I hope that the minister does not forget to include input from the rural communities, where programs for persons with disabilities are most challenging. I would hope, too, that there is going to be input from the Association of Yukon Communities, which includes the City of Whitehorse and the private sector, as they are also major employers in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I thank the opposition parties for their support in this regard.

The Member for Klondike did raise some issues and I have to say that some of these issues are of a concern to us. In terms of the funding, we expect that the funding will remain stable, at least for the present amount. We do have some concerns, however, in - and this is what I made reference to when I said that there may be some programs coming out of this, and that's our major concern. Presently, this new framework could remove funding for alcohol and drug services, which is a major concern for us and would limit our receipt of that.

As well, at the meeting in Ottawa, in October we took a very, very strong position against any changes in this program being based on a population-based funding allocation. Had that been the case, it would have been about $168,000, if it was based on population, so we're relieved that we are continuing to receive the $1.2 million. We will be working to make sure that when we do follow through in our negotiations our funding continues to be at an adequate level.

As well, we are taking a strong position on having programs, including alcohol and drug programs, included in this. This would be a major sort of blow to us.

I think there are a number of commendable aspects to the national view, chief of which is the idea of removing barriers, of trying to remove the impediments to employability. Much of that came out of the recommendations of the Scott report, which formed the basis for much of this new thinking around the VRDP. So, we are looking forward to moving ahead with some of these and we do have some challenges, and there are some concerns that we have, but we think, overall, the national trend, the national vision, is a positive one.

Thank you.

Speaker: This, then, brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Tourism, changes to charter flight regulations

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Tourism and it's regarding the National Transportation Agency's wishes to make changes to regulations for international charter flights. The changes that are being proposed will prevent charter airlines from booking seats on international flights within seven days of travel, the result being that charter companies would be prevented from pricing their own product, threatening the elimination of low-price charter fares for Canadians, which Yukoners have benefited from in the last couple of years.

I'd like to ask the minister if he's been made aware of the proposed changes and if he's received a copy of the draft proposal, and is the minister concerned about these changes and the impact on the Yukon's tourism industry?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the proposed changes regarding the charter companies, and certainly I will have to get further information.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am extremely surprised that the Minister of Tourism is not aware of this, because this particular proposed change could have a major impact on our tourism industry.

The changes, as proposed, would fix minimum prices for overseas flights, prohibit the sale of one-way charter tickets, and lengthen the amount of time between when a ticket is purchased and when it's used.

If approved, these changes would have a major negative impact upon the number of visitors travelling to the Yukon each summer. Charter airlines, such as Canada 3000, Royal Airlines and Air Transat, all of which operate in the Yukon and bring in thousands of visitors to the territory each year, would be affected as a result of fewer passengers flying with these companies. And with fewer passengers, Mr. Speaker, there'd be fewer flights and therefore fewer visitors coming to the territory.

In view of the serious consequences of these changes, I'd like to ask the minister if he would speak to the federal Minister of Transport and if he would write a letter to the federal Minister of Transport expressing his concerns.

When would he send that letter, Mr. Speaker, if he's prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I do work in concert with my department and certainly I will be looking into the changes. I will say quite categorically, right here and now, that we will be opposing any changes that will restrict and affect the tourism industry of the Yukon.

Mr. Phillips: I am really surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Tourism is not aware of this situation, because it's something that will have a serious impact on Yukon tourism, specifically air travel to the territory.

Will the minister, this afternoon, talk to his officials and draft a letter immediately to the Transport minister and the National Transportion Agency conveying the minister's feelings with respect to this issue. This is a very serious issue if it proceeds any further, and will have a major impact, in a negative way, on tourism in this territory. The minister should be aware of it. Now that I've made the minister aware of it, will the minister act immediately on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, I will be consulting with the department on this. I will also be talking with the Tourism Industry Association on this and getting their input. I'll be talking to the KVA and getting their input into this. Certainly, as I said, it does sound that we would be opposing the changes that would affect tourism to the Yukon.

I do understand that this was on the news just this morning, so I do not think that there's any need for surprise. I do believe that the figures and the advance in tourism and the strategies that are going on are living proof that we can and will work toward better tourism in the Yukon.

Question re: Telephone services to rural customers

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

Mr. Speaker, today, Northwestel announced a $3-million plan to provide telephone service to 300 rural customers in Yukon. But there's a catch in this plan. The catch is that the plan will cost these 300 customers $9,000 each if the federal and Yukon governments do not participate in the plan.

A similar program was provided to 100 rural customers in northern British Columbia for a $1.6 million price tag, with the federal and British Columbia governments picking up two-thirds of this cost.

In view of the fact that the Member for Lake Laberge previously indicated that the Yukon government would be doing something to help rural Yukoners with their telephone service, can the minister help clarify the situation by advising the House if it is in financial support of the latest Northwestel plan, and does the minister have the federal government on side, as well, for financial support?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Many questions contained within one question. Certainly the program that was spoken of in northern British Columbia was funded by the British Columbia/Canada infrastructure program. Northwestel did put in an application for the latest round - I believe, off the top of my head, I think it was $408,000 that we had gotten from the Canadian government for the Yukon infrastructure program.

No, their application was rejected. The only monies that would be brought forth for and on behalf of the Yukon government would be recoverable dollars through the RETP.

Mr. Jenkins: So it sounds like we're going to pay the full cost, recoverable through these payers, despite pleas from the Member for Lake Laberge to not get tied into any contract with Northwestel. Now it's going to cost these people $9,000 each, Mr. Speaker.

It's also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that rural areas like Marsh Lake, Deep Creek and Morley Bay would be covered by this plan. How the selection of these areas was agreed to is indeed a question but, further to that, there's no mention of providing service in other areas, like along the Alaska Highway west. Could the minister ensure that if this plan proceeds, the rural customers in all areas will be covered equally as well?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly this is a subject that has been around - well, let me say - even with the previous administration. The previous administration had the opportunity to meet with Northwestel and to get things rolling with Northwestel. Well, that is exactly what this administration did. We have taken upon ourselves to meet with Northwestel, and we have met with Northwestel, and we are working with Northwestel so that we ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: ... might be able to provide better service. So this is not a problem that is a new problem. This is a very old problem that this government is going to put into effect.

Now, to the question, certainly I have been meeting with them. I've met with the president and different members of his staff over the last year. We talked about what it would take to bring universal, affordable access to quality telephone communication services. Those are the principles that we went with - affordable.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, that is exactly what we are doing now. They came back with proposals, and we're talking back and forth to one another. Let me just say that we are looking to provide -

Speaker: Will the minister please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am answering the question.

We are looking forward to providing direction to and with Northwestel for the implementation of rural telephone service, be it where ...

Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: ...the Alaska Highway west, et cetera.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm sure we'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall at the minister's meeting with Northwestel. We would have more of an understanding, perhaps, than his explanation in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister advise this House when the Yukon government will be making his position known so that Ruraltel customers will know whether it will cost them $1,000 or $9,000 to participate in the plan?

Is this time frame the end of December, or is the minister's statement in the House his final answer?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, the minister does not have the final answer. Certainly, the people of the Yukon have the final answer, and I am here to speak on behalf of the people of the Yukon.

Let me say that, in my submission to the CRTC, we did say that the telecommunications industry fund a national support fund to assist the extension of affordable local service that is too expensive to service the areas in the Yukon that are in that category. That is what we have done as a government, Mr. Speaker.

My position is certainly to get telephone service to the folks here and to do that in conjunction with Northwestel. And, when will we be doing that? I did say in Committee of the Whole that I would be announcing before the end of the year and before Christmas, and that is still the time frame.

Question re: Telephone service to rural customers

Mrs. Edelman: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services on the same topic.

Now, there has been a proposal from Northwestel that points to a partnership in northern B.C. where the federal government, the provincial government, and Northwestel provided its phone service to rural customers, and we have just spoken about that. And, under that partnership, the B.C. government provided one-third of the money for phase 1 of the project, and that amounted to about $400,000. Now, the Northwestel proposal here calls for a total of $3 million to be spent.

Can the minister confirm that there has, in fact, been a letter of intent signed between the Yukon government and Northwestel concerning this very proposal? And, would the minister commit to tabling a copy of that letter of intent in this Legislature this week?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, I have been having an ongoing dialogue with the president of Northwestel. I understand that they have a board meeting coming up very soon, and they asked for clarification, if there would be support, and I have signed a letter to them. I would be happy to table that before the end of the week.

Mrs. Edelman: In April of this year - we had spoken about this as well - Northwestel submitted an application to the Yukon government under the Canada/Yukon infrastructure program, which is a sharing between the federal government and the territorial government. The purpose of this application was for assistance with provision of telephone service to rural Yukon, and that included the Marsh Lake area as well as a number of other areas.

The application asked the Yukon government to contribute approximately $78,000 and the application was rejected. I didn't hear the answer before. Could the minister now tell this House why the application was rejected?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get back to the member opposite with the exact reasoning but, certainly, it was a decision that was made through a screening committee, I do believe. I will have to get back to the member opposite with a clear answer on that but, certainly, I can confirm that it has been rejected.

Mrs. Edelman: I understand that other companies have expressed interest in providing phone service to rural customers in the future. Now, Northwestel has already asked the government to contribute financially to their proposal to extend service in these areas. Is the Yukon government thinking of providing some financial subsidy to other competitors?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Electrical rate relief

Mr. Cable: I have some questions on rate relief for the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

A few days ago, I asked the energy commissioner questions about rate relief and what was going to happen on January 1. Now, my understanding of his answers and what I got out of the answers is as follows: firstly, the government's not happy about the Utilities Board's cost-of-service policy, moving residential consumers from 80 percent to at least 90 percent of the cost of service; and secondly, the favourite option for rate relief of this government is a form of targeted rate relief directed at needy consumers; and, lastly, the issue of rate relief will be before the Cabinet this month for a decision - if it hasn't already gone before the Cabinet - so that something will be in place on January 1.

Now, speaking as the minister responsible, does that understanding of what was said reflect the government's positions on rates and what is taking place with respect to the rate relief development?

