Bill C-2 (Historical)

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

Employment Insurance Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on employment insurance revisions. Before I do that, I want to make a few comments about the unconscionable action of the government in invoking time allocation today.

It used to be that governments invoked closure, which basically said that the House did not adjourn until the debate collapsed. Those were days when the House would sit right through the night and debate continuously until there were no members left to speak.

Time allocation is even worse than that because it does not even allow members to stay until midnight or two or four in the morning to speak. It says that at 6.15 p.m. today we are done. I think it is unconscionable of the government to say that we may not even express our views after a certain point.

I am very fortunate that I am designated now to give a 10 minute speech, so I am able to express my views. What about all the other members who want to speak on behalf of their constituents on this very important bill? They literally are not allowed to do so because of the government's action in passing the motion a few minutes ago.

Furthermore, it is very sad that all the members on that side automatically vote for a bill such as this one, when on this side we would very happily vote against time allocation or closure. However, on that side a sudden transformation seems to take place. They somehow deposit their brains at the door and become stone statues. They no longer use their own heads. They just do as they are told.

I know a certain degree of respectability is required in parliament. We sometimes need to submit to each other. A husband and wife do not get along unless they do that. We have a certain degree of that in the House. However, it has to be wrong when members blindly follow orders with which they do not agree.

I am very surprised that Liberal members do not have the fortitude to stand on their own and say what they will do. We will probably see the same thing tonight when members will all vote against their own election platform of 1993.

Parliament is being eroded. I am beginning to think that perhaps my colleague from the previous parliament, Lee Morrison, had it right when he said that this place really was a waste of time because of all the restrictions and controls put on it by the government.

I regret that Canadians did not see through this and that Ontarians, because of all the misinformation, were once again persuaded to elect Liberal candidates instead of voting for what is right: a parliament that actually works on behalf of Canadians.

In order to actually use my time I will say a few things about Bill C-2, the amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. A number of issues are very important to Canadians, and one of the most important is that the rules should be the same for everyone across the country.

I know one can say that in areas of high employment it is tough to get a job, and that EI benefits in such areas should therefore be increased or extended. That is a reality. However, right now there is a problem of greater magnitude on the prairies with respect to farmers.

When we lose our job we lose our income. Without income we cannot provide for our families. We have great sympathy for people who lose their jobs or who are in seasonal work. However, there are also farmers in seasonal work who have now lost their income because of the inaction of this government.

Input costs for farmers exceed what they are able to get for the sale of their products. Consequently their incomes have gone to zero or negative. Is there any help from the government for farmers? Not that we can see. Big, heady announcements have been made but nothing has been delivered.

What we get are farmers having to pay their accountants $500 or $600 to do the bookwork to determine whether they are eligible. When farmers do submit their applications they get back $5 or $10 because that is all they qualify for, and a bill from their accountant.

It is absolutely absurd that the government cannot solve a problem.

The government recently gave out $1.3 billion in energy rebate cheques to Canadians, 90% of whom probably did not pay heating bills. The government says that the rebate was meant to compensate Canadians with high heating costs. However, the government has totally mismanaged it. It is really a $1.3 billion boondoggle in the sense that the rebates went to people completely off the target. The government totally missed the mark.

The Employment Insurance Act also has a problem in reaching its target. Frankly, if someone loses his or her job it does not matter whether 10 or 100 of his or her neighbours have lost their job. It is a very personal thing. The person is saying that he or she has lost his or her job and income. It should not matter whether they live in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if people pay into EI and lose their job they should receive benefits until they get another job.

We use the word insurance, so let us talk about insurance. What if my house burned down and my insurance company said that because not too many houses burned down in my area this year it would not pay me? Insurance companies do not base their decisions on that. If there is an area where a lot of houses are being destroyed by fire they will probably look at it and see what they can do in the area of prevention. This is another area in which the government has totally dropped the ball. To get people off unemployment they have to have jobs. Has the government done anything other than make big announcements, especially during an election campaign, about some teeny-weeny tax cuts, instead of some substantial tax cuts and policies that would encourage businesses not only to stay here but to establish here and to create new employment? No, it has not.

The unemployment rate is now going up and our economy is in the doldrums. Why? It is because of the total failure of the government to provide policies that would make our country excessively strong in the world economy. We are hangers on with a weak dollar. That is the only thing that seems to be an advantage for Canadians right now because all of us are being asked to take a 30% cut in our earnings in order to sell our products around the world. That is helping but what a price we are paying for that. It is not a long term solution.

There are a lot of things wrong with the EI bill. One of the other things that comes to my mind is the total unfairness of the employment insurance rate structure. I know the rates have gingerly come down and the Liberals will crow about this.

The surplus in the EI fund is $25 billion, now possibly $30 billion in terms of the actuarial value. The present act says that the chief actuary should give advice. At the present time the surplus in the EI fund is double what it needs to be, yet the government keeps collecting huge amounts of money from employers and employees. In fact, it is collecting 40% more from employers than from employees. No wonder these people do not have any money to invest and to hire more people. That is the crux of the matter.

What does this bill do? It takes away the actuarial requirement and simply gives the rate setting structure as a new power to the minister. No wonder we are upset about this bill. No wonder we want to talk about it and change it. I wish the government would be willing to do that.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks from yesterday evening. It is important that all Canadians acknowledge and realize that this system pertains nationwide. It is not limited or directed to any one region of the country.

The problems that exist in the system currently could very much be improved if the government took the time to listen to seasonal workers and to its own employees who handle EI problems in places such as the maritimes. They have suggested on more than one occasion that one method of improving the system and improving the method of determining EI benefits over a pay period would be to have it scrapped and replaced with a system of declaring hours worked on a weekly basis. If people do not work during a certain week they do not declare the particular week.

It is obvious that the EI system has major inadequacies that are placing Canadians who need help into tremendous debt. I have written personally to the current minister and the previous minister on a number of occasions, and I have not had the pleasure of a response, sadly.

On the issue of undeclared earnings, I wrote the HRDC minister over two years ago but have not received a response. Even then public concern over the inequity was growing. I have subsequently written again and the minister has not responded.

The Conservative Party is generally supportive of Bill C-2, but our support is conditional on the bill going before the committee so there will be further analysis and hopefully the opportunity to put forward amendments and changes, if necessary.

We are supportive to the extent that the bill will remove the existing intensity clause and will be committed to fixing the so-called repeater's rule which made it virtually impossible for a woman to receive employment insurance if she left a job to have a second child. However the Conservative Party does not support the government's refusal to deal with artificially high EI premium rates.

We would welcome the opportunity at committee to enact some of the changes we proposed and put forward during the recent federal election. Those included support for the continuation of an independent employment insurance commission and its role in recommending sustainable EI premiums.

The current legislation would give cabinet the power to set premiums for 2002 and 2003, which actually gives the government a further year to study the premium setting. This was the case with the previous Bill C-44. The thought of having this provision removed from the independent body and handed to the cabinet and the finance minister is unacceptable.

