Bill C-2 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations

Canada Elections Act

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that a dozen is certainly a good, round number. I know that my colleague from North Vancouver proposed that, and in fact the government listened. The government House leader just said that it could have been 15, it could have been 12, but I see that he took the expert and wonderful advice of one of my colleagues, my colleague from North Vancouver.

I would like to talk for a few minutes today about this particular bill. I am amazed, I suppose, but I probably should not be. The fact that this went to court and had to get resolved there is what forced the government to act. It just seems kind of pathetic. Surely if something is worthwhile changing, it is, and dear knows there were more things in the Canada Elections Act that the government could have changed other than this one thing, but the government always seems to be spurred on by a court decision. Everything is reactive in this government. It does not just think something is a wonderful idea and go ahead with it. The courts act in such and such a way and that triggers a reaction to something that the government needs to react to.

Bill C-9 wants to amend the Canada Elections Act. My colleague for Lanark—Carleton has talked about the numbers and how it is a consistent thing anyway.

When we look at the number of people that we need in the House for a party to be registered or acknowledged or recognized as an official party, I know something about it, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I sat here certainly as a proud member of a political party and with much machinery around the country, but I was treated as an independent here in the House of Commons. I know you were certainly kind to me and I do appreciate that. You did know the rules and regulations, as has obviously now been proven. You are sitting in the big chair, as it were. You provided me with a great deal of help. I remember Speaker John Fraser was very kind to me too because he said that after all I had won an election fairly and squarely.

So I have a vested interest certainly in speaking out on behalf of those who belong to smaller political parties. In fact, I remember that when the Reform Party fielded its first candidates in the 1988 election several of us ran. I think we fielded candidates in 72 out of the 88 western ridings. However, until we of course got to that magic number of 50, everyone was concerned because we were not able to act as if we were a full blown political party. I remember that there was great excitement when we got to that number and were able to say that we really could be recognized.

It seems passing strange to me that a government would react. That seems to be the substance of the government: only when pushed into something does it act.

However, let us look at some of the issues. Even though a party may field 12 candidates and be a registered party, is it registered? Not really. We could talk about it, but in fact it is just deemed to be a political party, not a registered party. If we look at the House of Commons now and at the precedent which has been set for some time that we need to have 12 members to be recognized, I would have loved to have had that changed when I was sitting as an “independent” member here, but the rules and the traditions were that a party needed a dozen members.

When we look at this law, we see that it moves to a dozen, which is a good first step, but the party is still not a “registered” political party. That means it cannot use all the tools that are available. It just seems most unfortunate. Even though they have 12 candidates they are not able to obtain a final list of electors.

It has not even been three months since we have come into the new parliament. The election was less than three months ago and when I look around at what all of us went through in the election campaign, I would like to tell the House a couple of tales from the trail.

This was in Edmonton North specifically, but I know that this happened not just there. In fact, when I think about this final list of electors, whereby we have gone to a permanent enumeration, what a nightmare that is for areas of the country such as the constituency I represent in Edmonton North, where there are new houses being built daily. Every time I go out door knocking there is an entire new subdivision there. I am not sure if it is the same in Kingston and the Islands, but I know things are hot in Edmonton North.

Our returning officer is Phyllis Basaraba, for whom I have an incredible amount of respect. I appreciated so much the work she did. However, she was not given the tools. We went into the Elections Canada office which she was trying like crazy to get up and running because the election came so quickly. My campaign team was going out into new areas of Bellerive and new housing developments which were being built so quickly, and they were drawing maps. Elections Canada had no idea of these new places. My guys were out door knocking and were drawing physical maps of where houses were and where lakes were. We would then take these maps over to the returning office and say “Guess what? There are 836 houses in this district”. They would say that they had absolutely no idea of these people on the electors list.

Something is wrong there. It is not just the smaller political parties that would not have access to final voters lists. Surely we need to get proper lists in place. That is a real deficiency I see in the Canada Elections Act and is surely something the government could have and should have come up with. Maybe it would have come up with it if it had been taken to court about it, but it always has to be reactive instead of proactive. This was something from this last election that was very difficult.

Obtaining free broadcast time is another difficulty. Having represented a smaller political party in days gone by, I know that there is always that battle about free advertising time in political broadcasting, which is certainly something that people should have the advantage of.

Also, there is the whole idea of issuing tax receipts to donors. Again, a legitimate party should be able to issue tax receipts at any time of year, not just during a writ period.

Mr. Speaker, someone whom you know and remember well, Elwin Hermanson, has left this place and is the leader of the Saskatchewan Party now. In fact, he is the leader of Her Majesty's official opposition in Saskatchewan. You certainly know him and remember him well. He is a fellow who did a tremendous job in the House. There he is out in Saskatchewan now.

I know this may be provincial—it could be federal—but the bottom line is that his party was not able to issue tax receipts to anyone at any time, even during the writ. When those people ran in the last election about a year and a half ago, there were people of goodwill saying “Here is a hundred bucks because I believe in the cause”. I thought not being able to issue tax receipts at all was just scandalous. If these people are going to operate as a legitimate political party, they certainly should have the right to be able to get those tax receipts issued.

Of course the NDP in Saskatchewan, I am reminded, had a federal wing or cousin, if you will, so it was able to swap receipts back and forth or be registered as a provincial party under the federal one. Of course there was no corollary to the Saskatchewan Party at the federal level.

This seems ludicrous to me. Of course as we know the Saskatchewan Party gave the NDP a good run for its money, even without tax receipts, and Elwin is coming very close to being the premier of Saskatchewan. Dear only knows what will happen during the next election.

When I look at some of those things I think there really are some fundamental injustices. I am not going to leap to the defence of the Communist Party either, but if we do really believe in free speech we ought to believe in free speech when it is good for us and when it is not so good for us.

I certainly am not JoJo the psychic, but I do know that there is going to be court challenge. I will bet a loonie that these smaller political parties will win, because Figueroa did it and someone else is going to do it next. If it is not the Communist Party, it will be some other party.

Let me talk just for a moment again about the reimbursement of election expenses that was provided for under Bill C-2, which was a major revision of the Canada Elections Act. The government is making some small and tinkering amendments to it.

Here is one that maybe they should have paid a whole lot more attention to. Under this provision, only registered parties, those parties that run more than 50 candidates, or now more than 12, will be reimbursed for election expenses providing they obtain either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the aggregate vote in their riding in which they endorse candidates.

Although my party opposes election rebates, we do not believe it is fair that only registered parties should be able to do that. I agree with my colleague, who said it so well, if people are going to vote for those candidates they have every right to do that whether I agree with them or not. I do not think it is fair to punish people by not allowing them to be reimbursed for their election expenses.

When we talk about registered parties versus political parties, those parties that will not be able to get the benefits of full registered parties, I certainly think that sounds like two tier democracy. We all know this government hates to be thought of as endorsing two tier anything but we see proof of it all the time.

If we look at health care, it is just amazing that the government stands up and says that it is the champion and the saviour of universal health care. It is not universal. Many times across the country we see that diversity and a real serious problem with a government that says one thing and of course does another.

HRD grants, immigrant investor loans or something in the industry department are other examples where we see that there really is a two tier system alive and well with this government, and that is unfortunate.

Again today we see evidence that the government believes in two tier democracy. Obviously for members of the government, which has a majority and did fairly well in the last few elections, they are able to stand up and say that they are tier one. They get all the lists, the free broadcast time and the reimbursement of their election expenses. They can tell us that they are sorry for us folks but that we do not get reimbursed. That is two tier.

If we talk about democracy and the right to free speech, then it seems to me that it should be absolutely equivalent for everybody. Let the voters decide that, not the government.

It is important to make sure that the government is really concerned about this issue. It has to be proactive not just reactive, and not take the position that it knows best.

As the House knows, a party can be in government for a while, perhaps a little too long for some of us, but nonetheless, sooner or later it will be in opposition again. That is just as sure as God made little green apples. However, when a party is in government it is such an easy thing to assume that it knows everything, that it has all the answers and that it really does believe in fairness, but it then brings in legislation like this. It is a good little start but there are so many other things it could have done.