Hon. Mr. Harding: The rate relief recommendations from the Cabinet Commission on Energy have not come before Cabinet as of yet, and certainly anything that would impact on increased rates for residential consumers is of concern to this government.

Mr. Cable: Okay, the energy commissioner spoke about there probably being an experimental program in place, something that the public can review and comment on. Now, this government, Mr. Speaker, went to the people on the issue of rate stabilization. Then we had, in the energy commissioner's work program, an assertion that the new program would be in place last spring, I think it was. Then we've had public consultations in the fall. So, this government has been in power for over a year.

Could I ask the minister, who I'm sure is aware of this experimental program, what is the purpose of the experimental program? Are we simply avoiding the issue? Are we trying to keep the issue away from the people, keep them tantalized? Are we afraid to make a decision on it?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm waiting for a recommendation from the Liberal Party to bring in the Auditor General to give us a recommendation on rate relief. That's his usual approach to solving all the world's problems.

Mr. Speaker, we're doing precisely opposite of what the member is alleging through innuendo. We're out there talking to the public, and we're trying to formulate conclusions, and the energy commission is trying to formulate conclusions based on discussions with the public and involving Yukoners at large.

With regard to the issue of rate stabilization, in just one year, in extremely difficult circumstances with the Faro mine going on and off the grid and on the grid again, we've brought rate relief back to life. We've announced a massive energy conservation program, and we took action to see the Faro mine get back into production and removed 20 percent of approved rate increases off of Yukoners' bills.

Mr. Cable: Well, that's an interesting political speech, but it looks like we're going to be in the House for another few days at least. Will the energy commissioner and the energy minister commit to having the government make known its rate relief intentions before the House rises, so that we can debate the initiative in the House rather than responding to some communication buff's idea of what constitutes good communication with the public?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, we're obviously anxious to talk to Yukoners about rate relief, and I know the energy commission is busily working on bringing recommendations to Cabinet, so we look forward to their recommendations in due course.

Question re: Burwash firehall, cost overrun

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. Yesterday in the House, I raised the issue of a $100,000 cost overrun on the construction of a firehall in Burwash that was supposed to cost $235,000. This project, as of last week, was 36-percent complete and the cash register on this cost overrun is still ringing. We are not criticizing the construction of a much-needed firehall. We are not criticizing the agreement with the people of Burwash to construct the firehall. We are not criticizing the quality of construction. What we are criticizing and are now demanding answers to is this government's inability to control costs. The official opposition - we're doing our job - our job and our responsibilities are to hold this minister responsible for his department's spending.

Will the minister advise if he has now had an opportunity to review the project and will he call for an independent audit?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I am through saying I am appalled or disgruntled. That just goes without saying any more, from the member opposite. I certainly appreciate that the member opposite speaks from a script and will continue to speak from a script until there's some original thinking brought forth.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no cost overrun. There were two CFAs put into place for a total, I believe, of $329,000, and that is exactly what we are going to be spending.

Mr. Jenkins: It's a $100,000 cost overrun. The minister confirmed that, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Faro is still laughing, as he was yesterday, when this cost overrun was pointed out.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Jenkins: An alarming trend is carrying over from the previous NDP government and that is their inability to control costs.

Will the minister now reconsider his position and call for an audit?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, I will not reconsider my opinion and call for an audit. I have spoken to the chief just this morning. They are very well-aware that they are being brought forth into the Legislature and that things that are being alluded to are regarding them.

Certainly, there is not a cost overrun in this project, Mr. Speaker. This project is being adhered to under the terms and conditions.

Mr. Jenkins: The Yukon Party previously brought in a policy to control costs on capital projects. Changes to these projects were only allowed under very special ...

Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Jenkins: ...circumstances. Has this government changed that policy?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I will certainly agree that there were lots of cost overruns, certainly there. Mr. Speaker, it has just been brought to my attention that they did not bring that piece in.

I will be working with the community in question to make sure that they do a good job. I offer my support to the First Nation so that we can get a firehall there for the betterment of the community.

Question re: Electrical rate relief

Mr. Cable: I have some further questions for the energy minister on rate relief. He seems to be dancing around the issue of rate relief, and what I expect is that, one day after the House rises, we're going to get this pumped up, hyped up press release on what's going to take place.

Will the energy minister commit that, as at January 1, when the new program, whatever it is, comes into place, the average residential consumer will not receive a rate increase?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I'm not dancing around the subject of rate relief. What I explained to the member is that we are consulting with the public. It's an extensive and broad issue. It's one the energy commission is progressing on very well. They look forward to making some recommendations to Cabinet.

With regard to rate relief and the member asking for my assurances that rates won't go up, I should remind him that the rate relief program is independent from the rate-setting process, which is handled by the Utilities Board, which I had assumed he was aware of. It's a very difficult premise that he wishes to get a commitment from me with regard to what the Utilities Board may or may not do in terms of their rulings as an independent body, in terms of setting rates in this territory.

Mr. Cable: That government and that minister had no reticence about talking about rate stabilization during the election campaign. Surely that minister and that government was aware of the fact that the Utilities Board sets rates and that stabilization would have to take place outside the Utilities Board's jurisdiction.

With respect to that election campaign promise, when is this commitment to rate stabilization going to take place? I think I've asked the minister this before. Can we expect it before the end of this mandate?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I love answering that question because, in the face of very difficult circumstances - losing the Faro mine off the grid - weeks after we got into office, we took action very quickly to get 20 percent rate increases approved by the Utilities Board off Yukoners' bills. That was a rate stabilization initiative. We brought rate relief back to life from the Yukon Party. That was a rate stabilization initiative. We've been concentrating on demand-side management and introduced a massive energy conservation program. That was a rate stabilization initiative, and there's more in the hopper. So if the member will just bear with us - we're only in the first year - we'll have more rate stabilization issues to go along with all the other ones we concluded in the first year.

Mr. Cable: Let me encourage the minister to get a copy of Webster's and look up the word "stabilization", because ...

Now, the last question for the minister is, we've heard that the Energy Corporation has a significant bad debt with United Keno Hill Mines. We've heard that there's a deductible on the insurance with respect to the fire and, assumedly, some hidden costs that will be attached to the fire. Could the minister tell us, is there enough cash in the Energy Corporation to fund the continuance of rate relief?

Hon. Mr. Harding: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, even prior to any finalization of 1997 cost of service, the Yukon Energy Corporation utility is looking at an approximate rate of return of about four percent. Once that's finalized - the 1997 cost of service - I would assume that there would be a fairly significant amount of money available for initiatives such as rate relief, such as investment in supply options, although it won't be as much as it has been in previous years, given the uncertainty surrounding the Faro mine and losing it from the grid.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the short answer to the question is, the Energy Corporation will have sufficient funds to work with issues surrounding rate relief and also to work with supply options, although the money is not falling off trees.

Question re: Porter Creek school cost overrun

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Previous NDP governments were notorious for the huge cost overruns on major capital projects and this new NDP government appears to be in lockstep with their predecessors in being unable to manage the public's money.

In the Committee debate, the Minister of Education said - and it was revealed - that there was a $500,000 cost overrun on the construction of the Porter Creek school and, I think, some 88 change orders. The Minister of Education passed the buck, so to speak, to the Minister of Government Services to provide the details of this mismanagement, so I'll ask the Minister of Government Services: what went wrong?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what went wrong. Well, what went wrong is across the floor. We had to fast track a project into 18 months. That's what went wrong. What went wrong was the Porter Creek school being fast-tracked because of an obsession with the two-tier system that resulted in us fast-tracking this project.

As for 88 change order, he needs to check his figures. There are not 88 change orders. There are far more change orders than what we would like, but I think the member has a real nerve in asking that.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister is consistent; there is no doubt about that. When you ask him questions about land and tax issues, it was a committee that made the decision. When you ask him questions about another issue, it's social assistance immunity that he hides behind. Today, he's saying it's the Yukon Party's fault that his government has a cost overrun.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, this minister is responsible for those cost overruns. A half a million dollars of a cost overrun is a lot of money. The previous Yukon Party government brought in a policy of controlling spending in capital projects. Can the minister explain why his government has abandoned this policy and they're spending like there's no tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: That member is seriously deluded. With regard to the costs, just the city alone in some of its site work upgrading, which were not anticipated in the original budget, came to over $232,900. Those were requirements by the City of Whitehorse. The other main difficulties that occurred were really in the speed of the project.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, like I said, he's consistent. It's partly the city's fault now, too. It's everybody but this minister's fault that this is a cost overrun in this government. The bottom line is that these ministers are responsible for their budgets, and there's a $500,000 cost overrun on this project, $100,000 on another project, and no accountability in projects in Carcross and other parts of the territory.

Mr. Speaker, when is this minister and this government going to get a handle on these projects? They're planning to build several more schools in the next few years, and the people of the Yukon want to make sure that this government doesn't spend us into bankruptcy like the previous NDP government did.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member one thing. We will not be making precipitous, accelerated, ill-considered moves the way that the previous government did in terms of education, which led directly to this project having to be fast-tracked to conform with the previous Education minister's obsession on the two-tier education system. That's why we've got a problem with that project.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and we will proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 73 - adjourned debate

Clerk: Motion No. 73, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Speaker: The motion before the House, as moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre on November 5, 1997, is

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) The Government of Canada has unfairly restricted access to income support for Canadians who have paid into Unemployment Insurance (renamed Employment Insurance) throughout their working lives; and

(2) despite a projected $20 billion cumulative surplus by the end of 1998, the Government of Canada has unfairly reduced EI benefits, eliminated training programs and appropriated workers' money to pay down the deficit;

THAT this House expresses strong opposition to the federal Liberal government's ongoing attempts to dismantle this vital component of our social safety net, causing great hardship to the victims of Canada's structural unemployment; and

THAT this House calls for the billions in savings, which restrictions to unemployment have produced, to be used to restore the program to meet the real financial and training needs of unemployed workers.