Other groups, such as the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, have spoken out against the move. The Conservative Party supports the CRFA and its opposition to the Liberals' approach, which is seen as very paternalistic and a manoeuvre that would create more problems than it would address.

We are also committed as a party to the investigation, with the employment insurance commission, of a proposal that would move toward the establishment of an individual EI account and an EI rebate program that would enable workers to roll a portion of their EI contributions into an RRSP upon retirement.

There is no reason why EI rates are so high. At the end of last year the EI account had a cumulative surplus of over $35 billion. The $2.25 employee premium rate will drive the cumulative EI surplus above the $40 billion mark by the end of 2001.

The recent auditor general's report blasts the government for the way in which it has handled the account. The auditor general rightly points out that the EI surplus is well over twice the maximum amount that the chief actuary of HRDC considers sufficient as a reserve for the account. This is because of the unnecessarily high premiums that the government refuses to significantly reduce.

As seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada and across the nation suffer from the Liberal cash grab, it becomes very frustrating for a member of parliament who represents an area with many seasonal workers and high unemployment, such as Guysborough. There is great frustration among those workers and employers when premiums should and could be reduced to the $1.90 mark from the current level of $2.25.

There is ample opportunity for the government to correct the inadequacies in the bill. We look forward to the opportunity at committee to bring forward amendments that would improve the legislation.

Privilege

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the motion brought forward by the government House leader in relation to Bill C-2. The government brought forward that notice of motion yesterday and we have now dealt with it in the House.

This is the second parliament in a row where the very first bill introduced by the government has been time allocated. A restriction on debate has already been brought forward by the minister in a very inappropriate way. I would like to explain what I think should happen in the follow up to this.

The use of closure and time allocation under this government has reached, I would argue, a disturbing and critical point of frequency. In the last parliament Bill C-2, the CPP legislation, the very first bill debated by parliament, was time allocated after only a few hours of debate. In this parliament the very first bill, the pro forma Bill C-2, again has been time allocated after a few hours of debate.

It is the same government, the same minister, and I would argue the same misuse of authority by using time allocation in this extremely unorthodox way.

On October 8, 1997, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona raised a question of privilege regarding the closing off of debate on Bill C-2 in the last parliament. The member argued that our right to adequately debate was increasingly being violated by the government's rush to judge how much time was needed to debate a particular piece of legislation.

Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 3, outlines some elements of the Constitution Act and our system of government which I believe are relevant to this very point. It states:

More tentative are such traditional features as respect for the rights of the minority, which precludes a Government from using to excess the extensive powers that it has to limit debate or to proceed in what the public and the Opposition might interpret as unorthodox ways.

Going back to the argument presented on October 8, 1997, by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, he suggested that the Chair intervene on behalf of the collective rights of parliamentarians to ensure that the traditional features as outlined in the citation I just read are upheld.

While the Speaker ruled not to intervene at that time, I would argue that since then and since we are embarking on the 69th record time allocation motion by the government, the moment has arrived to declare the measures imposed by the government today as excessive and unorthodox as described by citation 3 of Beauchesne's.

The case has been made that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation. I do not agree with this claim. I will prove, I believe, that the Speaker does possess the authority to refuse to accept this motion.

On May 2, 2000, during a discussion of the rule of time allocation with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the then Clerk of the House of Commons, Robert Marleau, responded to a question regarding the Speaker's authority to protect the minority in the manner described earlier. The Clerk said:

—it exists intrinsically in the role of the Speakership all the time—where there could be the tyranny of either side. It could be the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority.

At a subsequent meeting on May 4, 2000, the Clerk suggested that with time allocation the Speaker is less likely to intervene. There is a reference to this on page 570 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice . However, the Clerk stopped short of suggesting that the Speaker would never intervene. He used as an extreme example that if the government time allocated every bill at every stage the Speaker might intervene, quite properly.

My interpretation of what the Clerk has said is that there exists a limit to what a majority government can do with respect to time allocation. The interpretation is supported by the citation I mentioned earlier from Beauchesne's, which states that a government is precluded from using to excess the extensive powers it has to limit debate.

The Clerk used the extreme example in his response because he knows it is not up to the Clerk to establish the limit to this unorthodox behaviour. We know, for example, that the 68 times the government has used time allocation apparently was not too many times. How many is enough?

Yesterday the government House leader gave notice of his intention to move the 69th motion, and now we have a new parliament and a new Speaker. I would argue we are at an epiphanal moment here for this new parliament.

I would suggest to the Speaker that 69 motions moved within seven years for the sole purpose of muzzling the opposition on controversial legislation is excessive. It is unorthodox and it should not be tolerated.

On page 369 of Marleau and Montpetit there is a reference to an intervention by the Speaker on a time allocation related tactic used by the government. It describes how Speaker Fraser ruled on the government tactic of skipping over routine proceedings in order to go to orders of the day. As we are all aware, that tactic, if it had been allowed, would secure for the government the opportunity to move time allocation at will.

While Speaker Fraser had ruled such a motion in order on April 13, 1987, page 369 references another ruling where the Speaker ruled out of order a similar motion only a few months before. In other words, Speaker Fraser used his judgment on each and every situation and ruled accordingly.

In other words, an activity that might be completely in order today would be completely out of order in another set of circumstances. The Speaker has to use his or her judgment in the chair to rule these motions appropriate, out of order, unorthodox, or in excess. It is within the power of the Speaker to make that ruling and I would appeal again to the Speaker today on that basis. As Speaker Fraser demonstrated, a Speaker can intervene and should intervene when a government abuses its power and the rules of the House.

The rule governing time allocation can be found in Standing Order 78. Standing Order 78 provides for more than one day of allocated debate if the government never exercises this option, even on time allocation.

The government, by only allocating the minimum amount of time to debate each stage of a controversial bill, prevents the opposition from doing its job in the House of Commons. It prevents the opposition from enlisting public support for its point of view.

The right of an opposition to raise the profile of an issue in debate is one of the indispensable principles that make up parliamentary law and parliamentary procedure. These principles are described in Beauchesne's sixth edition:

To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.

Parliament is fundamentally about debate. It is also about the right to dissent in a civilized manner. Genuine political opposition is a necessary attribute of democracy, of tolerance and of trust in the ability of citizens to resolve differences by peaceful means. That is why we come here to debate issues. The existence and the tolerance of an opposing point of view are essential to the functioning of parliament and to the functioning of a modern democracy. Speaker Fraser put it this way:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments, pro and con, and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.

The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, in an address to the Empire Club in Toronto in 1949, had this to say:

If parliament is to be preserved as a living institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends.

In 1967 a distinguished parliamentarian, the late Stanley Knowles, added this comment to the debate:

I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

One of the reasons an opposition exists is to some day replace the government. The opposition should conduct itself in parliament, so as to persuade the people of the country that it could be an improvement on the government of the day.

Our system of government works best when there is a change of government at reasonable intervals. However, if the government continues to silence the opposition at every turn, the opposition will never be able to use parliamentary debate to persuade the people of Canada. While the rights of the opposition are immediately and most visibly at stake here in this debate, ultimately the threat is to democratic rights and freedoms generally.