What could we do to the Canada Elections Act to make it better? How about enumeration? A little earlier in my remarks I talked about the fact that enumeration was just unbelievable. The returning officers across the country were about ready to tear their hair out during the last election.

First, we have a shorter writ period. When I think about the last election it amazes me how so many things happened and there were such frustrations regarding the enumeration. The whole idea of registered political parties is amazing.

Let me talk about advance voting. I would like to comment for just a few moments on some of the advanced polling horror stories. I have more tales from the trail.

I called into the 1-800 vote number. It took me some time because it seemed to me that no one was ever available there. In the last election I sent people directly to my returning office. That was far more successful and they got tremendous answers. Of course they could get through on the lines or else just drop in to the Northtown Mall where Phyllis Basaraba and her really good crew of people were working.

However, when I phoned the 1-800 number it was like phoning someone on a teenage line. It was almost impossible to get through. When I did get through, this is what happened. I said to the person on the line that my name was Deborah Grey and that I was calling from Edmonton North—Deborah being my first name, which is not exactly unrecognizable as a woman's name—and I was told not once but twice “Just a moment, sir.” This was Elections Canada talking to me, a candidate but also a member of parliament. I said my name was Deborah, not Chris, Terry, Pat or something like that. I said that it was Deborah Grey calling and I was told “Okay, Sir, I'll be right with you”. This made me nervous right off the bat, as one could guess, and I did not, I must confess, have 100% faith in the system as it were.

Well it went from bad to worse because the person asked me what riding I was calling from. I told the person I was calling from Edmonton North. I thought that was pretty simple and straightforward. The person then asked me what province I was in. This was a person from Elections Canada. This was the 1-800-VOTE where answers were to be given to all our problems. Susie Voter could phone in and ask these questions, not that I deserve special treatment, but I was the MP, the candidate phoning in and I was being asked what province Edmonton North was in.

If there is any way that is defensible, I would be really happy to hear it. To me this seems inexcusable from people who are supposed to have the answers. I recall saying that Edmonton is a little town out west and the capital of Alberta.

If I had still been in Beaver River, I could buy that they would have a difficult time because who knows where Beaver River is. Those of us who live in the area certainly know, but I could understand somebody at the other end of the country not having a sweet clue frankly of where Beaver River is, but Edmonton North is a bit of a hint that it could be the capital city of Alberta.

Holy smokes, there are just unbelievable problems in the system. It is no wonder Canadians get frustrated with the whole idea of whether the electoral system works or whether parliament works when the 1-800 number does not even work. How do we run the country?

There is something else I found difficult under the Canada Elections Act, particularly with the changes that were made under Bill C-2, and something I think the government should be addressing in Bill C-9. If it is going to address amendments to the Canada Elections Act under Bill C-9 then it should do it, do it once and do it right.

We have the Canadian citizenship idea where someone could ask a person if he or she is a Canadian citizen. Someone could respond by saying yes but we would not be able to ask for proof.

I just spent a couple of nice weeks in Mexico with my husband. When I was asked if I was a Canadian citizen I said, yes, but the authorities were not terribly impressed with my charming spirit and smile, and the fact that I had said yes, so they asked for my passport. They wanted proof and they had every right to ask for proof. I had my passport and I showed it to them. I knew I was a Canadian citizen. I knew I had proof and I was happy to provide it. However, here in Canada we are not allowed to do that.

If any substantive changes were going to be made to the Canada Elections Act that proof of citizenship should have been one of them for sure. I certainly think that it was high time for that but there is absolutely nothing in here. I have flipped through all these pages and it is just amazing.

When we look at the whole idea of democracy and the frustration of people we see that they really are kind of tired of voting. They do not think it will make a whole lot of difference anyway. I find it sad that we had the lowest voter turnout in a great while. Something has to stimulate the excitement of the Canadian public for them to believe that it really does matter that they participate in democracy. It is unfortunate when we see that democracy itself is pretty unhealthy right now with low voter turnout.

The chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, says that maybe we should have mandatory voting. I do not know if that it is the answer, although I do appreciate that people are at least asking the questions about what we can do to make sure that this place becomes a hair more relevant in people's lives, other than just in their chequebooks, pocketbooks and pay stubs. I really do think we need to make some serious changes in terms of making sure that democracy works better.

On page 83 of his book, Straight from the Heart , which was written in 1985, the Prime Minister, when he was treasury board president, said that in order to keep control the government made a lot of political judgments by itself and many decisions were reached in conversations in the corridors of parliament. He also wrote that he did not permit a lot of questions and that the system gave him a lot of clout. Is that not something to brag about, eh?

That is not democracy, that is pathetic. He went on to say on page 43 that in his judgment maybe no more than 50 MPs make a personal difference in the outcome of their elections. He also said that the rest tended to rely on the appeal of their leader and the luck of belonging to the winning party. He then said that the risk was that MPs would become more marginal, more expendable and at the mercy of the leadership.

He continues in the book to say that certainly fewer backbenchers will be prepared to give their leaders frank advice or tell them to go to hell if they know when they can be replaced. That was written by our present Prime Minister in 1985.

Just a couple of weeks ago in China the Prime Minister said “Ah, all the terra cotta statues. It is something like being home with my backbenchers”. Is this something to brag about democracy? I hardly think so.

Being from the west I just could not let my speech wind down without this statement regarding the west which is on page 159 of the Prime Minister's book. He said that the lack of political representation was a problem, a vicious circle that we did not know how to break. He said that the less the west was represented the more alienated it felt, and the more alienated it felt the less it chose to vote Liberal and the less it was represented. There it is. Is the be all and end all to get seats in parliament to say one is in power for the sake of being in power? No.

Let us aim to be in power so that we can really make a difference, that we can have a vision for moving forward and that this place, parliament itself, becomes a little more relevant to people right across Canada. Canadians should be able to say that they voted and that they made a difference because Canada will be a better place.

When I see the timid changes that the government is attempting, I say that we have to go for it. Fix it once, fix it right and let us make sure that the Canada Elections Act does become a whole lot more relevant to all of us.

Employment Insurance

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted that he made a mistake in imposing the new employment insurance program. Now, the government is back at it with Bill C-2, which only partially corrects the mistakes of the past.

In addition to the permanent perverse effects of the current program, the Minister of Human Resources Development penalized, in the whole Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Charlevoix region, the workers whose applications were submitted between July 9 and September 17, 2000, by requiring them to work 525 hours to qualify and by giving them only 21 weeks of benefits. All this to correct the injustice resulting from the minister's improvised review of the employment insurance regions. There is no reason justifying such discrimination.

The office of the Prime Minister was informed of the situation on December 22 and we are still waiting, like the unemployed concerned, the quick restoring of a fair treatment for seasonal workers in our region.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even before Bill C-2 was introduced, we had submitted a proposal to the government to have two separate bills.

We said we were willing to dispose very quickly of the issue of improvements to the plan. Even before an election was called, when this bill was known as Bill C-44, I remember asking the Prime Minister in the House if we could vote right away on improvements to the plan, excluding the provision enabling the government to divert for its own purposes the employment insurance fund surplus.

Our attitude has not changed. This afternoon in committee we will hear from the minister. We will ask her questions, but we hope that this bill can be passed as soon as possible, as far as improvements to the plan are concerned.

Yesterday in committee we decided to make a list of witnesses who could be invited to appear. Within 24 hours, we came up with a list of 30 or so groups and organizations that wanted to be heard. The committee will begin its deliberations immediately after the visit of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on Thursday, and next week hearings will begin.

We are willing to proceed very rapidly. However, we are hearing from people with very different opinions, including not only the Conseil du patronat du Québec, but also unemployed workers advocacy groups, which know full well that seasonal workers need the money they will get from the elimination of the intensity rule and they need it quickly. However, they also agree with the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi that this bill, if passed as is, will not really deal with the fact that we have a surplus of billions of dollars.