Mr. Hardy: It's like déjà vu all over again.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance program is vitally important to all working people. I walk through my riding - and my riding's quite a poor riding - and many people that live in my riding are part of a seasonal workforce and the UI program, as it used to stand, was vital for them to ensure that they could survive through the year and provide for their families. UI addresses the fundamental insecurity that all workers face in a market economy. It reduces the economic risk of unemployment, a risk that is felt with particular force today. UI stabilizes incomes of individuals and communities. And, as I walk through my riding, which I do every night, I see the instability that's in my community and among my constituents.

If the jobs aren't there between the seasonal jobs, UI used to be there. If UI is now changed to make fewer people eligible, which is what has happened, then where do the people go? They still have to provide; they still have to pay their bills, so where do they go? They come here, locally, to social services and it's creating a tremendous burden on the resources that we have in the territory and yet there's no transfer of monies to accommodate that increase on social services. My colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services, I am sure will speak about the increase of costs on social services and the working poor and the non-working as they try to meet those goals, as well as the youth who, as they are going into the workforce, often are employed and unemployed, and employed and unemployed.

UI used to be a bridge. It doesn't seem to do that. It was a cornerstone of Canada's labour adjustment process, and that has disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, our unemployment insurance program has been undergoing progressive cuts and restrictions on eligibility over the last 25 years. A person like myself, when I left school, I entered into very much of a seasonal work environment, which was construction. I often had to go on UI, knowing that I paid into this program. It was an insurance. I felt it was my right to be able to go on this program when I could not find employment. Because of the nature of the work I was involved in, that happened often during the coldest months of the year in the Yukon. I was able to work, of course, during the spring, summer and fall. This was the bridge. This was also what allowed me some dignity in being unemployed when I couldn't find a job, because I also felt that I contributed to this plan. By contributing to it, I had a right to it. I would go back to work and contribute to it again. I believe that what I felt back then, many people felt about UI, and recognized it's value and the fact that, as a worker, it is your plan and your money, and it's not meant to be used for anything else aside from the bridging between employment, as well as to assist with training needs.

There's been a rapid decline in UI expenditures over the last few years. The most recent rounds of cuts - this is the eighth in a series of attacks on this vital program since it was shored up in 1971 - and the fourth major cut in the 1990s. We are seeing the fallout of those cuts now with tremendous poverty throughout Canada and tremendous poverty in the Yukon and for the many people who used to be able to rely on this plan that is no longer there for them in the manner that they deserve.

UI benefit payments were $19.2 billion in 1992-93. Now, they are less than $13 billion.

This is a decrease in expenditures, and it was achieved through a decrease in the unemployment rate, but not necessarily true; it's a decrease in ability to apply to this plan.

A parallel development has been a dramatic decrease in the percentage of unemployed receiving benefits. The CLC has issued many reports, and one of them, from a worker's perspective, for sure, said the percentage of unemployed in receipt of UI has dropped from 87 percent in 1990 down to 48 percent today, and that's been confirmed by many other reports, as well as the government itself recognizing that. Some other reports have also said 46 percent or even down to 43 percent, but the drop is dramatic on who is eligible for this plan now.

There has also been very much a recognition of the increase on the welfare rolls throughout the country and the burden it places upon provincial and territorial governments.

Mr. Speaker, at least $13 billion in surplus has been built up over the last four years, and even if the EI or UI - I guess now it's called EI; I don't know if that's supposed to make everybody feel better, but I still look at it as UI, and I think most people out there recognize it's an unemployment insurance plan, not an employment insurance, because it doesn't create employment, for sure - rate is reduced from $2.90 at its current rate to $2.80 for 1998, the government will still continue to take in over $7 billion more than it's paying out in these benefits.

It is estimated that the program ran a surplus of $5.5 billion in the fiscal year of 1995-96, contributing to the budgetary deficit reduction in that amount and increasing the estimate to $8 billion in 1996-97. Unfortunately, money's being taken out of this insurance plan - and I don't think it can be mentioned enough that it is an insurance plan for the workers.

It's being taken out, taken away from them, and used to pay down the deficit. It's paying other people's debts, without the approval of the workers that contribute to it - and the businesses as well that contribute to it. They actually have no say in where that money is going.

To date, there has been no credible explanation. Our justification from the federal government, for either the rapid decline in expenditures or the proportion of unemployed who are eligible to qualify for UI, is no explanation at all.

In 1971, Bill C-229 was brought forward by Liberal Labour minister Bryce Mackasey and essentially established Canada's modern and comprehensive unemployment insurance program. This is high-water mark for the Liberal government, and I applaud him for that move at that time.

The benefit rate was 75 percent for claimants with dependents. Eight weeks of work were required to be eligible for the plan, and the maximum weeks of benefits was 58 weeks.

The philosophy then was that workers needed income protection from the fluctuation in the job market due to economic forces beyond their own control, and that this was a vital role of the federal government. UI effectively served its primary purpose to stabilize workers' income and ensure that times of unemployment would not result in a marked decrease in the living standards, as it so often does today, even though going on UI always did affect the living standards. This, again, was to help bridge those spaces and to assist.

Since the mid-1970s, however, as I mentioned earlier, the well-being of workers and the devastating impact of unemployment in this country - as it has continued to grow consistently since the 1970s - on families and whole communities, has not been a major consideration in decisions affecting the administration of this program. What has been a motivating factor behind the changes we have seen is often who's driving the agenda, and I will get to that in a bit. But, first we need to look at these changes and see whose interests they serve, the changes that have not been to a benefit of working people.

In 1995, the Liberals passed Bill C-12, one of the latest steps in the process of progressive implementation of a corporate agenda. Some of the significant changes include expanding work weeks required for eligibility from 12 to 16, depending on the local unemployment rate, to 16 to 20 weeks working consecutively. Measurement of a work week has changed from 15 hours to 35.

It's much harder for part-time workers to qualify. Maximum weeks of benefit reduced from 50 to 45. Maximum benefit rates remained at 55 percent, which is quite a drop down from the early 1970s, when it was first introduced, but they are capped at $413 per week. This is 1995.

Reduced rates for those who have used the program in the past - so they are targeting the seasonal workers who have most needed this, and also the cyclical. And in the Yukon we do have both - the seasonal and the cyclical workforce.

It allows the federal government to withdraw from job training programs, which they have done. It allows the feds to use any UI surplus for anything they want, like paying down the deficit on the backs of the victims of a low-wage, high-unemployment economic strategy.

The Fraser Institute, the right-wing think-tank, and other business lobbyists, notably the Business Council on National Issues and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, feel this is a move in the right direction but that the reforms don't go far enough. This despite the fact that in 1994, with Bill C-17, and in 1995, with the above-mentioned bill, numerous recommendations by the powerful business coalitions were adopted, such as cutting benefits 55 percent, which still doesn't go far enough. I think we know who they represent and I think we also know who they control.

They continue to pressure their government for further changes to fulfill two major business objectives: one, to reduce its cost by reducing the amount of premiums employers must pay; and, two, create more competition by eliminating regional differences in UI payments. In the words of Hal Kraft of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, "We don't want to reward areas where there are no work or no jobs. We want to promote employee mobility."

There's also the belief that the UI lends itself to creating lazy people, and I'll talk about that in a second as well, but that is bogus.

There's also no evidence to support the contention that a reduction in employer premiums would lead to an increase in jobs. That was one of their arguments: if the employers didn't have to pay so much for UI, automatically there'd be more jobs. It doesn't work that way. If there is a demand for the product that they're making and the service that they're providing, of course they will hire more people, but not a reduction in the amount that they're paying on the UI, which is not that much as it is.

As for the mobility argument that was mentioned earlier, apart from the morally questionable practice of pressuring people to leave their homes, it is ludicrous to think that unemployed workers on social assistance would be more likely to leave their home provinces or territories in search of work.

I've met many people over the last few years, one of them a representative of a union and the other a representative of an association of unions - people who have had to move and have come all the way from P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and have gone from one social assistance office to the next, across the country, completely broke with families torn apart to get here and find out there's nothing in place here either. They've hit the end of the line. There's no UI between those jobs and they don't know which way to turn.

Of course, the territorial government and its social programs tries to assist them to at least get back home and try to put their lives back together in their frantic effort to find a job. Many people figure these are lazy people. Many businesses that are driving these changes - the huge businesses, which I do have a problem with because they dictate to this government, not the small businesses, but the huge ones because they dictate. These think tanks, such as the Fraser Institute, feed the government with these ideas that workers in Canada are lazy and UI just contributes to that.

Maybe they should get out of their Mercedes and try to go across this country with nothing in their pockets and their family back home starving. They might have a different view if they came down to the real world.

What works? There is a problem in Canada. One of the problems is that there's not enough work. There's definitely been a downsizing. There's been a shift toward cheaper labour in other countries as plants have moved out and have been encouraged to move out by this government - the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, cuts and other changes cannot be justified on financial grounds, and the program account is in a significant surplus. Even without the cuts in C-12, expenditures are less than the Finance minister said he was expecting in his 1995 budget speech. It continues to this day, as well.

UI is primarily paid for by workers. It is a social insurance, not welfare. But the federal government has bought into the right-wing big business philosophy that UI offers incentives to keep people out of the workforce. They also drag out UI cheater stories. We've seen that here with the previous Yukon Party government on the social assistance roles. Welfare cheaters - stories to further support their contention that workers prefer leisure over employment. I don't think that anyone believes that Canadians arrange their own layoff, turn down well- paying jobs and choose to live on an income well below their earning potential, because they want to. Never mind that whenever a company announces a hiring initiative, we witness lineups for blocks in subzero temperatures. We've seen lineups in Canada over the last few years of 10,000 people, applying for 1,000 jobs when a plant is opening. These are not people who don't want to work. Thousands and thousands of applications come to businesses yearly - to big businesses and small businesses. There are hundreds of applications from people trying to find employment.

It's ludicrous and insulting to maintain that Canadian workers prefer to languish in poverty rather than to earn an honest living, but this is a slander our federal government, in conjunction with the right, is supporting. This justifies their changes to EI, or UI.