I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the Chair. First, perhaps it is time for the Chair to seriously consider the amount of authority and the amount of discretion that is available to him while he sits in that important position. The next time a motion to cut off debate is introduced prematurely in the House, I would argue it is time for the Speaker to look the other way, to not recognize the government House leader, and to say it is inappropriate, too early, not right, to stop the debate so early in this parliament.

I hope you consider that as an option, Mr. Speaker. If it does not happen soon, early in this parliament, we will get set in a pattern, as we have already seen, where the very first bill is time allocated and where we are restricted in debate on the opposition's side. Again we are unable to do our jobs in proposing alternate forms of government to the people of Canada.

My second suggestion is that the government should seriously consider reforming the House in a meaningful way. The Prime Minister should stop referring to members as voting machines, as stone statues doing his bidding in the House of Commons.

I would argue from this point forward that maybe the best you could do for the opposition, Mr. Speaker, is to delay the moving of a motion on time allocation, at least to use your discretion to delay it for another day.

Every time the government House leader brings in a motion of time allocation, he brings in the minimum amount of debate. He closes off debate after one day. He could give more. He could give two. He could give three days and limit debate. He could allow for an ample discussion. However he uses the minimum amount of debate every time to stifle the opposition and stifle debate in the House.

I appeal to you in your position in the chair, Mr. Speaker, that you have the authority and the support of the House to use your discretion to give democracy a greater chance in the House. I would urge you to do it from this point forward.

Employment Insurance Act

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of this stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Silence is consent, says my colleague. This minister said that after the election of a majority Liberal government, I suppose he had a crystal ball at that time, it would re-establish the process and ensure that the right changes were made, those responding properly to the majority of the realities and needs of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and of all Canadians.

He must have made this statement in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which is why he named it. He concluded his statement by saying “I am committed—this minister is very big on commitments—to changes in the law, and we will make changes”. This is what the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said. I welcome his contradiction of my quotes, if he is not in agreement, during the question and comment period.

These are two quotes which strike me as very eloquent. The Prime Minister said that they were wrong. As for the eloquent Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, he said they were going to make changes—“I assure you of this, I promise this” he said. Still we find ourselves back with Bill C-2 and its very modest changes, as I have been able to confirm to the hon. member for Yukon.

This bill, brought back despite those two statements, despite all the promises each MP and each prospective MP made in their respective ridings, makes me think of a still more important promise made by the Liberals, one they have also broken. If I asked the Liberals to tell me which one I mean, I would have a lot of different answers. Some would say the GST, some free trade, but these are not the ones I mean. We will not hold a contest, because there would probably be too many responses.

The promise that was not kept, and the two quotes prove it, is the 1993 one in red book one, with respect to the public's trust in the government and elected representatives.

In this regard, all parties are in the same boat. In 1993, the government promised to restore the public's trust. I challenge Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and Canadian Alliance members to go to their ridings and check out the public's general level of trust in us. This level of trust is very low, even after a promise made seven years ago. Why? Because we have the proof, in the two earlier quotes, that politicians, especially when they are in power, too often make clear statements, but do not follow through on their promises. The Prime Minister said he liked clarity. Here was the proof: it was clear they were going to make changes, they said. They said it even more clearly in 1980 and 1995. These changes did not happen, however, and there is still no sign of them.

In my opinion, the most important promise this government broke was the one it made in 1993 to restore confidence in this institution. If we had statistics on the votes of confidence in 1993 and those of today, I think that the rate would be down, and it would be for reasons like this.

The red book also promised an ethics counsellor appointed by and accountable to parliament. This political adviser appointed to restore trust, is another failed Liberal promise.

To restore trust, we might have expected fewer criminal investigations; there are many of them, including several in the riding of the Prime Minister, among others, on a golf club he previously owned and on a hotel he also owned.

To restore trust, perhaps we should listen to the most eminent official in parliament, the one who, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, was not appointed by him, that is the auditor general. I believe the Prime Minister likes to say that we have the “best and most beautiful country in the world” and the “best Prime Minister in the world”. I congratulate him for the two Olivier awards that he won yesterday as the year's best international humorist.

But in this “best country in the world”, there is a good auditor general. The latter said in 2000 and repeated in 2001 that the way the surplus in the employment insurance fund was being used was outrageous and almost illegal. The Employment Insurance Commission establishes a premium rate according to the economic situation. The chief economist of the Royal Bank, who is here, could confirm that the employment insurance premium rate has to be defined according to the economic situation, whether things are going well or not so well, according to the money that is already in the employment insurance fund, and according to the current rate and to the current surplus in this employment insurance fund, which is twice what it should be, that is about $30 billion.

The auditor general says this is outrageous. He repeats that is outrageous, and the Prime Minister says “It is the opposition that is wrong”. It is not the opposition that says that. The opposition is quoting the auditor general, who has been repeating that there is too much money in the fund.

What does having too much money in the EI fund mean for workers and employers? Thirty billion dollars is an impressive figure, but it has been said that this is too much. First, the money is not used to help the unemployed but to reimburse the Canadian government's net debt. Once again, the auditor general is the one who says so.

The Canadian government deliberately took money out of the pockets of the employers and the employees to eliminate the deficit. That is a tax on salaries. If the government really wanted to be clear and honest, it would levy a tax on salaries. But once again, it prefers to disguise the truth to hide the fact that it is not fulfilling its 1993 promise.

Since I have very little time left, I will conclude with this. I call upon the government members to accept that at the very least the bill be divided in two so as to allow members from the Bloc to vote in favour of the very minimal amendments proposed to the employment insurance. If they accept, they could reach a larger consensus. I would also ask them to give us the possibility to express our opinion on the outrageous theft of the EI fund surplus.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you on your appointment.

In response to the question of the new member for Yukon, I could read the list, because it is indeed not very long. There is the abolition of the intensity rule, the abolition of discrimination in the rule of tax clawback, the change in the definition of new entrant, the indexing of the maximum yearly insurable earnings and the reduction of the premium rate to $2.25.

I hope that answers his question and his interest for this subject. In a spirit of co-operation, he too could oppose this bill, because that is what the people in his riding would ask him to do if they had the same information available to them. Unless he must follow the party line, which would be very sad for a new member.

First of all, as my colleagues did the first time they rose in the House, I would like to thank the people in the riding of Repentigny for putting their confidence in me. This is a riding that you know well, Madam Speaker, as you visit it regularly. Since you represent the other end of the island of Montreal, you have the opportunity to come by often.

So, the great riding of Repentigny is an urban riding composed for the most part of young families that have elected me and given me their confidence for a third mandate. To all those who voted for me I want to give my wholehearted thanks and assure them that I will work hard, as I have over the last seven years, to stand up for their interests here, in the House of Commons.

First of all, I would like to talk about the previous bill, because before we talk about this one, we have no choice but to put it in context and look at its background.