At the same time, we have young people, women and seasonal workers who are not eligible to EI because of the government's greed. The government wants to use the money to fill up the coffers, pay down the debt and pay its expenses, but not give adequate EI benefits.

Yes, we do want the improvements to be passed as soon as possible, because we have been asking for them for several years now. In the last few years, we have introduced about a dozen bills to improve the EI plan. The Liberals have picked two or three of our ideas, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Let us put our time, our energy, the work of our committee and the ability of all members to good use.

I especially ask for the support of the Liberal members who, throughout the election campaign, kept saying that the plan would be changed after the election and that it would greatly benefit all Canadians because it would be made fairer. So far, these commitments have not been added to old Bill C-44.

So, to answer my colleague, I say that yes, it is true, we have to focus all our energy, and as soon as possible, on restoring some value to the plan, but we must not legalize any misappropriation of the EI surplus, as employers, employees and the unemployed would never forgive us.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that it have the power to divide Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, in order that all questions related to the establishment of the premium rate and to Employment Insurance surplus management be in a separate piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to my motion that is supported by all the opposition parties. At committee stage, this motion would divide Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, into two separate bills.

There have previously been two precedents in the House for this type of motion. In fact, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice stipulates the following:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee—

That is the case.

—the House may give the committee an instruction which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill—

Our motion does exactly that.

Bill C-2 brings to our EI plan some of the improvements the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for several years now. However, these changes are minor compared to the EI surplus, which could have been used to improve the plan.

Under Bill C-2, only about 8% of annual surpluses will be given back to workers, to the unemployed, while 92% of these surpluses will continue to be used to cover other government expenditures, including the debt. The money used for all that will come from the contributions paid by employers and workers, but particularly from the benefits that the unemployed will not receive.

This part of the bill is aimed at legalizing the fact that EI contributions are no longer insurance premiums but rather a new payroll tax. This should be the subject of a separate debate, different from the one on improvements to the plan.

The proposal I brought forward is supported by the three opposition parties. Indeed, those parties made very eloquent presentations at a press conference, the purpose of which was to show that, even though all parties do not share the same views on ways of improving the plan, it is possible to have similar objectives.

The Canadian Alliance's views on ways of improving the plan may be very different from ours or from those of the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative Party, but we share the same position with regard to the fact that, by hiding a provision in a bill, the government will legalize the misappropriation of surpluses in the EI fund, something it has been doing for several years. This issue cannot be dealt with at the same time as improvements to the plan.

This is why we are asking the House to mandate the committee to study both issues separately. This afternoon, the committee will hear the human resources development minister, who will have to justify her bill, especially since, during the whole electoral campaign, liberal members have said that the system could be improved some more at the committee stage. I think of the members for Bourassa and for Gaspé—Bonaventure—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok in particular. They were saying that, in committee, improvements other than the ones included in the former Bill C-44, and which are still not found in Bill C-2, could be made.

If we want the committee to give appropriate time to the priority consideration of improvements to the system, I propose this motion which involves the study by the committee of the issue of improvements so that more improvements can be made since Bill C-2 only contains a few.

I am sure that those who will appear before this committee will tell us that these improvements are far from being enough and that many others will have to be added to the government's propositions to broaden eligibility for EI benefits, to eliminate the qualifying period and to ensure that seasonal workers' status is not dependant upon the economic situation in their region and that they are guaranteed a decent income between jobs.

Therefore, all issues concerning the transformation of EI premiums into a payroll tax scheme should be the subject of another debate at a later date.

At that time, the whole issue of tax reform could be raised. We should not forget that the way EI premiums are currently taxed represents a very regressive tax because anyone who earns up to $39,000 has to contribute.

That means that someone earning $43,000, $44,000 or $50,000 a year does not contribute on income over that limit. EI contributors are the ones contributing to the elimination of the deficit and to the reduction of Canada's debt, not those earning over $39,000 or, even worse, those who do not contribute to the EI scheme at all, including members of parliament.

A broad public debate is going on about the whole issue of tax reform, an issue that ought to be discussed elsewhere, for example in a joint committee bringing together members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. It is a much broader issue that is changing the balance between income tax, taxes and payroll tax and their impact on productivity. Those are very distinct elements.

Therefore, I call on the members of the House to debate that issue and to pass this motion. I hope that the Liberal majority will show an open mind and let us debate that matter today.

Parental Leave

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, entitlement under the parental leave program of the federal government for women eligible for employment insurance discriminates against women who give birth prematurely.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Is the minister prepared to amend Bill C-2 to treat these women fairly and enable them to enjoy extended parental leave?

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment, and the new Speaker on his election. I am sure you will show fairness and impartiality in your work.

This is my first time speaking in the 37th parliament. I would have liked to rise before, but I was unfortunately gagged during the debate on Bill C-2. I wanted to speak on behalf of my constituents from Sherbrooke, but unfortunately I was unable to do so.

I would also like to salute my constituents and to thank them for the trust they put in me last November. I know many members talked about their majority when they rose for the first time and I will limit my comments to the fact that I increased mine 11 times. Figures should be interpreted when they are most favourable.

The bill before us today had been introduced before parliament was dissolved. It was then know as Bill C-46. The new Bill C-4 aims at establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development technology. Incidentally, the word foundation is reminiscent of the sad chapter of the millennium fund.

At the beginning of this session, it is difficult to see in what direction the government is aiming. Of course, the throne speech and its promises could provide interesting leads. We realize that all that can be found in that document looks like déjà-vu.

In fact, the legislative program looks the same as what it was before the election was called. Just consider the legislation concerning young offenders and the employment insurance program. Even with regard to Bill C-3, a minister's assistant said only the cover page was changed. That is a nice program. Even the Cabinet remained unchanged. The old federal reflexes of interfering in everything and anything are likely to carry on.

Let us put things briefly in context. Bill C-4, formerly Bill C-46, sponsored by the Minister of Natural Resources, would create a corporation, the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. The objects and purposes of that foundation would be to provide funding for projects to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues.

The establishment of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology is one of the initiatives that the federal government announced in its February 2000 budget to promote environmentally desirable technologies and practices. The foundation would operate as a not for profit organization. It would consist of a chairperson, six directors and eight members, some of them appointed by the government.

The foundation would have to table in parliament an annual report of its activities. The foundation would also have to administer a sustainable development technology fund, which would be provided with an initial amount of $100 million.

According to the backgrounder entitled “Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology”, which was released by the government when the bill was introduced, the foundation would provide funding in two dominant areas: new climate-friendly technologies that hold the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and technologies to address clean air issues. This undertaking is not as clear in the bill, however.

The funding would be for specific projects. In order to benefit the maximum number of innovative sources, the foundation would accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements among technology developers, suppliers and users, universities, not-for-profit organizations, and organizations such as industrial associations and research institutes. Small and medium size enterprises would be strongly encouraged to participate and lead projects supported by the foundation.

The foundation's activities would complement other government programs encouraging technological innovation, such as the Technology Early Action Measures component of the Climate Change Action Fund, and Technology Partnerships Canada in the case of environmental technologies.

The creation of a funding agency responsible for promoting the development of ecological technologies was recommended by the Technology Issues Table. In its December 10, 1999, report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Technology Issues Table recommended the creation of a fund to develop climate change technologies in order to encourage the development of target technologies with the potential to reduce greenhouse gas effects and stimulate international sales.

The technology issues table called for an initial investment of $20 million annually, to be increased to $200 million annually starting in the fifth year. It also recommended that 50% of the funding come from federal sources, 25% from provincial sources and 25% from private sources, although it felt that this could vary from one project to another.

Noting that one of the major challenges of innovation is the initial introduction of new technologies and new services in the market, the issue table also recommended the creation of a climate change technology demonstration program that would offset some portion of the financial risks involved in early domestic commercialization of greenhouse gas mitigation technologies.