They want us to believe that if you want to reduce dependency on a program, you have to cut it back further. They promote the idea that being unemployed is the fault of the jobless. We're lazy and dependent and need to be booted out the UI office door. They want to divert attention from corporate downsizing and huge increases in both private and public sector layoffs. They want us to overlook the bankruptcy of federal economic policies and inability or unwillingness of big business to provide adequate jobs, and they still cling to the lie of supply-side capitalism, which, unfortunately, has never really delivered, and it's even less viable today. They want us to overlook the tax structure in this country.

Further rounds of cuts are being contemplated at a time of high unemployment, jobless recoveries and unprecedented attacks on all aspects of the welfare state - CPP, UI and medicare, just to name three.

UI needs to be strengthened, not undermined, and at the same time, job creation needs to be made a priority. The federal NDP calculated that with every one-percent drop in the jobless rate, the government could save $1 billion in program costs.

I'm going to list some suggestions or alternatives to just cutting programs and making the poor pay with some positive steps, especially for youth, who are the worst hit by unemployment. Reducing and maintaining low real interest rates is one of them. That stimulates business.

High interest rates crush a small business. Influencing the production and investment decisions of the private sector through such means as the creation of a capital investment fund would assist. If we truly want to lower the unemployment rate and the cost to UI, these are alternative suggestions; a different approach. Instead of just attacking UI, let's approach the real problem: jobs. Maintaining and strengthening employment in the public sector through the enhanced provision of social and other public services - education, health care, child care - promises that have all been made and not kept; funding a major $10 billion emergency employment investment program over five years, along with significant social and environmental infrastructure investment; sharing our existing work more equitably through reduced overtime, possibly a shorter work week; greater ease of access to parental and educational leaves; other micro-focused policies; and, job entrance for youth and respect for elders in our workforce, so that there can be the proper training and transfer of skills.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it seems that job creation is no longer - if it ever was, even though it was in the red book - a priority of the federal Liberals. They want to maintain a high level of unemployment, in combination with low inflation, high interest rates, and the resulting pool of cheap labour to increase the global competitiveness of big business.

This goes back to that debate we had a while back, that the Liberals thought was so insensitive for us to have up here on the MAI - global competitiveness. We believe in fair competition, but not the huge bank of unemployed people that are paid so very little with tremendous poverty that we often see in Third World countries, transferred into Canada. What we would like to see is our standard of living, the ability to live a better lifestyle, a more equitable distribution of wealth, transferred to the Third World countries, not the other way around.

And though the Liberals don't think we should be discussing globalization and the deals that are being made federally, we are a territory and we have to discuss it. UI is part of that and is affected by it as well, and we have to discuss it.

And how it connects is that often the same groups are negotiating these deals by our own government, and we don't even know it. IMF, the International Monetary Fund, which has had such conflicting success or unsuccessful ventures with third world countries, has been advising our federal government for quite a few years, and one of the suggestions is that the federal government act more forcefully in tightening eligibility for unemployment insurance in order to improve the flexibility of labour markets. IMF is now advising our government, or has been advising our government for a few years, on what we should do with our social programs, and UI is one of them. So is ACD group and they are continuing with the MAI negotiations that will affect Yukon, contrary to what the Liberals and the editor of the Yukon News believe.

The goal of full employment was abandoned many years ago, around the time that the slow and steady dismantling of our UI programs got underway. This is the real challenge we face with this government, that economic prosperity is now something to be measured by growth in corporate profits, the volume of trading on the floors of our stock exchanges and the unfettered flow of investment capital. It is no longer measured by the rate of employment and the financial well-being of workers and their families in their communities. And the fact that the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider doesn't seem to impact on the thinking of this government, which continues to create new and lucrative tax breaks for the privileged of this country.

The Liberal government would really like to talk about their red book - the promises that they made. I bought this book when I was in Ottawa. It is put out every year, it seems. It is called, How Ottawa Spends: Seeing Red - A Liberal Report Card. I would recommend that all Liberals read it. It is put out by Carleton University, which I wouldn't say is a radical university. They do a report card on any federal government that's in. They do not pick on the Liberals or the Tories or the Liberals again or the Tories again or the Liberals again or the Tories. They just happen to be the ones who are elected.

They say, "Since the Liberals grade themselves on the red book commitments, no report card would be complete without final grades." I really think that the Member for Riverdale South should be here. He likes grades and he likes measurements a lot. Here is a final grade.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy: Sorry, I stand corrected. Riverdale North. I have to get that one straight. I know he has moved, and is not living there. Thanks a lot.

"With an unemployment problem not much better than when he took office, and recent attempts to abdicate any responsibility for creating jobs, the Liberals deserve no more than a D grade for their labour market employment policy." So, Carleton University. It's a great book. It's not all negative for the Liberals, but I recommend they read it; it's an interesting read. They get a D on employment creation which, of course, affects UI, since when you're working, you pay into it, which makes the plan healthier and should make Mr. Martin happier, because then he can take more from the workers out of it and pay more of the deficit down, take all the credit and not pass it on to the people who are paying it down - the workers.

The question I ask you is this: why won't the Liberals set real targets for employment and job creation? Why do they set - and I don't oppose this; don't get me wrong - their targets for deficit reduction? Good targets. UI targets, CPP targets, what they want. But when it comes down to job creation and employment, they won't do it. They will not set targets for the stimulation of job creation.

If they put as much effort into training and jobs as they promised in the red book and hold accountable companies that often receive huge loans - that often get the loans and a year later, close up their plants and move to Mexico or some place - if they made them accountable, if they put conditions on that money for job creation and stability in that community, if they put that effort into it, maybe we would start to see some results that would be quite different than just attacking the UI program, from attacking the people - an insurance program that was set up to assist unemployed people between jobs - maybe we'd actually see some more employment. Maybe we'd see some more stimulus in small business and maybe we'd stop seeing such a transfer of wealth leave this country and head off to other countries that have a cheaper workforce and exploitation in those areas.

What it comes down to is, where are the priorities? It's easy to cut. That's the truth; it really is. It's easy to say, oh, that has to go, chop that out. It's a lot harder to be innovative, consultative and work with this country, work with all the people of this country, all the governments, the provinces, the municipalities, First Nations, the territories, to work with them all to find true solutions to employment and jobs for the youth.

It has a tremendous impact on youth. I was looking at some stuff recently, just some of the titles, when they talk about employment and opportunities for youth - crime; quality of life; poverty; the increase in suicide when there's no future, when there's no bridging, there's no opportunity and there's nothing there; quality of housing, what people live in, and you lose your homes because you don't have that security any more between your jobs. It even affects the environment and how we treat our own environment, and our attitude toward our environment, especially when you pit workers against environmental concerns, which has been happening in this country, and should never happen in that manner. But it is used to split people and split long-term initiatives that are so desperately needed for the survival of this planet. It's all tied into this change to a UI program that we've had since the 1970s, which means so much to so many people, and it's making it almost impossible for anybody to get.

I'm going to read a couple of scenarios in a minute. We can make our choice of what kind of world we want to live in, the kind of impact. On a poverty level now, four million Canadians live in poverty, out of a population of around 30 million. Over one million of those are children. There are now more than two million welfare recipients. We talk about a burden upon the coffers of federal governments, provincial and territorial. There are over two million welfare recipients, and we used to have an insurance program that people paid into and people were able to take money out of to help them. Now, there's been a huge shift to put people into a welfare system where there's very little contribution, but the need is being taken out of it.

It's not a good shift. It's a tremendous burden for this territory and for, I'm sure, the provinces and the other territory as well, and I know there's been a lot of debate on the changes and the impact it's having.

But there are two million people in the welfare system, out of a population of 30 million, and roughly about 1.4 million people out of work. One of the last figures here is that 50 percent of the poor families are headed by women. Fifty percent. So, we know very quickly where changes have, like the UI, the most impact. Of course, it's the women and children and communities, such as a lot of our rural communities, where you can only work in the spring, summer and fall, and then, of course, you can't work outdoors. The construction industry, the mining communities, the placer miners - many of them are affected by this as well, and if they don't get a good enough year in to save money, then they can't get UI if they don't get enough weeks, because the changes are so hard, and there's not much there any more. Eventually, if they can't find a job, they have to come down to seek social assistance, and that's very difficult for very proud, working people to do.

So, we oppose this politically motivated attack on workers, and that's what I believe it is, because there are other ways to get money to pay down the deficit. They could leave the money in there.

We call for restoration of the UI program to levels of accessibility and financial coverage that is consistent with its original purpose, to provide workers with income protection and stability, and to ensure a reasonable standard of living during times of joblessness. We need to go back and reconfirm our commitment to the understanding that the federal government's most vital role is to mitigate the negative impacts of the marketplace on the lives of its citizens, not to further aggravate them by undermining the protections already in place that we have worked so hard to achieve - the people before us and us today.

There are ample resources to support this and so we will push for an increase of benefits from the 45 percent to the vast majority of claimants, back up to the 80 or 85 percent; the money is there, and their rights are there as well; a restoration of the benefit rate to sixty-six and two-thirds of earnings, not what it is now; a separate UI account to ensure that premium revenues will be used only for UI benefits and other areas that are designated by negotiation and discussion with the contributors to the plan, which the federal government is not, though they have taken on the responsibility of making all the decisions; and, the budget, our budget, will not be balanced on the back of unemployed workers.

I'm going to close with those two alternatives that I talked about. It will be a few more minutes as I read them. One is from Maclean's magazine, and it was after interviewing Canadians about their opinions on life in the year in 2005, and this was the vision that they got, "The classified section of the on-line newspaper contains hundreds of employment opportunities but not one is for a full time job. The people with work are putting in longer hours and getting less money then they did back in the 1990s.

"Most cannot afford to retire at 65. With the private sector taking on a larger role in shaping society the public sector has become increasingly irrelevant, effectively neutered by its diminished spending power.

"Health care and universities operate on two tiers: publicly supported institutions for those with limited funds and a private system for those with money. Cash-strapped governments have passed off the burden of many social services to charities, government pensions are a thing of the past and there's little assistant for people who lose their jobs.