We are debating today Bill C-2, but it is really a new incarnation of Bill C-44. Technically, Bill C-44 died on the order paper, because the government House leader, with all his goodwill, made sure the Liberals did not call an election after passing such a revolting bill. He did not see fit to use closure or other parliamentary tricks to gag the opposition. He made sure the bill would die on the order paper so they could appear, during the campaign, to be more open on this bill.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, has disappeared. The Prime Minister, who is in China today, has made this comment about the bill: “We realized that this was not a good decision, and we should not have done this”.

The Prime Minister said that Bill C-44 was not a good idea, but one of his ministers is much more talkative. The minister responsible for amateur sport often stumbles in his public statements. Hon. members will certainly agree with me. He never misses a chance to voice his strong opposition when a government decision is not to his liking. If he does not agree with me, the minister will get a chance to say so during the questions and comments period, and if he does not say a word, it is because he agrees—

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

Madam Speaker, first, as it is the first time I have had the floor during this 37th parliament, I am very happy to begin by thanking my constituents of the great riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, who have returned me as their representative in the House of Commons. This victory by the Bloc was reflected in all of the 50 municipalities of my great riding and this victory is due to the 500 volunteers who worked hard to keep the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable with the Bloc.

Speaking of the campaign, I would like to remind the House of certain things that were said at the time, specifically on employment insurance. Before going deeper into this bill, I am going to bring forward some facts that marked the last election campaign. During the next minutes, I am going to show, once again, that the Liberals have not been true to their word, to their promises.

We all remember the interview on an English language network where the Prime Minister apologized and was very remorseful for the devastating effects of the EI system reform.

That week, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport adopted a similar tone when he said that, when the Liberals returned to power, it would be time to propose major changes in order to meet the expectations of the unemployed.

I also remember that one week before the election, when the Prime Minister was in New Brunswick and spoke so eloquently about his election commitments, he forgot to mention that he would look after the unemployed. One of his advisers immediately reminded him that he should talk about the issue.

All this confirms that once again we have been the victims of a real misinformation campaign. The unemployment issue has indeed created confusion in parliament. No one has a clue. Everybody is looking for the facts. We are trying to find out what the government intends to do, but to no avail.

Let me reflect on the highlights of the reform, on certain recommendations that the Bloc Quebecois intends to make. I will also deal with the report tabled last week by the auditor general.

For a few years now the Bloc Quebecois has been openly critical of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. Only last week, the auditor general said:

In his 2000 report, the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada has estimated that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion should be sufficient to guarantee the stability of EI premium rates over a business cycle.

In the meantime, the Employment Insurance Account's accumulated surplus has grown to $28.2 billion, almost twice the maximum amount considered sufficient by the Chief Actuary.

We wondered. What did the Government of Canada, what did the Liberals do with the surplus? The auditor general told us in a rather direct manner:

The Account's operating surplus, in effect, provides a source of revenue and cash flow for the government and helps reduce its net debt.

This means that the government has taken money from the unemployed, it has taken EI contributions to pay off the debt and particularly to set up programs that often infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions.

What is going on in this parliament is totally unacceptable. A few moments ago, the government House leader announced a first time allocation motion, a first gag order.

What should we make of this whole issue? During the election campaign, the big names in the Liberal Party of Canada said that parliament would take its time to discuss the employment insurance issue. Now that we are back here in the House we find that the House leader is again playing the same game that he started during the last session by moving gag orders to prevent democratically elected representatives from saying what they have to say about the Employment Insurance Act.

The Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to Bill C-2, a pure and simple imitation of Bill C-44. However, it would be interesting if the current government divided Bill C-2 in two, to ensure it would respond more realistically to the expectations of unemployed people.

We have a series of recommendations to make. I would like to say that, already in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois had been very forward looking, since it had introduced six bills to improve the operation of employment insurance, to try to find better solutions to respond to the needs of unemployed people.

The Bloc's requests are very clear. We ask for the elimination of the intensity rule. This bill talks about this. We also ask that the maximum insurable earnings be increased from 55% to 60%, which would be much more realistic. We also ask for the elimination of the discriminatory clause towards new entrants to the labour force. We know this applies to young people and women. We also ask for the elimination of the qualifying period.

In Bill C-2 it is announced that the premium rate is to be reduced to $2.25, but the auditor general's report has much more precise calculations. This government is already late when it says it wants to reduce premiums to $2.25. The chief actuary, an employee of the Department of Human Resources Development, believes that employees' premium rates should be between $1.70 and $2.20, which would cover the long term costs of the employment insurance program.

In its planning documents, the Department of Human Resources Development predicts that the accumulated surplus will reach $34.6 billion by March 31, 2001. On August 31, 2000, the unaudited balance of the fund's accumulated surplus was $32.4 billion. These figures disgust the public. These surpluses are upsetting, they make no sense.

We understand that the Liberal government is trying with Bill C-2 to hide the truth. It is trying to legalize what has always been called the hold-up of the unemployed and the small and medium businesses. If Bill C-2 ever passes, no one, including the auditor general, will be able to intervene to bring this government back to order.

Of late we have witnessed all sorts of operations making this government, this parliament, increasing antidemocratic. In the riding I represent and in all ridings in Quebec, there are seasonal workers, men and women who return to the labour market, young people who come onto the labour market. These people, because of measures that are very difficult to understand, cannot draw employment insurance.

Just imagine that a young person has to work 910 hours before being entitled to draw benefits. A worker paying benefits—depending on the region—must accumulate between 420 and 700 hours to be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

The current act, which will not be amended by Bill C-2, discriminates seriously against young people and women, who are affected by this rule, that is, they must work 910 hours if they return to the labour market.

If I look at Bill C-2, especially if I refer to the many promises not kept by the federal Liberals in the latest election, it is very thin in content. It offers no hope to the unemployed waiting for major changes, which could have met their needs and corrected the injustices committed against them by the Prime Minister and his government in the last session.

When I think about what happened during the election campaign and when I hear all the balderdash on employment insurance coming from the other side, I wonder who knows the truth. Fortunately, the Auditor General of Canada brought back some kind of order last week. He gave some indications to try and clear things up.

This bill is an insult to the unemployed. There is nothing in it for them. It only mentions the abolition of the intensity rule and some minor changes when everyone in Quebec and in Canada was expecting so much.

The Liberals are laughing at the unemployed. They did it throughout the election campaign and continue to do so here, in the House of Commons.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois will continue to fight for improvements for the unemployed. Fortunately, we have in the House of Commons 38 men and women to protect the interests of Quebecers. Even with the government trying to muzzle us and take away our freedom of speech, I hope that, in the little time we have, we can prove that Bill C-2 is an empty shell, that it brings almost no changes to the system and is an insult to the unemployed in Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

Therefore under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and the disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the Alliance Party motion.

Tomorrow, we will complete the Address Debate. Votes from Thursday and Friday will be deferred to Tuesday evening, in accordance with an agreement between the parties.

On Monday, we will begin debate on the financial institutions bill. Later that day we will return to Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill.

On Tuesday, I hope to call Bill C-6 respecting boundary waters, and Bill S-2 on marine liability.

I should like to advise the House at this time that it is the Government's intention, continuing in the spirit of parliamentary reform, to propose that Bill C-6 be referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73.