According to the issue, this option should ramp up from $60 million per annum for year one to $300 million per annum for year five. The federal government should provide, on a portfolio basis, up to 30% of the investment, with the remainder originating from provincial and industry sources. The federal component would be repayable.

In this context the government decided in its budget 2000 to create the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, which would support both development and demonstration activities but would not limit itself to climate change technologies.

Instead, it would fund various projects aimed at promoting technologies that contribute to sustainable development. Thus, this is a category of much larger projects.

While the government said it intended to put the emphasis on the funding of new technologies relating to climate change and clean air, the bill does not reflect this priority. It simply deals with the funding of sustainable development technologies, particularly those that are aimed at bringing solutions to climate change and air pollution issues.

Under the definition of “eligible project” in clause 2, the bill does not give express priority to the latter type of projects. Therefore, it might be up to the foundation alone to determine, under clause 19, what types of projects relating to sustainable development it would be prepared to fund.

It is important to note that the definition of eligible recipient in clause 2 refers to an entity that meets the criteria of eligibility established in any agreement entered into between the government and the foundation. It is not clearly indicated if this power, whose concrete aspects are not defined anywhere in the bill, could be used by the government to restrict the definition of “eligible recipient” to those claimants that carry on specific types of projects, thus influencing or restricting the foundation's funding decisions.

In other words, could the government and the foundation agree on eligibility criteria that would impact on what is an eligible project? It would be appropriate to get some clarification on that point, particularly since the government said that the foundation will not be an agent of Her Majesty.

The round table on technologies recommended initial funding of $80 million for the two phases of the projects, that is $20 million for development and $60 million for demonstration. It also recommended that this amount be increased to $500 million after five years, or $200 million for development projects and $300 million for demonstration projects.

Under the bill, the foundation would get an initial amount of $100 million to support development and demonstration projects. Now, since the foundation's mandate goes beyond the financing of technologies linked to climate change, one could come to the conclusion that the financing provided is insufficient, at least for the initial period.

I would also like to talk about some Liberal commitments regarding the environment. I would like to remind the House of some promises made by the Liberals during the last election campaign and contained in the third edition of the red book. However, the events of last week have shown the real usefulness of such documents. They do not seem to stand the test of time, since the authors of the promises contained in the red book voted against a motion containing one of those promises word for word.

Here are some of those promises which are directly linked to the subject matter of today's debate. Again, these are promises made by the Liberal government. They are the following:

(1) A new Liberal government will help the private sector by maintaining R&D tax credits that are already among the most generous in the world, and by working to commercialise discoveries made in government and university labs.

(2) A new Liberal government will act to significantly improve air quality for all Canadians. We will make special efforts to clean-up the air of our cities, where the population and the pollutants are most highly concentrated.

(3) A new Liberal government will continue to support the development of cleaner engines and fuels, and we will strengthen emissions standards for vehicles. We will greatly reduce sulphur in diesel fuel.

(4) A new Liberal government will attack the problem on several fronts under our Action Plan on Climate Change. We will promote increase energy efficiency in industry and in the transportation system. We will fund the development of new energy technologies, such as fuel cells, and help farmers to reduce agricultural emissions through improved farming methods.

Those are promises still. I continue:

We will increase Canada's use of renewable energy, such as electricity from wind and ethanol from biomass. We will encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient products by providing information and setting high product standards.

That makes a lot of promises. In the throne speech, the government essentially repeated the same things. It said, for instance.

As part of its efforts to promote global sustainable development, the Government will ensure that Canada does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will work with its provincial and territorial partners to implement the recently announced first national business plan on climate change.

I am not going to comment on these statements and promises one by one. A number of them, however, were already known. For instance, the action plan on climate change was announced last October 6.

In the 1997 and 1999 throne speeches, the Liberals announced that they would make the environment one of their priorities, that they would address the matter of climate changes and commit to promoting sustainable development on an international scale. Yet the budget allocated to the environment has done nothing but decrease since 1994-95.

How then can the Liberals be believed? We have no choice but to conclude that there is a lot of difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. For example, Environment Canada announced several months ago that it was going to call for tenders for the design of an import-export policy for PCB contaminated waste. This was made necessary by budget cuts at Environment Canada. As a result of these cuts, the private sector was entrusted with the mandate of designing policies on the import and export of hazardous waste. Really now.

I have, nonetheless, retained a few words from the vocabulary used in the promises and the throne speech: “on several fronts”, “provincial and territorial partners”.

Several fronts suggests a shotgun approach, in all directions and none at the same time. I presume that the government has good intentions and is acting in good faith. However, what does such concern hide? We saw the government move on several fronts in the case of the millennium scholarships and other initiatives in the education area, but its partners are given very little consideration. The federal government always acts as if it was the holder of absolute truth.

Let us now turn briefly to what the environment and sustainable development commissioner said. If the federal government really wants to take the path of sustainable development, it should start by examining its own operations to identify the areas it could improve before telling people that they should consume more ecological and energy efficient products. In his report for the year 2000, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said:

Since 1990, the federal government has made commitments to Canadians that it would green its operations. Yet, a decade later, there is a lack of rudimentary information about government's vast operations, the costs of which are likely more than $400 million annually for water, energy and waste disposal. We found that the government does not have complete and accurate data on the annual cost of running its buildings and on the environmental impacts of its operations.

When compared to Liberal commitments, this statement by the commissioner reveals that what is probably lacking the most at the federal level is concerted action. After the fiasco of the heating bill visibility operation we see clearly that the government does not have a long term vision.

Also, I would be remiss if I did not underline the recent findings of the auditor general on various appointments. The establishment of a foundation necessarily implies the appointment of a board of directors. I hope that the ministers who will make the appointments will base their decision more on the competence of the candidates than on their political allegiance.

Another point is the fact that Canada clearly will not fulfil its Kyoto commitment. Not only does Canada not appear to be on the way to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but it actually appears to be increasing them.

In the February edition of Le Monde diplomatique , it is reported that Canada is part of group of countries called the umbrella group. Reference is made to the November 2000 conference held in The Hague, which ended in failure due to these countries' intransigence.

These countries are attached to loopholes such as the unlimited emission rights instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and insist on taking forests into account in the determination of efforts made by each country. Organizations have already denounced the hypocrisy of Canada, which is hoping to boost its reactor sales by trying to include nuclear energy among clean tools of economic development.

At the Vancouver environment and natural resources ministers conference, Ottawa tried to address only public awareness measures and investment projects in less energy consuming technologies. And yet, if the trend holds, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada could be 35% above what they should be.

We must therefore conclude from these examples that what Canada is lacking is the firm political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Resorting to its age old strategy of invading provincial jurisdictions rather than developing a joint strategy, Canada will not be able to meet its international commitments.

The establishment of foundations and other similar initiatives will only ease the Canadian government's conscience without leading to any tangible result.

Would this be a new hobby aiming at shrinking the provincial role? Quebec does not need anybody's advice. As Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau used to say:

One way to offset the attraction of separatism is to put time, energy and huge amounts of money at the service of federal nationalism.

No doubt, the environment will be the next area to be invaded by the federal government to try and shrink Quebec's role even more. After the Canadian millennium scholarships, education, the health minister's plans for a family medicine program, the new federal hobby may well be the environment.

In this respect, the bill under consideration, which establishes a foundation to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, appears to belong to the Canadian government's continued effort to have its way in many spheres of human action. What will the foundation do? How much money will it have at its disposal? The news release announcing the bill states:

The new Foundation will administer the Sustainable Development Technology Fund for the development and demonstration of new technologies, in particular, those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality.

We are told as well that the foundation will have a budget of $100 million. How will the federal government reconcile the many efforts being made in the area of climate change and sustainable development? How will the money allocated for this foundation differ from the climate change action fund? Part of this fund is intended for cost effective technological projects promoting a reduction in greenhouse gases.