"The risk of violence and harm has increased and the nation is only hanging together by a thread. It's a lean, mean world, where people must fend for themselves against the vagaries of society and the marketplace."

That's the interview Maclean's did with Canadians and what they see the year 2005 as. That's their view.

Now, we can have another one. The classified section contains hundreds of jobs, every one of them decent-paying, many of them jobs in knowledge-based industries or new technologies. With Canada's commitment to education and research, it's made it a world leader. Young people have jobs: meaningful, well-paying, family-sustaining jobs; jobs working in the community for a better environment, in schools, with seniors, with children; jobs built on equitable, quality, accessible public education; jobs that improve the health of people on the planet, that provide housing and build communities; jobs that make every young person a contributing member of society.

Imagine an economy that serves people, an economy where corporations tailor their drive for profits to practices that serve society, where labour standards are strong and enforced, where every corporation and every working person contributes to social programs that further enrich the lives of everyone, where public spending goes not to the benefit of people who would rather be working but to improving health, literacy and human rights.

Imagine a world where young people work, not to pay off deficits that enrich the banks, international money traders or the wealthy, but to reverse social deficits, where young people build a future that is deserving of the generations that will follow them.

Two competing views: one is what the people have today, on a poll, the first one; the other is what we can have, but we're never going to have it if we continue to attack programs - sacred programs, insurance programs - that are for people in need, such as the UI program or the EI program.

So, I ask everybody to support this motion and recognize the importance of having these bridging programs as well as all the other social programs that unfortunately are under attack today.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: As I rise to speak to the motion by the Member for Whitehorse Centre, his overview of it very much reminded me of a professor I had a long time ago and his description of communism - a very, very similar parallel as to what I recall that professor having said and what is being advocated here, that we're all standard, that we all are entitled to everything, and government will provide all our needs and meet our every whim and want.

When we look at the employment insurance as it now stands in Canada, and from what it has developed into over the years, Mr. Speaker, we see a system that was commenced as an insurance program to give employees that were laid off or lost their jobs, through one reason or another, some monies to bridge them between jobs. What that program has now developed into is a guaranteed annual income, and it's being treated as such by a greater and greater number of people.

The major cause of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, is the business cycle and the failure of government to provide an environment that provides for full-time employment, something this government is very familiar with. Government creates the environment that attracts business. It creates the environment by setting out policies and procedures and regulatory bodies to control the various areas. It also sets the tax rates for that business and the payroll taxes that constitute a greater and growing cost of doing business in Canada.

The payroll taxes alone count for one of the largest components of any employer. When we look at 50 percent of the gross national product of Canada being consumed by government, and when we look at small business being the creator of those jobs and what drives the economy, something has gone dramatically wrong in Canada.

We're over governed, over regulated, over controlled. The environment that attracts business has to compete with other areas of the world - indeed many, many other areas of the world. I guess one of our major attractions is our employment insurance. It is now the federal government's largest single social program. It's also its most controversial. It's controversial because its cost is growing. There's perceived to be widespread cheating and fraud, and there's that dreaded effect of long-term dependence on EI, even when all the rules are followed.

Our Canadian program is large and complex, and it is no exaggeration to suggest that it influences the economic well-being of almost every individual active in the labour market. It's becoming more and more apparent, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have engaged in repeated use of the system, working at seasonal or short-term jobs, or in areas where there's little hope of stable long-term employment. It becomes a trend and, when one gets on that treadmill, it's very difficult to get off of it.

In some cases, people want to be into that system and want to maintain that position in the workforce. In other cases, there's very much a need for employment insurance that's not being adequately met by our federal government. But when we go from coast to coast in Canada and look at the areas controlled by government - if we look at the east coast and the fishing industry and how that has been devastated by overregulation, and not regulating enough in some areas, providing more government incentives when the fishing fleet is overbuilt, and then the devastating effect it's had on workers in that area - that was caused by government intervention, not correct government intervention. It knocks the free enterprise system when government intervention is not done in a correct and reasonable manner.

Going back to small business in eastern Canada, it's really the only area that is expanding. There are some major provincial drives to attract business in the maritime provinces, and they've done well with plants like Michelin, with the McCains and with courier service that is based in that region. These are government incentives and plans to attract business that have worked well, and one of the major costs that they look at is the cost of doing business in that area. The playing field, Mr. Speaker, must be level and must be reasonable, and the costs for employee benefits have to be in line with what they would expect to pay in other regions.

We can go right across Canada in that same manner, but one only has to look at the provinces, at the jurisdictions in Canada that are leading in job creation, full employment, and the levels that those individuals are being taxed. One only has to look around at the turnaround in Ontario and Alberta if one wants to see a government that is providing the necessary incentives to encourage the development of business and to provide the incentives to attract business. These are successful provinces today, Mr. Speaker.

But what we have here is a motion before us suggesting that we get into a guaranteed annual income type of approach and pump all of the money back into benefits and expand the system.

It's interesting that the Member for Whitehorse Centre said this is employees' money. Well, indeed it is, but for every dollar put into that fund by employees, $1.40 is contributed by the employer. One only has to spend a short while in the private sector in business, and go to the bank on the 15th of the month to meet all of these required deductions and pay them to get an appreciation of the tremendous costs associated with these social programs.

That's an area that the member that put forward the motion hasn't a clue about and, from what he had to say about it, he has no concern whatsoever as to what costs are being borne by employers.

There's always room for improvement in any social program, but what is needed, Mr. Speaker, is to take this employment insurance and use it for the purpose that it's now designed to be used for, to provide bridging when an individual loses his position or his job and requires retraining before he or she can enter into the marketplace filling a new role.

This is an area that can be and is controlled by government. It's an area that can be improved upon, and one only has to witness the constant change to the various programs to recognize that there's always room for improvement.

So, let's look at the positive side of the equation. Let's not look at the communist model that's been advanced by the Member for Whitehorse Centre. Let's look at a realistic approach that's going to benefit all Canadians.

That can only be achieved, Mr. Speaker, by a careful review of this program as it presently exists, eliminate the area - the perceived area perhaps - of cheating and get government to control this growing cost - put a ceiling on it. EI premiums are going down, but they're being offset for employers with an increase in Canada Pension Plan contributions.

So, it looks like, for once, it's going to be a saw-off for employers this next fiscal period. That is not to say it cannot change.

Just because there is a surplus of funds in the EI program at the current time, Mr. Speaker, doesn't mean it hasn't been the other way around.

One only has to look back in history to see that over the years, the employment insurance program has been in serious financial difficulties in Canada and has required millions of dollars of federal government money to bail it out.

That is not the case today. That is not the case today. This one program is showing a surplus. So, I guess it's an NDP philosophy that you just get into the barrel and spend, spend, spend - something that this government is very capable of doing on an ongoing and constant basis. On an ongoing basis, this government just spends, spends, spends. "Well, we've located another pot of money, let's just rush out and spend it; let's not look at the repercussions of our spending; let's not look at who it's going to benefit or how it's going to benefit. Oh, Mr. Speaker, it has to benefit our friends. I guess we should look at who supported us and spend in that manner" - such as this government is doing on a consistent basis in the last little while.

Let's go back to the actual motion. The motion indicates that there's a projected $20-billion surplus by the end of 1998. Some of that money is going to be transferred to pay down the deficit of Canada and the Member for Whitehorse Centre didn't even explore that avenue as to the ultimate benefits that would accrue to the economy of Canada by paying down the deficit of Canada with funds from this area.

There is nothing to say that these funds have to be held in isolation. It's a government decision, but strangely all of that area wasn't explored by the Member for Whitehorse Centre. He just targeted that pool of money and said it's not being used for its intended purpose and rather than curtail this, this and this, we should open it up and get that money back out - expand the unemployment insurance program.

There're probably areas that the EI could be expanded and could benefit employees and I'm sure - even though I'm not a big supporter of the group that's elected in Ottawa today - they'll have the ability to look at that area and examine it and perhaps adjust it so Canadians will benefit accordingly.

I don't have much further to say, Mr. Speaker, other than that's a very, very biased motion supporting one extreme end of the spectrum, while not even addressing the centre or the other end of the spectrum, and I'm disappointed that the member would even consider a motion of this nature and spend the time in this House debating such an issue, as he has done previously. These are motions that, if dealt with in another manner, can serve to enhance the image of the House and probably gain us a greater deal of recognition in Ottawa, where recognition is needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion today, because this motion certainly has an impact on my department, the Department of Health and Social Services, and I think it's worthwhile to take a look at the whole question of unemployment insurance and how we've got to the point today where we are dealing with this euphemistic term, "employment insurance."

People have begun to try to characterize this idea of unemployment insurance as being, somehow, a giveaway, something that people don't deserve, that somehow for people it's undignified, and that it's a form of charity.

I would like to remind everyone that this is actually an issue of insurance. We insure in many ways. We insure ourselves against catastrophic illness. We insure ourselves against loss of our homes. We insure ourselves against problems on the road. Unemployment insurance is just that. It is part of a social safety net to which everyone pays in. Everyone who is employed pays in, the same way that we have our national pension plans, the same way that we have private pension plans. These are a form of insurance. These are a form of insurance for our senior years.

The Canadian Labour Congress reports that the percentage of unemployed individuals in receipt of UI has dropped from an eligibility rate of 87 percent in 1990 to some 48 percent today, and some people are suggesting that the actual figure could be as low as 43 percent of Canadians actually qualifying for UI.

In 1971, Bill C-229, brought forward by the then-Labour minister, Bryce Mackasey, contained measures to establish a modern, comprehensive unemployment insurance program, and I think we have to recognize this as being a high-water mark in unemployment insurance.

At that time, the benefit rate was 75 percent for claims with dependants, with eight weeks of work required for eligibility, and the maximum number of benefits was 58. The philosophy then was that workers needed an income protection from fluctuations in job markets due to economic forces beyond their control, and we've seen the day, even now in the late 1990s, that workers are still subject to those kinds of economic factors - factors of globalization, factors that have arisen because of technology where people are being displaced from traditional incomes.

So, those economic factors were beyond people's control, and the federal government at that time felt that there was a responsible role, a vital role, to insure and to protect people from these kinds of economic vagaries.