Next Wednesday, I expect to call Bill C-7, the youth justice bill. Next Thursday will be an Allotted Day.

In the area of parliamentary reform, I am pleased to inform the House that I have offered all House leaders full briefings on the international trade issues relevant to the Quebec City Summit of the Americas. I hope members will avail themselves of this opportunity.

Speech From The Throne

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his good wishes. The changes to employment insurance that were made a number of years ago had some positive elements, for example, the conversion of weeks to hours as a method of qualifying for benefits.

In New Brunswick alone, 87% of the people work more than a 35 hour week. With the changes that the government made, all those weeks now go toward qualifying for employment insurance benefits.

We on this side believe in incentives for work but we do not believe in punishing people who work in seasonal industries.

My colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has often told me, and he is right, that in Canada there are no seasonal workers, only seasonal industries.

A fundamental difference that we must understand is that there are no seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada. There are seasonal industries such as the fishery, tourism and agriculture. These industries have been unjustly affected by the intensity rule.

It was a very important measure that the Prime Minister undertook when he visited my colleague's riding during the election in Belledune in northern New Brunswick. He made it clear at that time that the changes which had been introduced in parliament before the election to eliminate the intensity rule would be reintroduced as a priority.

The Prime Minister kept that promise. Bill C-2 was the first substantive piece of legislation introduced in this parliament and the changes, as the Prime Minister had committed, will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.

This was an important undertaking for the people in my riding. I hope, with the co-operation of other members of the House, that the legislation will pass quickly.

People in my riding are looking forward to these changes coming into effect. I intend to vote and to encourage the government so that these changes become law as soon as possible.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, permit me a moment to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House and to extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his election as well.

It is with both pride and humility that I rise for the first time in this historic place as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The voters in my riding put their trust in me. I have already promised them and I promise them again today that I will work hard for them day in and day out.

The riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is almost a microcosm of our country. As I found out in the last campaign it is geographically vast, almost evenly divided between French and English speakers, and is a mixture of rural and urban communities.

I am not the first member of my family to serve this riding. My father was the member for Westmorland—Kent for 12 years. Standing in the House today I am more conscious than ever of the big shoes I have to fill.

And it is with a great deal of emotion that I realize that I occupy the same seat that my father did for 12 years or so in this House. I thank all my family, particularly my mother, my father and my sister, Geneviève.

My father is not the only one of my family to serve in the House. My great-great-grandfather, George Elliott Casey, was elected in 1872 at 22 years of age. Like me, he was the youngest member of his caucus at that time.

I would be remiss if I did not mention another of my predecessors as member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The Prime Minister served my riding from 1990 to 1993. During part of that time I worked for the then leader of the opposition in his office. I had graduated from law school and had been called to the New Brunswick bar. The Prime Minister gave me the opportunity to see how our government works up close. I used to watch from up there in the gallery. I must say the view from down here is considerably better.

I will never forget the opportunity given to me by the Prime Minister. If I am here today, it is mainly thanks to him.

I also wish to make mention of the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the Minister of Labour. She holds the riding next to mine. Over the past few years she has been a good friend, a staunch ally and a mentor, both publicly and privately. Her 30 year commitment to her community and her commitment to social justice and economic development stand as an inspiration to all of us.

I also thank the Minister of Labour for her help during my campaign.

The campaign was perhaps a bit longer for me than for other hon. members. I had hoped to be here in 1997. I had campaigned to be here then and I fought hard, but I came in second. I am a little late, but better late than never.

Obviously, my deepest gratitude goes to my constituents. The election campaign was an opportunity to get to know their generosity and warmth.

I saw again in the last election how francophones and anglophones work together for the common good. I met and spoke to the decent, hard working people who work in our factories, who fish off our coast and who work the land as farmers.

I met with students, seniors, teachers and nurses, and I was impressed by their dedication to their community.

A major concern in my riding had to do with the changes that were made to the employment insurance system, changes that unjustly penalize workers in seasonal industries, many of whom live in my riding.

I am enormously gratified that the government has introduced Bill C-2 to restore fairness to the EI system.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister made a commitment to proceed swiftly with these improvements, and he has kept his word by making this legislation the first bill introduced in this Parliament.

It should be emphasized that the proposed changes will be retroactive to October 1, 2000.

A promise was made and a promise has been kept. It is what the people of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac expected and it is what they deserve.

Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is also the birthplace of College St. Joseph, the precursor to the Université de Moncton and also the home of Mount Allison University which, for the last 10 years, has been ranked as the number one undergraduate university in Canada.

My riding is a place of wonderful opportunities but it also suffers from many of the problems that have long plagued Atlantic Canada: seasonal employment, resource dependent industries and an unacceptable level of young people leaving the region to pursue jobs elsewhere.

We Atlantic Canadians know that the real brain drain is not from Canada to the United States, but from rural Canada to urban Canada and from Atlantic Canada to central and western Canada.

My friend, a leading academic on regional development, Dr. Donald Savoie, once told me that in Atlantic Canada we have three economies: a seasonal resource based economy largely in rural areas, an urban economy slowly and encouragingly transforming itself to new technologies and to a new economy, and some areas where virtually no functioning economy exists at all.

We know that we have to solve these problems ourselves, but we also know that we need a federal commitment.

Our government knows this and has committed $700 million to the Atlantic investment partnership, a fund that will help keep our young people from having to seek jobs elsewhere.

These major investments will help our young people build a future for themselves here at home.

The Atlantic region has also seen over the past year a crisis in the fishery. The integration of native fishermen into the commercial fishery has been difficult to say the least.

Behind the headlines, however, is a story of co-operation and goodwill on both sides. This is the result of the tremendous efforts of fishermen, both native and non-native, and the strong leadership of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister's steady hand and commitment to conservation has earned him the confidence of all stakeholders. People of goodwill support the minister's efforts to enact a set of conservation rules that will apply equally to all fishermen.

The Maritime Fishermen's Union leadership, particularly its president Ron Cormier, deserves our support and congratulations.

I did not arrive here in the class of 1997 as I had hoped. The class of 2000 comes to the House at a time of tremendous opportunity.

For the first time in a generation we are not faced with deficits dictating the economic policy of our country.

The throne speech tells us that the national government is committed to sharing the wealth and opportunities of the nation with all Canadians. The national government can be a positive force in the lives of all Canadians.

I believe that this parliament will be remembered by future generations as marking a turning point.

More than 30 years ago the late Pierre Elliott Trudeau inspired Canadians by challenging them to build a just society.

I feel that I have, in this parliament and in serving in this government, the chance to dream of a Canada of even greater achievement, of an activist and prudent government investing in Atlantic Canada and bringing the wealth and prosperity of the last few years to every region; the chance to dream of the end to the threat of dissolution, when francophones and anglophones in all parts of the country can work together as harmoniously as in my riding; and the chance for all Canadians, particularly the people of Atlantic Canada, to once again dream of a just society.

I am here to share in that process and to serve this House and this government as we work together to continue building what is surely the greatest country in the world.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Employment insurance is indeed an important issue in my region. Seasonal workers in a large ridings such as ours are like those from the Atlantic region, whether they work in mining or several other industries.