The Liberals have a long tradition of unfulfilled promises with respect to the environment. More specifically, in the area of greenhouse gases, not only is Canada not sufficiently reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, it is significantly increasing them. Rather than making a serious commitment to reduce them, Canada is now one of the group of countries that is looking more for loopholes in the Kyoto protocol than it is for sustainable ways to reduce emissions.

In this regard Quebec's energy choices are exemplary, and Quebec is resolutely committed to reducing greenhouse gases.

Will this foundation support initiatives in the nuclear sector? We could think so, since Canada has lobbied vigorously to have nuclear energy considered green.

In our election platform we noted that an investment of $1.5 billion was required for the environment. The federal government must attack this problem seriously. Had it not implemented the policy of $125 for heating oil, for example, it could have saved $1.3 billion. Will the foundation's $100 million be enough? Only the future will tell.

The Bloc Quebecois of course would support this bill because our party is concerned about the environment.

We would support the bill if it were amended on six factors giving rise to concern and opposition from the Bloc.

The first one is the division of powers. We see this as an underhanded way for the federal government to intrude once again in provincial jurisdiction.

The second one is that Quebec already has such a foundation. The creation of this foundation comes as a surprise, since a $45 million action fund for sustainable development already exists in Quebec.

Instead of creating this foundation, the federal government should transfer the money to Quebec's agencies, which are already working along the lines recommended by the table and which have a good understanding of the issue.

Concentration of powers is another factor. Practically all the directors of the foundation are appointed by the governor in council. Under the bill, the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, appoints seven of the fifteen directors. However, the eight other directors are appointed by the very members appointed by the governor in council.

Finally, the chairperson and all directors may be removed for cause by the governor in council. This method of appointment seems to be a roundabout way of allowing the federal government to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction and to have control over an organization that is not accountable to parliament.

The fact that the governor in council has the authority to enter into agreements with the foundation to set eligibility criteria regarding eligible recipients shows that this organization would not really operate at arm's length from the federal government. The latter would, in a roundabout way, have a say as to how funding is granted to eligible recipients.

Another factor is the dangerous definitions contained in the bill. For example, since the term “eligible project” deals with technologies that include, but are not restricted to, those to address climate change and air quality issues, this could allow funding for nuclear technology projects justified as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which would be contrary to the commitments made by the federal government in Kyoto.

The fifth factor to consider is the disparity between the recommendations from the table and the bill. The foundation would be responsible for managing funds to support technologies to promote sustainable development. It is certainly a lofty goal, but it is rather vague when used in a bill.

The establishment of such a foundation would not reflect the main recommendation of the table which was to allocate money for the development of technologies to reduce greenhouses gas emissions and to stimulate international sales.

The bill does not reflect the general direction of the recommendations of the technology table, mainly because it does not include a goal oriented implementation strategy. Also, the bill does not promote co-operation between the federal government, the provinces and industry and does not contain a qualitative definition of the benefits and factors contributing to our quality of live for each of the options.

The bill only focuses on two of the eight options brought forward by the technology table.

The last factor has to do with the level of funding. We are concerned about the small amount allocated to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998, the Anderson strategy had a budget totalling $1.3 billion over a period of five years to fight this problem.

On December 10, 1998, the table released a report on the development of technological innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in which it recommended that a fund be set up, with an initial contribution of $80 million for both stages, development and demonstration, and that the funding be increased to $500 million after five years.

Since the terms of reference of the foundation are not limited to technologies addressing climate change, the funding for the initial phase is not enough.

In conclusion, I would say that, through its environmental policy, the Bloc Quebecois does support positive and proactive actions, provided they take into account the fact that Quebec is an important stakeholder.

Therefore, we will be moving amendments at committee stage.

Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-3, which was originally introduced before parliament was dissolved.

First, I would like to make a comment. The Bloc Quebecois is not against this bill. However, the fact that we have to debate an issue that could already have been discussed, if an unnecessary election had not been called, leads us increasingly to realize with all these bills that this government has no legislative agenda.

The only items we have been called on to debate are bills which had been introduced before the House was dissolved. Those bills are brought back with minor technical changes and are presented to us as an important legislative agenda.

This shows once again that this government has no vision nor any clear policy. It does not know where it is heading. It is the first time in my short political career, and also in a previous life as a reporter, that I see a government with so poor a legislative agenda.

When I looked at Bill C-3, I hoped the government might have taken advantage of this opportunity to really deal with the problem of the oil companies. All we are asked to do is to amend rules and regulations in order to permit a deal involving the owners of Petro-Canada, those who might buy its shares. However, this does not get to the heart of the issue.

This bill does absolutely nothing to alleviate the crisis faced by Quebecers, especially in areas where gas prices are very high. There has been no change in spite of the oil companies' record profits. What we see is that there has been no change in the concentration and centralization of decision making. When we talk about capitalist countries, we are talking about the United States, of course.

In the U.S., there are laws protecting companies, distributors and retailers, thus improving the economy within this system. Here, over the last 25 years, we have seen retailers and distributors disappear, and big companies take over the market.

This is of great concern to me as my riding of Lotbinière-L'Érable is very rural. Over the past 25 years, we have seen the local garage disappear. We were better off when we had a gas station, at least then there were attendants to serve us. Now we are left with self-serve gas bars. They are run by the oil companies. The managers of these outlets have nothing to do with pricing and the profit margin.

Let me give the House a very specific example. The managers of two related companies, Petro-Canada and Esso, met with me to give me a press release issued by each of their companies. Both press releases were issued at 7.04 a.m. and were similar in that they informed their managers that both companies, Petro-Canada and Esso, were setting the price at a certain amount and indicating what their profit margin would be that day.

The problem with gas is not only at the pump. It is also a management problem. These people told me “Do not mention the municipalities. Do not try to identify us, because we will suffer reprisals at the hands of our companies. If they find out that we tried to get a little more, that we tried to be a bit fairer, they will reduce our profit margin”. These people are terrorized.

According to a report not yet published, but which we had an opportunity to get a glimpse of, “All is well in the wonderful world of the oil companies”.

My riding is rather small, let us say that it is 120 kilometres from one end to the other along highway 20. My riding is on the south shore near Quebec City. The price differences can be 6, 8, or 10 cents. Could someone explain that to me?

Is it due to transportation? I doubt very much that it could increase the price of oil by 8 or 10 cents. Is it due to taxes? As far as I know, politicians, in Quebec as well as in Canada, explain in their budget how they manage it.

This is not due to transportation or to taxes and, as I said, management has nothing to do with it neither. This means that oil companies are increasingly taking control of retailers.

A television channel called LCN is now presenting the hit-parade of gas prices. Here is the hit-parade: in the Eastern Townships, 82 cents; in Lac-Saint-Jean, 81 cents; in central Quebec, 79 cents; in the Quebec City area, 77 cents, and so on. But this is ridiculous.

When this government tells us that everything is fine in the oil industry and when the Conference Board of Canada tells us officially, as it will soon tell us, that there is no problem, they are laughing at people.

They are laughing at people because, as I explained with many examples, the retailer has no control on his profit margin nor on prices. In addition to that, the situation is so ridiculous, prices changes so much, going up and down like a yo-yo—so to speak—everywhere in Quebec that we now see the hit-parade of gas prices on LCN. This is ridiculous. Who foots the bill? It is the workers, both wen and women, and the small and medium size businesses who foot the bill.

I will now move on to the heating oil issue and the $125 or $250 that were paid. Could someone please explain to me why a person living alone gets $125 and two persons living together get $250. As far as I know, the price of fuel oil is the same. This government is always determined to put forward diversionary measures.

It would have been far simpler, instead of having this propaganda operation, this flag-waving exercise by the great Liberal Party of Canada, to really attack the problem at its source and find a means to ensure that the people paying for fuel oil are the ones to receive the $125 and $250, and to make the amounts uniform. Prisoners got cheques. People who have been bedridden for the past ten years in chronic care hospitals got cheques. Young people got cheques.