Since the 1970s, however, the well-being of workers has basically deteriorated, and I characterize this as a factor in decisions on the whole administration of this program. In 1995, the Liberal government passed C-12, and I think that was the latest in a process of systematic dismantling, and I believe, quite frankly, that this C-12 was largely the result of a business agenda. And if we take a look at some of the factors there - increasing the number of work weeks for eligibility - down considerably. The measurement of the work week changed in hours from 15 to 35 hours, which effectively made it very difficult for part-time workers to qualify and really targeted people who had been so dependent on this, primarily seasonal workers.

Now, like it or not, the nature of this country, the nature of our climate, the nature of our resoursce-based economy means that we have a very high percentage of seasonal workers, probably much more so than many other countries that have an industrial base.

This program was one way that those seasonal workers were protected.

The other aspect of C-12 that I found particularly odious was that the federal government began to withdraw from a lot of job training programs and it also allowed the federal government to use the EI surplus for anything that they wanted.

It is interesting to see the people who praise this. The Fraser Institute, the business lobbies, all felt that reforms did not go far enough, despite the fact that in 1994, C-17, and in 1995, numerous recommendations of the business coalition were accepted, such as cutting benefits 55 percent.

They still felt that wasn't enough. They still continued to pressure government for further changes to fulfill two major business objectives. We are not talking about workers here, we are talking about business objectives. One is to reduce cost by reducing the amount of premiums that employers have to pay and, two, create more competition by eliminating regional differences in UI payments.

Basically, in the words of Howcroft of the Alliance of Manufacturing and Exporters of Canada, - listen to this, Mr. Speaker - "We don't want to reward areas where there are no jobs, we want to promote employee mobility." Well, that must just play great for someone in an outport in Newfoundland; that must be great on the south shore of Nova Scotia; that must be great in some of the forestry areas of northern Ontario; and that must be great with fish workers on the west coast; and that must be great here, where people are displaced sometimes by mine fluctuations and by seasonal employment.

These cuts cannot be justified on financial grounds. Even without the cuts that came about in C-12, the expenditures are less than what the Finance minister was saying in his 1995 budget. UI is paid for primarily by workers. It is a social insurance; it is not welfare. But the federal government has bought into the right-wing business philosophy. The term Liberal, I think, has lost a great deal of currency, because, if anything, they should be conservative Liberals or right wing Liberals, or something like that, because basically this whole scheme has been a right-wing business agenda.

What does the right wing see? They see UI as being some kind of incentive to keep people out of the labour force. So there's this idea that, somehow, people receiving UI are somehow less inclined to work; they become dependent. People like to characterize this as, if you're unemployed, somehow that's your fault because, somehow, there's something the matter with you - you're lazy, or you're dependent, or you need to be booted out of that UI door. They don't realize, it still hasn't clued in, that this is a form of social insurance. It's not a gift. It's a form of insurance that helps protect people from the fluctuations in an economy.

I think those in the big business community want to divert attention from the idea of corporate downsizing - that's a nice phrase; basically you kick people out the door - and huge increases in both private and public sector layoffs. I think that's part of the agenda, and so what you do is you blame a program as being, somehow, a disincentive to work.

We're into now a great euphemism - this one I love: the jobless recovery. Well, good. So now people, federal politicians, can stand up with a straight face and talk about a jobless recovery, and somehow attribute problems in the economy to UI recipients. UI needs to be strengthened. It doesn't need to be gutted any more.

Let's take a look. If we actually put some of the money that we're gutting out of UI toward actual programs to create jobs, it's estimated that with every one-percent drop in the jobless rate, the federal government would save over $1 billion in program costs.

I have some real concerns as to whether the job creation is a priority to the federal Liberals, if it ever was. Basically, I think they have a policy where they are interested in maintaining a high level of unemployment. They're interested in maintaining this. They're interested in maintaining low inflation. They're certainly interested in high interest rates, and I think they're quite interested in creating a pool of cheap labour to improve "our competitiveness".

We've seen this whole process go on and on and on. So, what's the impact here in the Yukon, and why should we be talking about it today in this House? Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, right now, as we get into Health and Social Services, one of the things we're going to see is social assistance increases that we believe we can attribute to some of the impact of UI. It's very hard to nail it down in quantitative terms. We do know that, particularly from rural communities, what we're getting is people coming to us seeking social assistance, because they find they can no longer qualify under the present rules, particularly if they are involved in seasonal work and particularly if they're involved in employment that's dependent on the resource industry.

What we've got here, in a sense, is another federal Liberal program to offload costs on to territories and provinces. They're trying to get their books in order by throwing it on to our backs. Quite frankly, I don't think we can endure this. Quite frankly, I don't think we can accept any more of this offloading. If we take a look at the number of programs here in this territory that have been offloaded in the last little while, what do we see? Well, we see, for example, Skookum Jim Friendship Centre - the Secretary of State withdrew funding for friendship centres. Canada Assistance Plan cuts - we lost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cancellation of CAP has reduced departmental recoveries by $12 million a year. DIA billings - well, we're getting some progress on that, but there are millions of dollars still around and, even today, one of the struggles that we're having - and it relates to my earlier ministerial statement - is on disabled adults and the unwillingness of the federal government to accept their responsibilities in this regard, particularly in terms of care for them.

Home care, Kaushee's Place, Dawson shelter, Help and Hope in Watson Lake, Macaulay Lodge, McDonald Lodge and the Thomson Centre have all been impacted by federal cuts. The community action program for children was cut; New Horizons was cut; the Canada drug program was cut.

All of these impact on us. Right now, some of our provincial counterparts are fighting with the federal government on the whole question of young offenders, including the shared cost of young offenders facilities. The problem right now is that there have been increasingly lengthened sentences and requirements for more programming, which have resulted in higher costs, at the same time that the federal contribution to young offenders is being capped. It's a good technique. You can impose more criteria, and you can impose more conditions, but then you can say, "Well, yeah, but we're not giving any more money."

One of the concerns that I have and one of the concerns that I was going to be speaking to next week in Winnipeg, if this House happens to rise, is the whole question of non-insured health benefits. It's something that I've had some discussions with CYFN about. We are very concerned about the possible impact there.

We are concerned as well about the cuts to the training component of UI, because we feel this, quite frankly, places increased pressure on employees who have been trained in specific jobs, such as mining, and now find themselves without work. So, what are they to do? What options do they have?

So, for all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the direction that this government is taking, and particularly the direction that they're taking with regard to UI. I cannot emphasize again that this is not welfare. This is not something that people receive. This is something that people insure themselves with. It's something that is a keenly felt part of our social program.

As a matter of fact, if we want to take a look at the origins of where such things as pensions and unemployment insurance came about, we have to look further back, much further back than this country's history. We have to look back to the Germany of Bismarck, because it was Bismarck who introduced such things as workers' pensions, an early form of unemployment insurance, and why did he do it, Mr. Speaker? He didn't do it because Otto von Bismarck, the father of realpolitik, had a great love for workers. He did it because at that time, Europe was in turmoil, because workers realized where they fit in this great capitalist machine, and they were no longer content. Bismarck did it very clearly to ward off social discontent.

It's my fear that if we begin to kick away any more of the props, any more of those support mechanisms for workers in this country, we are going to face some real discontent, and no amount of patch-up will be able to do it. No amount of patch-up will be able to bring us back to a point where we actually do care about people.

Unemployment insurance is a basic tenet of a civilized country, and I urge the federal government to restore that faith that Canadians have in their government by stopping the erosion to unemployment insurance. Thank you.

Ms. Duncan: I believe that it's helpful to the debate on this particular motion to examine the root of the motion, what it's about. I'd like to do that through the course of my response to it this afternoon.

First of all, I'd like to look at the employment insurance program. Employment insurance replaced the old unemployment insurance program, as referred to many times in this House. There were slips of the tongue - UI, EI, UI. It's the employment insurance program.

The employment insurance program, the new employment insurance system, is based on hours of paid work instead of weeks. A fundamental change has been noted. Whether an individual works full time, part time as a seasonal worker, or on and off throughout the year, the hours that one works are accumulated toward eligibility for these benefits.

Now, in any program, there are those qualify and those who do not. If you're entering the workforce for the first time, or re-entering the workforce after an absence of two years, you need 910 hours of work. To me, when I read that in preparation for this debate, I found that particularly penalizing to women who would perhaps be re-entering the workforce after being at home with children.

I noted also that, in the qualifications for benefits, if you apply for sickness, maternity or parental benefits, you need 700 hours of work, or 12 hours per week over the course of the previous year. And that point is particularly beneficial because it starts to recognize part-time work. As has been noted by other members in this House, there are more and more jobs that are part-time versus full-time positions.

The EI benefits are paid for between 14 and 45 weeks, depending upon circumstances.

And the focus of the EI has now shifted and changed to a focus on re-employment, and there are a number of programs and points in this regard: targeted wage subsidies, self-employment - and the self-employment program has had a strong uptake in the Yukon. I've had several constituents approach me about this aspect of the employment insurance program and singing its positive aspects, and also noting that there are problems with it - in particular the self-employment doesn't recognize the need for child care when you're not simply out selling your new product or marketing your new product, but when you're developing a business plan as well. Anyone who has tried to write a business plan between naps of small children, I'm sure, can appreciate the difficulty that that presents.

Another aspect of the employment insurance program is job creation partnerships. Partnerships have been spoken about many times by this government and in this House and, in this instance, this program is referring to partnerships with labour and community groups as well as the private sector. And there are other aspects: targeted earning supplements, skills loans and grants, and employment assistance services.

I notice that the federal government is getting out of the training area and, in particular, after June 30, 1999, the federal government won't be purchasing training, and that particularly represents difficulties for Yukon College and programs that they offer.

There are others - employment assistance services and local labour market partnerships, working with labour groups, community organizations and government agencies, to create opportunities for the unemployed and the underemployed.