Bill C-2 has been introduced. There is always room for improvement.

We know that the standards come from a committee of the commission, which comprises management and unionized employees.

What is important? Finding the right solutions. Requests come into my office either from Laurier Gilbert, from Val d'Or, or the Regroupement des chômeurs et chômeuses, wanting to appear before the standing committee.

It is also important to look at both sides of the coin. A few years ago there were people using unemployment insurance in the last four months of the year, because during the year they had earned their full salary on Saturdays and Sundays earning double time and double time and a half. When they saw they were going to pay too much income tax, they went on unemployment. It was very easy to do so back then.

There are employers back home who say to me “With the new reform, we get more”. Back home, Bélanger Électrique said “I am happy with this, because the electricians come to us. Before we never saw them in construction”. The same is true for PLC in Senneterre, which does not have mechanics any more. The mechanics went off for three months. We knew it, it was not a secret, some of them went off hunting and fishing and so on over the holidays.

The system has to be improved and together, before the standing committee, we will find solutions. Together with the government in office is the way to improve things for people. In any case, what counts is keeping permanent jobs.

Employment Insurance Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill on employment insurance. I was listening to a woman in parliament talk about fairness and fair treatment, words that are to be found in Bill C-2. As we know, the treatment women are subjected to in order to qualify is totally unfair.

When the minister tells us this reform was necessary, I quite agree with her. However, when one looks at the bill with respect to parental leave, about which the minister was boasting in terms of what the government is doing, it is like putting one's head in the sand. This means that women are not eligible for employment insurance.

When one requires that women work 600 hours while in some regions where unemployment is high, men or women only have to work 420 hours in order to qualify for regular benefits, when one boasts about the parental leave bill, that means that one is not looking at how many women will qualify for parental leave.

The government says that 42% of pregnant women are eligible for maternity leave. It is fine to boast about doubling the number of weeks and hours that a woman will be able to spend at home with her child, but it remains that she has to qualify and to be able to afford it. With 55% of a precarious salary, a woman will not be able to afford to stay at home for two years to care for her child.

When the minister talks about fair treatment, I do not believe it concerning women, for several reasons. As we know, women are the ones in precarious jobs. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, 10 years ago 70% of women had access to employment insurance. Nowadays, it is the reverse: 70% of women are excluded.

I dare the minister to tell me this is treating women fairly.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Western Arctic and on behalf of my government in favour of these changes to the employment insurance legislation.

I have been with HRDC since 1993, when EI was still UI, as it was known then. It was under the leadership of former Minister Axworthy that the initial discussion on review and reform began. It was an attempt to look at the inequities in the system, at the issues and at the long outdated problems that had occurred within the system and needed to be changed. The ensuing debate was on those issues. Subsequently we went through successive ministers, four to be exact, the most important to date our current minister, who has undertaken to complete the file on the changes for these particular sections.

The changes we are bringing forward under this bill are important and necessary. As members of the House know, this bill was introduced in the House last fall and debated in second reading. That is why we are reintroducing this bill. The changes herein reflect the mandate that Canadians gave us in the last election. They also follow from our government's ongoing monitoring and review of the EI system and our belief in fairness.

There is always an effort made to ensure that the best results come from any reforms or reviews of legislations, programs and services. This monitoring has led us to recognize that some of the changes brought in then have caused unanticipated difficulties, especially some of the impacts that they have had on seasonal workers and parents who take extended absences from the workforce to care for young children.

We want to provide a program that is fair and that Canadians can count on for support when they are out of work or when they are preparing for work. We have continued to monitor the process. By and large we can say that all the core elements of the reforms undertaken in 1996 are working well. However, we also recognize that some improvements need to be made. That is why we are doing this legislation reform.

I see the legislation as good news for families and their children. By eliminating the intensity rule, for example, we will improve the situation of workers and their families who often have to rely on EI more than they would like to because job opportunities may be limited. For many people in situations like this the existing legislation may be perceived to be punitive, especially in regions where jobs are scarce. This is something that is recognized by these changes.

Remember the intensity rule was put in place to discourage the repeat use of EI. Unfortunately, it has not achieved the desired results. Looking at my part of the country, for example, we do not have the same job opportunities as some other areas of the country. In some regions of my riding of Western Arctic, jobs are very scarce or at best very seasonal.

Not everyone is in the same situation across the country. Take for example the individuals employed in the transportation industry, the ferry workers and the longshoremen of the Northwest Territories. These men and women ensure the transportation of vital goods to many small communities in the western Arctic. Many people would not know but we do not have a complete highway system. We do not have 100% of the transportation grid in our area, neither does Nunavut and some parts of the northern areas of provinces. These jobs are at best very seasonal. These men and women, try as they might, cannot always work year around. The weather simply makes it impossible. Should they be penalized by the intensity rule?

The same is true in a number of other industries in northern communities, such as commercial fisheries. Our communities also depend on firefighters to prevent and extinguish forest fires. Sometimes they work in very remote locations and sometimes they go abroad and assist because they developed the expertise and are asked to make a contribution nationally and internationally outside of our region. Nonetheless, their work is seasonal work. Should these workers be penalized by the intensity rule?

Oil and gas workers, as well as mining industry workers, are other groups who are a vital part of the communities of the Northwest Territories. This work is highly seasonal for the very fact that we do not have permanent roads. We depend on winter roads which have a very short window of opportunity because of the environment. We are not allowed to continue with the transportation of goods once the ground softens. This really has an impact on the livelihood of many of those people. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality of our weather, climate and winter prevents this. The intensity rule has caused hardship for many people in circumstances like this.

We all agree that the emphasis should be on encouraging people to gain long term employment. I know that is what people in the north want to do. That is the long term strategic goal of the north, to become self-sustaining. With the opportunity of now having two diamond mines in full swing, we anticipate camps that have 800 people.

All the same, many of the people who transport fuel and goods are seasonal workers because of the very nature of the climate and circumstances that our environment entails in the north. It is not a government device. We report the weather but we do not create the environment that makes the weather. That is the way it is. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality is their circumstances prevent it.

We have to be realistic and we are. We want a system that is fair to all Canadians including those whose incomes depend on seasonal employment. We can do that by eliminating the intensity rule and backdating the change to October 1, 2000, as the legislation proposes.

I know all members want this. We want to restore the basic rate of 55% for everyone. This is good news. I also see good news in the proposed legislation for those individuals and their families whose income includes special benefits under EI. By this, I mean benefits paid under EI for maternity or parental leave or in cases of illness.

Under the current system special benefits can be subject to the clawback. Under the legislation before us, that will no longer be the case. When Bill C-2 is passed, people collecting maternity, parental or sickness benefits, will no longer have to repay their benefits.

First time claimants will also get a break from the clawback. A first time claimant has often paid premiums for many years without ever drawing on their benefits. At the same time, the government proposes to raise the income level at which the clawback kicks in for repeat claimants, from $39,000 to $48,750 net income.