This week, a minister announced in the House that they were going to get parents to have their children return the $125. I am not here to promote the clothing stores, but I can tell hon. members that that $125 has already gone on jeans, coats and cool shirts. A person would have to be out of touch with reality to not realize that a kid with a cheque for $125 is going to cash it. He is not going to mention it to his parents. I have had parents calling me to ask “What is this business of $125?” They had not heard anything about it. This is unacceptable.

Now we have the government turning up here with a bill aimed at transactions and trying to get out of a field from which it ought to have pulled out a long time ago. Much editorial ink has been flowed about this bill since the start of the session. The latest clipping I have in hand is this one of an editorial by Jean-Paul Gagné in Les Affaires . I would advise hon. members to listen carefully.

Petro-Canada has just made the highest net profit in its history: $893 million or $3.28 a share in the year 2000, compared to its 1999 figure of $233 million or 86 cents a share.

He goes on to tell us what Petro-Canada is about.

This company was created in 1975 by the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau to enable Ottawa, so they said, to acquire an indicator sector in the petroleum industry, which was and remains dominated by foreign multinationals, and to better understand the industry.

The Liberals of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s or 2000s do not change. They say any old thing. We have the proof once again with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who tried to get us to believe that, with the creation of Petro-Canada, we would be protected from the multinationals. What a monumental joke. The editorialist continued, saying:

At the same time, this was an opportunity to plaster maple leaf designs throughout a vast network of gasoline sales points from one end of Canada to the other.

The fine symbol of the maple leaf was at the heart of the creation of Petro-Canada. When will this government get down to dealing with the real problems? I have talked about the problem that stands out with the price of gasoline. I have talked about the problem that stands out with heating oil and the problem of the fluctuations in the price of gasoline not only within regions but even within my riding.

I also mentioned that, in the last 25 years, self-service stations have cropped up while service stations and small local garages disappeared, and all the government has to offer is Bill C-3.

The Minister of Industry and the Minister for International Trade keep saying “We are going to table the report of the Conference Board of Canada. You will see, they will come up with some solutions”. Nothing will be changed and once again the poor will foot the bill.

What I find unfortunate is that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, when we rise in this House, we seem to be the only ones in touch with what is going on in our ridings, in touch with the people. How many times have people come to me saying “Look, Mr. Desrochers, if the gas price keeps going up, I will no longer be able to drive to work, about 10 miles away from home, because I already have a house, two kids, a car and I cannot make ends meet”.

The government does not seem to care, since it does not have any qualms about the oil companies getting richer on the backs of the ordinary citizens. The current government, which has been in office since 1993, has worked extra hard to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. We have huge debates on market globalization and global economic integration, but we do not get to the bottom of these issues.

When we talk about concentration, as in this case with oil companies, and when we talk about market globalization, as we are doing today, people get worried. When they see Americans, Asians or Europeans, who have a different mentality than North Americans, Canadians and Quebecers, move into their communities, people are afraid they might lose their jobs.

These are direct consequences of market globalization. It is a direct consequence of corporate concentration. These things are all happening under the federal government's nose. The federal government should closely monitor them, if it wants to maintain a sound economy. But no, the government would rather boast. It is pleased to see our heritage being sold. Who is paying for all this? It is ordinary workers.

The average salary back home has nothing to do with the figure provided Statistics Canada, because it makes no sense. Back home the average salary is around $25,000 or $30,000 a year, and I am being generous, for a family with two children and a mortgage.

Recently, I saw an add showing a person who was choking and losing his voice. I am losing my voice today, but it is because, like many, I was caught off guard by the sudden changes in temperature. But that person was losing his voice because he continuously felt choked. The same thing is happening in our ridings. People come and see us because they feel choked. They do not know how they will manage to pay their bills at the end of the month. They do not know how they will be able to plan for their holidays.

This is all because of the little games played by oil companies. This year, they were rather nice, they did not hit us too hard during the Christmas season. But I can guarantee that we will pay dearly when the nice weather comes, in May and June.

It is not for nothing that some oil companies have already begun changing the prices at the pumps. It is no fluke that Ultramar, to take one example, has set its sights on being able to post a price of $1 on its pumps. These people know what is in the wind. They point to international rulings, but they have some leeway and they do not approve.

Bill C-3 is not the way to sort out the whole business of increases in gasoline and heating oil prices.

We hope, through comments such as these in the House, to bring home to the federal government the human misery—I am not afraid to say it—that is taking hold in our regions.

I will not go over the entire history of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. It has been addressed at length this week. As I was saying a few minutes earlier, in everything it does, the federal government is overlooking the middle class. The middle class is fading right out of existence.

Yet it is the middle class that paid most of the taxes levied by the members across the way. It is totally unacceptable. Will we go back to social democratic values, family values, values of mutual support and solidarity to save Quebec society? I doubt it.

Lastly, I want to mention that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-3, but it condemns all of the government policies adopted in the last few years concerning the concentration and the consolidation of oil companies. It also condemns the government for ignoring those who always end up paying: the poorest among our workers. I have this to say to the Liberals: wake up.

Employment Insurance

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada is very critical of the federal government's misappropriation of the surplus in the EI fund, and I quote:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission has not explained how it sets premium rates under the Employment Insurance Act. These rates have resulted in the rise of the Employment Insurance Account's accumulated surplus. Although it is notional in nature, the accumulated surplus balance has increased by $7.2 billion for the year to $28.2 billion at 31 March 2000. This is almost twice the maximum amount considered sufficient by the Chief Actuary.

Clearly, this shows that the federal government has used employment insurance premiums to pay down its deficit on the backs of the unemployed, workers and employers. Now it wants to use Bill C-2 to legalize this misappropriation of funds.

Seasonal workers in Quebec and in Canada are entitled to ask the federal government for what is owed them and in fact is theirs.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, certain members opposite—not the member who just spoke—have chosen to delay passage of Bill C-2 before and after the election. Today, they are saying they are sorry and asking Canadians to forgive them.

It does not work like that. Members must pass this bill, which is good for all Canadians. That is what I said, and that is what we are going to do.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on leaving the Liberal caucus meeting, the government House leader said, in reference to Bill C-2 on employment insurance, that the opposition could not have their cake and eat it too.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Would she agree that, in fact, the whole cake belongs to workers and employers and not to the Liberal government?

Supply

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to pay tribute to André d'Allemagne who was not only a friend, but a colleague of mine. We both taught at the Collège Maisonneuve for over eight years.

He recently passed away at the age of 71. He was a pioneer of the sovereignty movement and an educator, not only in his capacity as a teacher but also at the political level. Quebec has lost a first class citizen to whom I wanted to pay tribute today.

This being my maiden speech in the House, I would also like to thank the people of the riding of Joliette for the trust they put in me last November 27. I can assure them today, as I did during the election campaign, that I will defend the interests of Quebec and of my fellow citizens of Joliette.

Introducing this motion today offers me the first opportunity to ensure that their interests are defended. The motion reads as follows:

That this House demand that the government bring any draft agreement on the Free Trade Zone of the Americas before the House so that it may be debated and put to a vote before ratification by the Government of Canada.

From April 20 to 22, the 34 heads of state and of government of the Americas, with the exception of Cuba, will be holding the third summit of the Americas in Quebec City. This will be an extremely important event as far as the process of creating a free trade area of the Americas is concerned. The related agreement is slated for around 2005. Creation of a free trade area of the Americas is both an extraordinary challenge for all the states and peoples of the Americas and an extraordinary opportunity. It can, however, involve considerable risk.

Creation of a free trade area is far from being a guarantee, a cure-all, for all our woes, whether economic or social. This we have seen, moreover, with the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA area encompassing Canada, Quebec, the United States and Mexico. For example, its creation did not prevent the crisis of the peso and the widening of the social gap. In our societies—and this applies to Canada, the United States and Mexico— more and more people are living not only in poverty but in abject poverty. We must therefore be extremely vigilant in negotiating or creating these free trade areas, while still remaining open to the process.