There's no question that there are some under the employment insurance program who are not now eligible, and they're individuals who used to be eligible for the employment insurance benefits. Always there are cracks in the sidewalk, holes in programs, where there are people who are deserving of that program and, for one reason or another, the way that restrictions are written, are not receiving the benefits that they should.

There's also no question, and no dispute in this House, that there's a surplus in this particular program. How much is it, and how should it be spent?

All of the data and information that I was able to review prior to entering this debate would indicate that the surplus is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7 billion. I believe that other members have noted that as well.

So, what should be done with this tremendous surplus, which is a number that most of us who balance a household budget can hardly comprehend - or who try to balance a departmental budget? There's a school of thought that there should be a cut to premiums, and excessive EI premiums are labeled by one writer in the Financial Post as a cash grab. That writer went on to indicate that EI premiums are a tax without consultation, because the excess of premiums is paying down Canada's debt, and this is not what the original intent was.

There's another school of thought that says cutting EI premiums would create jobs. Now, this is interesting, and the Member for Klondike has referred to it, and I have experienced several aspects of this program from a number of different fronts. The whole issue of EI premiums and the amount paid by employers - I don't have the immediate statistic at hand, but I would venture to guess that most of the businesses in Yukon are small businesses.

And I have worked with several of them in terms of that cheque on the fifteenth of the month to the Receiver General. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that there are a lot of worried faces in the bank lineups on the fifteenth. There are many of those employers who are wondering how the bank will cover that cheque. That payment is made before they've taken their salary or taken any pay themselves. I've seen many businesses where they ultimately, yes, hope to realize a benefit at the sale of the business, but they're taking, in terms of a salary or payments, less than what many employees who work for them are getting.

There is a lot of worry about cashflow, because we have so many seasonal businesses in the Yukon and its cyclical. There are many worried faces in our community in the retail industry, which is dependent upon, not just on the tourism season, but on Yukoners spending locally. If they can't pay their employees, their employee can't buy goods from other businesses. It goes around and around and around.

I think it should be a requirement that everyone who seeks any kind of public office has seen both sides - has waited for that cheque and worried that the employer can't pay it and has met a mortgage and balanced a family budget and also suffered through situations where the EI program didn't apply to them. You should see the situation from the various perspectives that are out there.

The Reform Party spin doctors tell us that EI premium cuts would provide average Canadians with a $300 a year tax cut and inject billions into medium-sized businesses and generate 200,000 jobs by the year 2000. Well, that's their version.

In April 1997, there was a study by the C.D. Howe Institute, which I found very interesting. McMaster University economist William Scarth says that the best strategy would be to reduce the payroll tax employers pay for low-wage workers and to increase the tax paid for high-wage workers, and employee contributions should remain stable.

Mr. Scarth went on to say that the job-killer label does apply to payroll taxes in unskilled low-paying jobs, because minimum wage laws prevent wages from falling and employers who can't pass on the costs are reluctant to hire. He also said that people in the public debate seem to think payroll taxes are generally job-killers, when I don't know any economist who really thinks this is the case.

Well, economic theorists don't pay minimum wage employees' bills, and they don't pay small-business employer remittances.

I'd like to see more information on that, quite frankly. I think that there are some interesting arguments being presented, and I'm interested to learn more.

We also were able to obtain from Dylan Reid his thoughts regarding what should be done with the excess in the employment insurance fund. His argument was to introduce a training rebate to EI rather than a premium reduction, and he went on to say that an EI training rebate could be accomplished fairly simply. The government could offer a rebate on EI premiums to companies who train their workers equivalent to a third of the money spent on training to one percent of payroll, so a company that spends three percent of its total payroll on training would receive one percent of its total payroll back from the EI fund. However, since training is mainly a provincial responsibility, it would be up to the provinces to identify what forms of training would qualify for the rebate, which some, I suppose, would characterize as offloading and others would see as an opportunity.

He also deals quite directly in this article with the whole issue of corruption and how easily a system such as an EI training rebate could be or could not be corrupted.

The real issue is what to do with the money. And, it is exactly as stated by the Member for Whitehorse Centre. The real issue that we are discussing today, is the people in his riding: the unemployed, the poor and the disadvantaged. The Member for Whitehorse Centre is not the only one who has unemployed in his riding, who has poor, who has disadvantaged people living in his riding. The Member for Whitehorse Centre doesn't have a lock on speaking on behalf of these people in our society. We are all here to represent our constituencies and the people of Yukon. And, who are these people? Well, according to the government's own Bureau of Statistics - this government - employment insurance claims in the Yukon decreased 22.2 percent from July 1997 to August 1997 and, in Whitehorse, EI claims decreased by 17.4 percent over the same period.

Looking at the types of employment insurance benefits and comparing July 1997 - this past summer - to the previous summer, the following changes are apparent: total beneficiaries increased 12.8 percent, regular beneficiaries increased 120 or 15.6 percent, and sickness beneficiaries stayed the same. Monthly changes in the unemployment rate show that the October 1997 figure, 10.8 percent, is down 1.1 percent from the previous month, September 1997 was 11.9 percent.

There are statistics and statistics and more statistics, and there are many in this House who could take issue with those statistics.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: Exactly. There are people who give up; there are people who have, as the Member for Whitehorse West knows, given up. There are also people, as I stated at the beginning, who fall through the cracks; there a holes in the program.

We all have people in our constituencies who are out of work and who are not recognized as being out of work. We have people whose work is not being recognized or valued in any way by our society.

The real issue here is, what are we doing? On that side, what are we doing - either administering or critiquing this government to help make people's lives better, to help Yukoners today and, more importantly, given that almost 25-percent, or one-quarter, of Yukoners are under the age of 15, what are we doing to help the children?

This motion doesn't address Yukoners' needs directly and, as the Member for Whitehorse Centre no doubt expects, I find unfortunate the choice of rhetoric. I believe, personally and as a member of this House, that it isn't terribly productive to this debate or to making the case or to be making a strong case to have this kind of flamboyant rhetoric contained in a motion.

However, this motion sparked a debate about a program which I will join him in defending. Employment insurance is a necessary program. It's fundamental. Regardless of their political stripe or their political level, I believe that there isn't a government program that isn't without fault and without problems, and if you believe you or your government's perfect, well, you've started to believe your own propaganda. What's more, you've placed yourself far above this earthly realm.

The action step contained in this motion, if you get past the rhetoric, is to ask the federal government to use the $7-billion excess in the EI fund to meet the needs of the unemployed. I do not dispute using this money -

Speaker: The member has a minute and a half.

Ms. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not dispute using this money to meet the needs of the unemployed, to meet the needs of those who, through no fault of their own, are less fortunate than others - less fortunate in that the position they were working in is no longer available or that they are under-recognized for what they do.

Past the rhetoric, past the various political dogmas that are expressed on and off, Canadians, and Yukoners in particular - 11 percent of Yukon's unemployed - are anxious to know what we suggest, what we're going to do, how we're going to lobby, and how we feel this money should be spent to help all Canadians and Yukoners and, most especially, the unemployed and the underemployed.

I'm looking forward to the balance of the debate on this motion.

Mr. Livingston: I rise in this House today on behalf of workers in Yukon and their families, small businesses and, indeed, workers and families and small businesses across this country, to support the continuation or the regeneration of an unemployment insurance scheme that does what it's supposed to do: to support unemployed workers through times of stress, times of trouble, when they're without work, in between jobs, to make sure that those workers can live in a sense of security, that their families will have enough to eat, will have clothes on their backs, will have a roof over their heads, to provide that kind of security that Canadians have come to expect in this country of ours.

Mr. Speaker, I was, I guess, flabbergasted to hear the member from the official opposition, to watch him shake his head as he exclaimed, "You know, this Yukon New Democratic Party government believes that all people are entitled to basic needs," and he was shaking his head and wondering how we could come to such a sorry conclusion.

All I can do is just appeal to that member and to all members of this House to think about the children in those families, where a parent may lose their job, for whatever reason. If they can't understand that basic right for the workers, to think about the children and their need for food, their need for shelter, their need for clothes. I can only imagine, Mr. Speaker, that that criticism of the member opposite, that these people aren't entitled to basic needs, would extend to public education, public health care, and the like.

What an incredible thing for a member of this House to say.

The member went on to talk about the environment that attracts business and that we have to compete with all parts of the world. And certainly, I acknowledge that we live in a day when global trade is a part of the reality that we have to deal with, but I would note a recent journey on behalf of members of this House that one of our members took to a small island nation of Mauritius, where they have a port area that has a zero percent corporate tax rate, where they restrict the ability of the local government to apply labour and environmental standards, and where a member of this House visited a number of schools on that island.

They had to search high and low to find a world map so he could show the children in those classrooms where he was from. Finally, they were able to rummage up one of those old chocolate bar maps of the world. It was a number of years old and showed all the Commonwealth countries in pink and all of the French relations in green, and so on, and he had a young student carry this map around from classroom to classroom. That was the world map.

That's the standard in public education that existed in that particular country. This is the kind of country, I would suggest, that, without some standards, without social security programs like unemployment insurance - I cannot believe that Canadians - in fact I know that Canadians aren't looking for that kind of a society.

I would also urge that member to do his research. He suggests that unemployment insurance costs are continuing to grow. Well, in fact, the numbers show us that they are decreasing. The member has simply not done his homework. He talked about the government on this side being a spend, spend, spend government. Well, Mr. Speaker, he represents a party, the last party in the House, that had record-spending levels for the Yukon government.

His suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is a waste of time is utterly ridiculous.

Canada's unemployment insurance system, though, has been under constant attack and its benefits repeatedly reduced over the past 20 years. So this member is not alone in his attack on this program. In fact, cutting unemployment insurance protection has been a key element in harmonizing Canada's labour market and social programs with those of the United States under the free trade agreement and under NAFTA - programs, of course, that were negotiated under a Conservative government in the 1980s - and it has resulted in deep cuts to these particular programs.

The current round of cuts cut federal support for training and labour market programs that have been going on over the last decade. Under the Tories, there was an attempt to withdraw from training and labour market programs through an unsuccessful constitutional change. The Liberals are simply doing it through the Employment Insurance Act.