After the legislation is passed, only higher income Canadians who have repeatedly received EI will face the prospect of paying back their benefits.

I note the legislation proposes we make this repayment adjustment apply starting from taxation year 2000. In other words, the change will provide benefit for all of 2000 and from that time forward.

The bill also proposes changes that will help parents of young children to more easily qualify for regular benefits after they have re-entered the labour force. If the bill is adopted, parents would require the same number of hours as other workers to qualify for regular benefits, between 420 and 700 hours depending on the unemployment rate where they live.

The new rules will recognize the strong workforce attachments these parents had prior to taking an extended period away from work to raise their young children. For example, we have heard about women who felt they had been penalized for taking time away from work to care for their children and that existing regulations did not give them adequate credit for past participation in the labour force.

The throne speech gave a flavour of the kind of care, and previous budgets have also indicated the care, that we give to young children, to families and to the youth of the country. This is a reflection and an extension of that. We want all young children to have a good start. Any legislation that we have put forward has dealt with early intervention and prevention programs. We will ensure that there is compatibility between these changes and the results that we desire.

We are extending the look back period used to determine eligibility for EI regular benefits by four years to make sure re-entrant parents are not treated unfairly. This is an important amendment for my constituents.

Members of the House may not be aware that the Northwest Territories and its neighbour Nunavut have one of the highest birth rates in Canada. In 1999 the birth rate for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut combined was 22.7 births for every 1,000 residents. This compares to an average of 11.2 births for every 1,000 residents in Canada as a whole.

The changes will benefit many people in my riding and neighbouring ridings in the north. I see this as another positive change for Canadian families, particularly in light of the new extended parental benefits. It will remove the penalty these parents, and especially women, could face when applying for EI after an extended absence.

There are numbers of ways the changes in Bill C-2 will benefit unemployed Canadian workers and their families. The bottom line is that by addressing some very real concerns which have been brought to our attention, concerns of my constituents and of the government itself, we are moving to ensure that northerners and all Canadian families are treated fairly under EI, and that they have more money to meet the needs of their families.

However the bill is not the end of our work to ensure fairness under EI. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that we are committed to an ongoing process of review, that we will continue to monitor and access how EI is working and to ensure that the EI system does the job we want it to do. That is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the legislation for northerners and all Canadians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-2, especially following the eloquent remarks from the previous speaker. Building from that, I will try to demonstrate that some NDP members are in fact deep thinkers and I will share some of those deep thoughts with the him.

We are discussing Bill C-2, which really seeks to fix what I believe is an irreparably broken program. I believe we should start from the basic premise that the EI system is busted. It is broken. The wheels have fallen off it. It does not work any more. It ceased to fill its mandate long ago. Let us be clear that its mandate was to provide income maintenance to unemployed people.

We now have a program where less than 40% of unemployed people can hope to get any benefits whatsoever from the program. What kind of an insurance system is that? What if people had house insurance policies that they were forced to pay into because they had no choice. However, when their houses burned down there was less than a 40% chance of collecting any benefit whatsoever. They would think they had been robbed. They would think they had been fleeced by some clever insurance salesman. That is the only conclusion they could really come to.

That is the situation Canadian workers are facing today. Believe it or not but the figures are even worse for women. There is a gender issue here. Unemployed women have a less than 25% chance of collecting any benefit. It is even worse for youth. An unemployed youth under 25 years old has a less than 15% chance of collecting any benefit.

It is not as though the fund is unable to pay those benefits out. The fund is operating at a surplus. There is $500 million a month, not per year, being paid into the program. That is more than is being paid out. The dollar figures are the fund paid out $7 billion worth of benefits last year to unemployed workers and has a surplus of $7.8 billion. Less than 50% of the revenue generated by contributions from employers and employees goes to its intended purpose, which is income maintenance and training for unemployed workers. Over 50% goes into the general revenue for the government to do whatever it wants to do.

These are pretty poor odds. A person gets better odds than that from a VLT machine in Las Vegas. They pay out 94% and they are a rip-off. Frankly, we are being really ripped off when we pay out less than 50% of what we are putting in.

Let us keep in mind another important fact. The government ceased to pay anything into the UIC fund in the late 1980s. It used to be kind of one-third, one-third, one-third. The government stopped paying in at all. It is now solely made up of contributions from the employer and the employee. For every dollar the employee contributes, the employer contributes $1.40.

What gives the federal government the right to use the surplus money at all? It is not its money. The member for Mississauga West argued that because the government is responsible for any shortfall, when that happens, when there is a surplus it is the government's.

When we added up the total accumulated aggregate deficit that the fund had ever gone into, it was something like $11.4 billion. Over the course of many years, and during those years when there was not enough money in the fund to pay for all the unemployed people, we did go into the red.

We now have a surplus of $32 billion and it is growing. By the government's own logic, it should take back the $11.2 billion and put the rest back into benefits, into income maintenance for unemployed workers as it was intended. In that case that would be fair and I do not think there would not be any protests from the NDP.

We should take that $32 surplus, pay back all the money that we were credited with by the government during those periods of high unemployment and use the rest for income maintenance for unemployed people. What could be more fair than that?

Bill C-2 tinkers with a broken system instead of taking active steps to repair it. It tinkers with the intensity rule, the least of our problems. It tinkers with the clawback provisions, again a minor detail. The real problem unemployed workers have is the divisor rule. The method by which benefits were calculated changed dramatically in 1996 and left people, if they were lucky enough to be eligible at all, with collecting less money per week for a shorter period of time.

The divisor rule is so fundamentally wrong because eligibility is calculated based on the hours worked in the previous 52 weeks or one year prior to becoming unemployed. In other words, if a workers get enough hours to qualify in that 52 week period, they will get a claim. However the benefit is calculated on the 26 weeks immediately prior to their filing.

In the carpentry industry some of those might be dead weeks. Maybe there was no work at all for many of those weeks. It used to be that the benefit would be calculated by the previous weeks that one had worked. Obviously the average benefit will be dragged down if in that 26 week period only 13 weeks were worked and the other half were not worked at all. Right away, after making an average of that, it is 50% lower.

We have unemployed trades people and unemployed seasonal workers filing their claims. They used to receive maybe $400 a week in benefits because of the way it was calculated. With the new divisor rule, it is not unusual to see those same people coming in with paystubs for $128, $213 or $34. We had one actual illustrated example of a seasonal worker in New Brunswick who used to be able to count on approximately $315 a week. She now receives $38 a week.

No wonder there is a surplus. Hardly anybody qualifies and those who are lucky enough to win the lottery and qualify receive dramatically reduced benefits. There is a basic unfairness. If the system were being maxed out or there were a shortage in the system, we would have to be more miserly in the distribution of the benefits, but with a surplus of $500 million every month it is obscene.

I have often said that if we deduct something from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and then use it for something completely different, in the very best case scenario that is a breach of trust. We entered into a trust relationship with employees when we took money off their cheques and told them we would hold it for them until they needed it. Then, on the very day they need it, we tell them we have changed our minds and we are spending that money on building roads, hospitals or for whatever else the government is using its consolidated revenue fund.