This process must be the result of democratic debate. That is why the Bloc Quebecois, through me, is today introducing this motion, because we have concerns. We are concerned for Quebec's rights first, because obviously it is always troubling to see the federal government negotiate on behalf of Quebecers on the economic, social and cultural front. But we are also concerned for all Canadians and Quebecers as far as respect of social and environmental rights is concerned.

In the past our governments, and this is true for the federal government, but also for the U.S. and Mexican governments, were not vigilant or, I would say, were not overly concerned about the social, environmental, political and cultural consequences of these trade agreements.

As an unionist, I was able to follow these debates from the start, in the mid-eighties. I recall very well that in 1989—and the federal Liberals were by the way in agreement with us on that— we were not taking into account the fact that the negotiation of free trade agreements with the United States was going to have social and environmental implications. We can now see that. For example, Bill C-2 on employment insurance is a direct consequence, and this is not the only reason, of the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. We now know that our employment insurance plan reflects more or less what exists in most of the states in the U.S.

In 1989, during the negotiation of the free trade agreement with the United States, we did not want to recognize that there were social, environmental and cultural implications. In 1994, because of public pressure in Canada, Quebec, the United States and Mexico, governments were forced to adopt, at the same time as the North American Free Trade Agreement, side accords on environmental and labour standards. These accords were signed because of public pressure and pressure from parliamentarians, particularly in the United States.

Recently, in 2001, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he alluded to the possibility of introducing social clauses in the agreement. This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. However, we must not give up. The public and parliamentarians must continue to exert pressure to ensure that the free trade agreement of the Americas will include clauses that protect our social and environmental rights and also Quebec's interests.

Canada and Quebec have open economies. We have a vested interest in trade liberalization. These agreements are also extraordinary opportunities for co-operation with countries from the south and even within our societies. However, this integration of the economies and of the markets must be controlled by introducing social clauses, particularly to protect labour rights.

Let us be clear. When we talk about protecting labour rights, we are not talking about standards. We are talking about fundamental rights that are recognized by the International Labour Organization, rights such as the banning of child labour, forced labour and discrimination, and the recognition of the freedom of association and of the right to collective bargaining.

How will each country in the Americas implement these rights? It will be up to them, based on their respective histories and cultures. I often give the example—and I will do it again here in the House—that in Canada, the United States and Quebec we recognize the freedom of association through very specific forms of union certification. In Mexico and in Latin American countries, this may be done in a different way. It is also done differently in Europe. The important thing is for governments to pledge to respect those fundamental rights in the way that will better suit these societies.

Likewise, the approach that we favour is not a punitive one. In this respect, Latin-American countries need not fear the emergence of a new form of social protectionism. It is rather by co-operation that we want to help those countries, as well as our own North-American countries, respect those rights. Let us not forget that we are in no position to lecture anyone. We sometimes have things to learn from others.

It is therefore a co-operative approach that we favour, not one of sanctions. The same applies for the environment. We have to ensure that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas will clearly indicate the common desire of all the populations of the Americas to promote a sound and sustainable environment.

To that end, civil societies and parliamentarians have to play an active role in the negotiation process. The texts on which negotiations are based should be made available so that Quebecers and Canadians, as well as the members of the House, will be able to evaluate the validity and accuracy of the Canadian government's positions regarding what is being done in the free trade area of the Americas negotiation process.

It seems to me that we should have learned from what happened with the multilateral agreement on investment that was secretly negotiated for two years at the OECD. Sooner or later the basic texts will be made public. A citizen group is sure to release them. This will give rise to a negative reaction against the whole process, even though the process could have been well defined.

Transparency is therefore very important. So there is reason for concern, particularly with statements like the one made by the Minister for International Trade in the House on February 1.

As for the negotiating documents, obviously there are 34 parties to it. It is not up to Canada to share it if other countries do not want to share it. Canada would support sharing it at this stage. However our partners do not wish that. We will respect them.

We are extremely concerned that, even though we are only at the negotiating stage, already the Canadian government is not assuming a leadership role with respect to this minimum requirement of transparency. As for contradictory statements, we could add this one by Mr. Lortie, the Prime Minister's personal representative throughout the preparations for the summit of the Americas: “Too much transparency would be chaotic at this stage in the preparations”.

Is it possible to be too transparent? Is it possible to be too democratic? I do not think so. Parliamentarians must be able to debate these issues. That is why the Bloc Quebecois tabled this motion. We must ensure that the free trade area of the Americas agreement is discussed in the House. I urge the members of all political parties to ensure that we have some way of being able to evaluate the negotiations that will take place.

Recently, Mr. Chrétien stated—

Employment Insurance Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at second reading stage of Bill C-2.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this February 13, 2001, I rise with sadness to speak to this issue.

Usually, the day before Valentine's Day, we get ready to tell those we love best that tomorrow is a very important day, when we will again offer them our very special wishes, but on this February 13, the government brought in time allocation on Bill C-2. Exactly 66 days prior, the government brought back Bill C-44 as Bill C-2.

During the election campaign, the government made a commitment, particularly to workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, to amend the bill and make it acceptable to them. I would not think of harking back to the same old stories, but I remember that, on two visits made last September and October by the Minister of National Revenue, workers back home told him “It is too bad, but you are out. We cannot accept Bill C-44”.

During the campaign, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport came to tell them “Vote for me, give us a strong majority, and we will satisfy your expectations”. Today I regret to tell workers in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area and throughout Quebec and Canada that the government told them a big lie. The government said to them “Take my word and we will give you what you want”.

However, it must be recognized that the saying “commitment made, commitment retracted” says it all. I note that this government does not want to respond to people's real expectations.

We have criticized this Bill C-2. I was at a meeting of some one hundred thousand workers in the riding of Jonquière during the election campaign. They had come to tell the government that they wanted an independent employment insurance fund. They said that, as they and employers paid into it, they should administer it, because they contribute to it to provide themselves with some security. The government turned a deaf ear, but spoke to them saying “I do not hear you, but be assured I will meet your expectations”.

The day after the election, naturally, as Félix Leclerc says “I had forgotten your name, I had forgotten the promises I made to you”. I am sad to note that the government is refusing, in the voices of democratically elected representatives, to tell the House and Canadians how much the workers in the riding of Jonquière and the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region oppose this bill. They will fight until they are backed into a corner to get the ministers who visited us to honour their word.

At home, we keep our word, and people who keep their word have only one word. Let the members of the government understand that. When we sit in parliamentary committee, we in the Bloc Quebecois will see that this bill meets the real expectations of the workers. Government members will have to honour their word.

We are simply holding our fire. We will be waiting for them in committee. The real debate will take place there, and the real people will be heard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2. To begin, I would like to comment on the last remark about Canada's embassies around the world.

Canada's embassies are very important, and the hon. member opposite knows that. They are important in terms of trade relationships and creating jobs, which the bill is indeed related to. Never mind the malarkey in terms of trying to make a fuss about the cost of an embassy. They are an important part of the Canadian government. I am glad they are there to represent Canada in our business relations and other relations around the world.

I also wonder why the hon. member opposite is so excited about our embassy when Quebec is out there setting up its own embassies and duplicating what is already there. That is where the real waste is, in terms of the embassies that the Quebec government is establishing.

As I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-2. I especially welcome the amendments to the act. It is a very good step forward to improvements on the original bill.

Quite a number of members on this side of the House had serious concerns about certain parts of the bill, especially the intensity rule. That is why, in 1996, we welcomed the proposal to monitor the impacts of the bill. Bill C-2, which is all about making positive changes where needed, is a result of that monitoring.

We want EI to work the way it was intended, and that is to offer temporary support to workers who are unemployed so they can rejoin the workforce. I am pleased that for the most part the provisions of the employment insurance program are working the way they were intended.

My contribution to the debate will be to explain the proposed changes to the intensity provisions. The original thinking behind the intensity rule was to provide a greater incentive to work and to reduce dependence on EI as an income support.

Some thought the intensity rule would accomplish this by reducing the benefit rate of frequent claimants from 55% over time to 50%. In other words, the benefit rate would be reduced by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of regular benefits collected over the past five years.