Further, the provisions of part 2, the employment benefits, does much more than this. It shifts the responsibility for training and employment programs not just to the provinces but it transfers the ultimate cost, Mr. Speaker, of training individuals through loan programs to individuals, employment program services, and it tries to turn these into a profit-driven service. Now, we see some provinces already moving in that kind of a direction.

It's useful just to take a step back for a moment and look at the magnitude of the impacts of changes to unemployment insurance over the last number of years. The Canadian Labour Congress estimates that, by the end of 1997 when the cuts in the new Employment Insurance Act are felt, the proportion of jobless Canadians ineligible for unemployment insurance will be well above 60 percent. Mr. Speaker, close to two-thirds of workers who are unemployed will not be eligible under the new program for income security - the income security plan that they have paid into.

That's not all. The amount of benefits received by the eligible is dropping. The unemployment insurance benefits, from November 1995 to November 1996, decreased by nearly nine percent across the country - that's in one year, Mr. Speaker - by almost 10 percent, despite the fact that the unemployment rate increased by more than one-half of a percentage point - by about 0.6 of a percentage point.

These unemployment cuts deliver a message to both the unemployed and those with jobs. To the jobless, it says, "If you don't have a job, you deserve to be poor; it's your own fault." That's what the message of these unemployment changes is.

To date, the federal Liberal government has not even explained the incredible damage that has already been done to the UI program. I've talked a little bit about that. It is interesting, I think, to take a look at the politics of how this came about.

In the 1993 election campaign, it took place against the backdrop of a couple of recent rounds of unemployment insurance cuts by the former Conservative government under Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson. These were part of a broad pattern of social spending cuts across the whole spectrum. It is interesting to note that the Liberal Members of Parliament at that time were very critical of both the UI cuts and the general pattern of cuts.

The Tory cuts and the changing pattern of employment and unemployment percentage reduced the number of unemployed Canadians to about two-thirds at the time of the election. There were only two-thirds of unemployed workers who were receiving unemployment insurance.

During the 1993 election campaign, we saw the Prime Minister refuse to debate social policy. She said an election campaign is not the place to debate social policy. We saw the Liberals attacking Prime Minister Campbell, but they didn't tell the voters that within six months of the election they would put social programs on the chopping block.

Quite the opposite. In fact, the red book assured Canadians that jobs and preserving our social programs were priorities. I want to quote a short quotation from the red book. It said, "Without a doubt, one of the greatest failings of the Conservative government has been the tendency to focus obsessively on one problem, such as the deficit or inflation, without understanding or caring about the consequences of their policies on other areas, such as lost jobs, increased poverty and dependence on social assistance. Social costs are real. They are measured in human suffering and hard dollars."

Little wonder then that we saw Canadians believing that they were voting for jobs and maintaining our social programs.

We heard the leader of the Liberal Party today, at the beginning of her speech, using euphemisms in calling our unemployment insurance program and employment insurance program. We've changed the words a little bit; changed the emphasis.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of unemployed Canadians out there and we know about those problems in a small volatile economy like the Yukon's, where one employer can make the difference, a significant difference, in our unemployment rate.

We know the value of maintaining a national program that can afford the bumps and the troughs that exist in the economic cycles that go on across our country. That's the value in having a national program. When we look at the national economy, it's dependent on manufacturing; it's dependent on agriculture; it's dependent on forestry and on mining. The value in having a national program is that we share the load; we share it across a broad-based economy and no one region is hit when it's that region's turn to have a bit of a tough economic time.

So, following the 1993 election, another message began to emerge. Another message emerged that led up to the budget of the new government. The Minister of Finance started talking about unemployment insurance being too generous and unemployment insurance dependency. The deficit replaced jobs as the government's priority. They announced a new benefits structure in the 1994 budget, where benefits were cut by more than $4 billion.

Never in the more than the half-century history of this program had such sweeping changes been made without warning, without consultation, without public debate or any extensive hearings. The 1994 budget, the federal Liberal budget, not only did serious damage to unemployment insurance, it cast serious doubt over the entire social security review that had been announced only a few months earlier, in January 1994.

The recent history of debate on unemployment insurance has been a history of the government forcing changes on Canadians over their negative effects or public opposition. Basically, those aspects have been ignored by this government.

What have been some of the impacts on Yukoners? Cuts to the unemployment insurance program have had an impact on social assistance budgets. It is interesting to note that the leader of the Liberal Party talked about increased numbers on the unemployment rolls. Well, once again we see the single largest employer in the Yukon up and down and having some difficulties, despite the fact that unemployment insurance is extended to fewer, and fewer, and fewer Canadians, it is no wonder those numbers might show a slight increase. And, guess why, Mr. Speaker? Because it's this government that has carried the load with our social assistance budgets, especially for the rural residents who depend on seasonal employment.

But, we have to also remember that, with our relatively small budget, at least in terms of the national picture, this is just one more example of the federal Liberal government offloading programs to territories and provinces. And, we cannot take on all these programs offloaded by the federal government. We don't have the fiscal or the human resources to do that.

Further, Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that unemployment insurance is a program that is funded by workers and employers; it is not a program that sits in the general coffers of government, and currently it is a self-funding program. But, it is valuable, I think, to point out that the cuts in federal Liberal programs are extensive. We see the Canada Assistance Plan cuts, Skookum Jim Friendship Centre no longer funded from federal dollars, DIA billings - the Department of Indian Affairs billings - often taking extensive time to get paid, if they get paid. We have, of course, land claims implementation dollars looming on the horizon, and some number of concerns around that.

We have debated recently the importance of alcohol and drug programs, and yet, the Department of Indian Affairs redirected all of the alcohol and drug programming into community programs and refused to continue to cover the cost of treatment for status Indians, and they put a cap on their program funding.

So, we've seen a number of cuts, Mr. Speaker, and I guess what I would point out to the leader of the Liberal Party is that this government has done a number of things despite these cuts.

What are we doing? Well, we've bit the bullet on social service funding. Even though the numbers of claims have increased, we've paid out those claims, because those families deserve to have some sense of security.

We've established programs like Youth Works and other significant programs, programs that have already been described in some detail and listed in this Legislature. I won't go through all of them, but they are there if the member is really interested in seeing the kinds of things that this government has done.

What are Yukoners saying? Well, Yukoners are saying a number of things, and I note in the Yukon hire commission's consultation paper recently issued by the Yukon hire commissioner, one of the things they are commenting about is training. One of the topics that repeatedly came up in discussions was training. "A lack of trained personnel is frequently used to justify outside hiring," it says.

That's why this government has made a commitment in our recent budget speech that the current Yukon training strategy would be reviewed and modified to address current training needs in the Yukon, and it will be the Department of Education spearheading this initiative, and the Yukon hire commission working closely with it.

But clearly, we have got work to do in the areas of inadequate training programs in rural communities, in terms of the number of skilled and qualified people, and this at a time, Mr. Speaker, when one of the direct cuts, one of the direct negative hits, has been the funding through the unemployment insurance program to the Yukon College over a period, I believe, of five years, in the order of $1.2 million. Mr. Speaker, this is simply unacceptable.

It's interesting to note that several Canadian provinces now have lower unemployment insurance protection than some American states. Shortening the benefit period has left over a million claimants exhausting their benefits before they can find other jobs. This is across Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: The member has two minutes.

Mr. Livingston: Mr. Speaker, we see cutbacks in a number of areas - the rollback - and the freezing of the maximum weekly benefits that will be lowered to less than 50-percent penalty on weeks not worked prior to layoff. A claimant, for example, with 10 weeks before layoff, where the fixed period under the act has 20, would get a benefit equivalent to only 27.5 percent of pay. How can he live on that? How can a family survive on that? That's what we're talking about. It's about families meeting their basic needs through these kinds of programs.

There are also penalties now on repeat claims of one percent for every 20 weeks of benefits received. The impact, Mr. Speaker, is in the area of child poverty, women who re-enter the labour force, thousands of laid-off young people, thousands of seasonal workers. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 will have a devastating effect on hundreds of communities and whole regions of the country, on the people and those families, on the small businesses that rely on their business. This is not good news, Mr. Speaker.

This is all about deficits. Well, guess what? This fund, the unemployment insurance fund, has a surplus. In the 1995 year, there was nearly $4.3 billion. It could have completely paid off the $3.6 billion debt of the unemployment insurance account and had a surplus of more than half a billion dollars by year end.

The estimate for the 1996-97 year ranges between $4 billion and $7 billion. Yet, where are we planning to divert this? Into general government coffers. Well, I'll remind you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of this House, it was the workers and the small businesses that paid into this program, and that's where the benefits should remain.

There are a number of things that we can do, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the federal Liberal government to -

Speaker: The member's time has now elapsed.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think you'll have to cut me off. I don't think I'll go on that long on this motion, but it's important that I do rise to speak to this motion today.

I've listened with great interest to the debate on this motion, and I should say that of the speakers before me, none of them have surprised me, whether they be the mover of the motion, the Member for Whitehorse Centre, or whether it be the Member for Laberge or the Member for Whitehorse West or the Member for Porter Creek South. None of them have surprised me in what they've said to this motion.

And it ought not to surprise members opposite when I stand here and say that my caucus will not be supporting this motion. And I will lay out my reasons why we cannot support this motion.

Let me say first of all, for the record, Mr. Speaker, that I and my caucus fully believe in employment insurance. We believe it's a fundamental insurance that is required in this country in the 1990s, and has been for the last 50 years. It's worked well since it was brought in. But let me also say that I don't believe for one minute, like the members opposite, that it should be the be-all and end-all of social programs for Canadians, because it wasn't designed to be a social program, and we keep talking about it as a social program.

It is not a social program. It was designed as an insurance program that employers and employees would contribute to, and I believe, when it first came out, it was on an equal basis. I could be wrong on that, but I believe it was on an equal basis. And since then, the employers are paying more.

But for the members opposite to think that the employers and employees should continue to fund a social program in this country is wrong. Social programs ought to be funded out of general revenues and I, for one, believe that we need to get back the employment insurance, as they call it now - call it unemployment insurance or empl