The rule has proven to be ineffective. The monitoring and assessment reports indicate that the proportion of EI benefits paid out to frequent claimants has remained stable at around 40%. There is a reason for that of course, and it is the availability of work in certain areas. In a country like Canada we naturally have a lot of seasonal industries.

The government has done much in terms of creating the economic conditions for the creation of jobs. We got rid of the deficit. We have introduced new initiatives. In my region we have better utilized the regional development agency, ACOA. We are implementing the Atlantic investment partnership, and are basically there as a government trying to create more year round jobs, more full time jobs and longer periods of work for people in seasonal industries.

These initiatives and others across Canada have improved the employment picture with the creation of over two million jobs since 1993. However, Canada will always have seasonal industries which, by their very nature, require seasonal workers.

My colleague, the member for Egmont, mentioned his riding and the seasonal workers there. These are important industries. Workers in the agriculture and fisheries only work at certain times of the year because of the nature of the industries and of our climate. However, those workers are important to the economy. They contribute to the economy in a very great way.

Therefore, while the intensity provisions make sense in theory, in practice we have found that they do not curtail repeated use of the EI system, especially in areas where there are few opportunities for employment. As a result, we are quite concerned that they have become a punitive measure. I have also called the intensity rule a penalty on seasonal workers, and this bill proposes to change that and withdraw the penalty.

The bill proposes to eliminate the intensity provision altogether and to reinstate the benefit rate at 55% for all claims. These claims, as we said many times in the past, will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.

The government remains fully committed to the goals of the EI reforms introduced in 1996. The program is called employment insurance. It is designed to provide temporary income replacement and to help Canadians prepare for and obtain employment.

Yes, the Canadian economy has been doing extremely well but not all workers enjoy the full benefits of a healthy economy. Some areas in every region continue to have high rates of unemployment. Workers in those areas deserve our assistance.

I ask all hon. members in this place to note that these proposed changes will not affect just the Atlantic provinces. Sometimes we are pegged with that image. Eliminating the intensity provisions will benefit forestry workers in British Columbia, construction workers in Ontario and tourism workers in Quebec. It will put more money in the pockets of those workers so that they are better able to provide for their families.

During this debate I would ask hon. members to keep in mind that EI is just one of a number of ways to help unemployed Canadians. I think we all agree that increasing employment opportunities is a partnership exercise involving the provinces, the territories, communities, and business and labour organizations.

I know that seasonal workers very much want to increase their job prospects. They understand that long term solutions will be found through improving their skills and the economic development in their particular regions. The Liberal government will continue to strive in that direction, working with its partners to expand and diversify the local economies.

The amendments proposed in the bill will certainly help in terms of assisting those families, especially where there are seasonal industries with important workers in our economy. I encourage all members to support these amendments so that the bill may pass quickly through the House, so that those people at work can contribute to our economy, and so that those people who work and contribute to our economy in those seasonal industries and have been unfairly penalized by the intensity rule will now see it withdrawn and will be able to receive full benefits, as is intended by these amendments.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have congratulated the other Chairs. However, this is the first time I can congratulate you on your new assignment.

Throughout the debate today we heard members from both sides of the House talk about the technicalities of the debate, the statistics, the hours, the payments, the clawbacks, et cetera. What I would like to do is talk a little about the contributions to the employment insurance program. Then I want to go back 40 to 50 years and talk about where the program was then, where it is today, how it has changed, the purpose of it and why we had to make changes to it after we came to government in 1993.

As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, you were a member of parliament at that time as well. We did a mass review of overhauling the system. At that time, my colleagues from Brampton Centre and from Parkdale—High Park and I worked together to modernize the program.

The member from Calgary West made some comments which I would like to respond to. The member of the Bloc from Mercier also made some comments with respect to the program. I say to my colleagues that it is appropriate that we take this opportunity, not just to talk about the bill itself which will go to committee and changes will be made, but to tell the audience out there what the EI premium is all about.

I want to start out by saying that in 1993 the EI premium was pegged at $3.30 per $100. That is what Mr. Mulroney and the current leader of the Conservative Party left us with. Over seven years that premium has declined to $2.25 per $100, as was mentioned earlier by my colleague from Peterborough. If we add those pennies, as someone called them, which are well over $1.05 per $100, and we look at the two million people who have found employment since 1993, they add up to billions of dollars.

There is a fundamental difference here that the opposition refuses to acknowledge. In 1993 Canada had an unemployment rate of 11.4%. Today, thank God, we have an unemployment rate of 6.5% or 6.6%. In the last seven years over two million people have come back into the employment factor of the equation. What does that mean? Simply put, prior to 1993 there were two million people taking money out of the system. That is why the system was in a shambles. Now over two million people are putting money into the system.

Fortunately, today we are in the position of having surpluses with which we can reinvest, surpluses that unemployed people have an opportunity to access. Earlier the member from the Bloc talked about higher education. These surpluses go toward helping our youth get higher levels of education, or retraining, or perhaps to become a computer programmer, or an engineer or a graphics designer.

Many people have a problem when they talk about the EI contributions. As a former employer part of my obligation was to make contributions to the Canada pension program and to the unemployment insurance program. I am willing to bet that most of the members in this place, as well as the average Canadian, drive a car and own a home. They buy some form of insurance. I am tired of hearing comments from the opposition, such as those made by the member for Calgary West. He said that we were robbing the people. The member referred to the pages, which was uncalled for.

I drive a car. Year in and year out I pay an auto insurance premium. I wish never to have an accident. I have insurance for when and if I need to access it. Nobody is paying into this employment insurance program with the intent of accessing it.

There are people in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario, British Columbia and other parts of Canada who unfortunately are seasonal workers. There are single mothers in Ontario, Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada who work part time to subsidize whatever incomes they have so they can buy boots for their children for the winter. Perhaps they wish to subsidize school programs which are being cut right, left and centre in Ontario, for example. Are we going to penalize single mothers or single fathers who are trying to provide for their families? Surely not.

The member for the Bloc said earlier today that we are righting the wrong. I remember my father saying that to err is human, to forgive divine. Today we are trying to change that. Today we are saying that maybe there was a mistake. During the election campaign the Prime Minister, when was in the Atlantic provinces, said that we would correct it. That is what is happening today. We are making the adjustments to this program through Bill C-2.

I have a problem when I hear the opposition talking about the surpluses. I will go back to buying insurance. If a person is a good driver, his or her insurance premium over the years will be reduced to some degree. We contribute to the EI program and draw from it. However, if the EI system is being continuously used then surely there will be some provisions to offset that in some form or another.

It said in the 2000 monitoring and assessment report that in the year 1999-2000 about 400,000 jobs would be created. Time will tell once the statistics come out.

Let us look at those 400,000 new primarily full time jobs. There will be 400,000 people who will no longer be accessing the system. They will contributing to it. No one would have thought seven years ago that we would be in this enviable position today talking about reinvesting in our country, reinvesting in higher education for our youth and reinvesting in health programs.

They talked about the Canada pension program. Yes, there has been a slight increase. When this government took over it knew that it had to do something about it. The previous Conservative government and the leader of the Conservative Party refused to take the responsibility. They had an opportunity to make those changes and come to an agreement with the provinces, but they chose not to. They were afraid to. We made that decision with the provinces. Yes, there has been a small increase, but when we compare the decrease in EI contributions as opposed to the increase in Canada pension contributions, I think it is a pretty fair deal.

What Canadians out there need to know is that any premium increase to the Canada pension program has to be done with the agreement of all provinces. The government alone does not have the right to make that increase arbitrarily. I am taking this opportunity, without going into the guts of Bill C-2, to tell Canadians this story so they will know that.

People talk about the surpluses. I am very happy to stand on this side of the House, as a representative of the government, to say what has been done with the surpluses and to say that we are not robbing Canadians. It is a fair and equitable system, a system that has been in place since 1940 to support Canadians.

In closing, I encourage all members to support this new and changing legislation.