This is beyond a breach of trust. It is out and out fraudulent. People have reasonable expectations which were created when we told them that we were taking the money off their cheque for a specific reason, to give them income security if they become unemployed. We created that trust relationship and I would say it is a legal relationship. As the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois very accurately pointed out, Bill C-2 seeks to institutionalize what is fundamentally wrong. It seeks to legalize what I believe is a challengeable situation.

That is what is wrong with Bill C-2 in a nutshell. It could have dealt with eligibility. It could have dealt with the real issue that less than 40% of Canadians qualify. It could have lowered the bar so that more people were eligible because the impact in certain regions is horrific.

We have heard members talk about Atlantic Canada today. Let me give one example from my riding of Winnipeg Centre. It is the third poorest riding in the country by whatever measurement is used, whether incidence of poverty or average family income. In the third poorest riding in the country the changes made to the EI program sucked $20.8 million a year out of my riding alone. That is just one little neighbourhood in the core area of Winnipeg. That is $20.8 million of payroll that would otherwise have been spent in the local economy.

Let us imagine that a company wanted to move into my riding with a payroll of $20.8 million. We would pave the streets with gold to attract that company. It would get government grants and subsidies. We would welcome it with open arms because it would generate a level of activity of $20.8 million a year.

We have had $20.8 million sucked out. The reverse happened in my riding. When we add what happened in St. John's, Newfoundland, the total impact is over $100 million a year. The very poorest and most vulnerable people have been pushed over the line from a reasonable income maintenance benefit into poverty.

What happens to those people? They go on social assistance, so the burden is offloaded on to the provinces that are already maxed out. The CHST is cut back, adding to the burden of the provinces, and their ability to provide income maintenance to poor people is reduced because of the reduction of EI benefits.

If the government were sincere about fixing the EI program it would have talked about eligibility in Bill C-2, but there is no mention of that. The government does not seem to think there is anything wrong with it. Why? It is a cash cow. It is a goose that lays golden eggs. It just keeps squirting out these treasures every month.

It has paid down the deficit on the backs of unemployed workers, the most vulnerable people in the country. Even worse, it has not just paid down the deficit with that money. Now it is giving tax cuts to the wealthy with that money. It is a sick and perverted form of Robin Hood, to rob from the poor to give to the rich.

The member across says that is nonsense. What would the member call a further reduction in capital gains tax? What would the member call a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 17% to 16%? Where is the government getting that money to give away? It is getting a considerable amount of that money, $32 billion of it, from the EI fund, from unemployed workers who would otherwise receive benefits and now get zippo, zilch. They are shut out of the system. We are not pleased with Bill C-2. We are kind of upset by it.

There is one point that is even more galling. As a tradesman I served a four year apprenticeship. It is a beautiful system because one is engaged with the workforce. One can earn while one learns. One has an attachment to the workforce while in school with the community college component of the apprenticeship.

When I went to community college for my apprenticeship training I received EI benefits. It is one of the designated uses listed in the EI act. It was a great system. The EI system used to purchase block seats in community colleges. It would buy a whole classroom of seats and provide income maintenance to the students while they were there.

Now there is a two week waiting period. Now EI is treating the students as if they are unemployed. When they leave the job site and go to the community college, with no interruption in their work they are not unemployed. They still have bosses and they still have jobs. They are just going through the school component of their apprenticeships.

An insignificant amount of money is being gained. It is a miserly thing to do. The total impact of this for all apprentices is about $80 million a year when a surplus of $500 million a month is being shown.

I will tell the House the predictable consequence and exactly what is happening. Apprentices are not taking their schooling when it comes up. They get their notices from the community college that it is their turn to go to school. Struggling apprentices with young families are faced with two weeks with no income whatsoever. They are just passing on it and saying that they will not accept it this year, that they will try next year when their number comes up again, extending their apprenticeship and disadvantaging the industry that needs graduating journeymen.

That is one example of the many hundreds of tiny things the government did to the program in 1996 which has caused this incredible windfall surplus. There is no mention of that in Bill C-2.

We will be moving that as an amendment and we would seek broad support from the other parties for the basic, fundamental issue of income maintenance for apprentices while they are in community college. I hope we will get broad support for that. I understand that even the Progressive Conservative Party sees the logic in that issue.

There is a huge gender issue here too, which I think should be raised on behalf of the many women who are disadvantaged by the EI system. I have already said that less than 25% of unemployed women are eligible for EI. There is a reason for this. Women are often more likely to be in part time jobs where they have difficulty getting the number of hours they need to qualify.

There is a charter challenge. I am proud to say that the community unemployed health centre located in my riding has managed to succeed to the next level of federal court with an argument that the current EI system structure affects women in a way that violates article 15 of the charter which states that everyone deserves equal access to all the benefits and the provisions of being a citizen of Canada.

It disproportionately affects women in a negative way far more than it affects men. I believe the women of Canada and their advocates have a legitimate case to make. Whether it was by design, by omission or by accident, there is a gender imbalance disadvantaging women more than men.

Even the whole hour system is structured in a way that fewer people qualify. I am not trying to hearken back to the old system as if it were perfect, but if people worked more than 15 hours in one week in the old days they were given credit for one insurable week. Granted the benefit would be lower because it would be a low income week, but at least they received credit for the week.

Now 920 hours are required to requalify into the program, with 700 hours being required for an initial application. Rather than 14 to 20 weeks depending on where one lives, one now needs 700 to 920 hours. That is a lot more. It is like six months of work. The eligibility bar has been raised. A lot of people working part time will never get 920 hours. UFCW workers who are store clerks at Sobey's or Canada Safeway are deliberately held down to 15 hours a week. They will never qualify. They have to pay in but they never qualify. This is absolutely unfair.

A number of things in the EI bill are fundamentally wrong. It is a revenue generator for the government. It is not an insurance system. It ceased to be an insurance system a long time ago when it failed to provide reasonable income maintenance for unemployed workers as per its original mandate. At $500 million a month the Liberals cannot afford to be fair. If that is the case, maybe we should pack the system up because it is failing to meet the needs of unemployed workers.

I mentioned the intensity rule and the clawback rule. Both of these will be changed by Bill C-2. They are positive steps. We do not deny that these are two of the things that needed to be changed. However they are insignificant. The intensity rule meant an individual was punished for being a frequent user of the system. If one collected this year one would lose 1% of the benefit the next year on a rolling scale up to a total of 5%. If one collected five years in a row, one would be 5% lower than one's colleagues.

The Canadian Labour Congress put together a series of proposals to improve the system and make it more accessible. It is shooting for 70% and 60%. Seventy per cent of all unemployed workers should qualify and they should be compensated at sixty per cent of their gross earnings. This would be an employment insurance system that would actually provide insurance for unemployed people.

It is supposed to be unemployment insurance system. The government changed the name in a very cynical way in 1996 to try to take the focus away from what it was originally intended to do: to provide income maintenance and training for unemployed people so they could re-enter the workforce.

We heard a lot about labour market training in the Speech from the Throne. Suddenly there is a renewed interest in a highly skilled workforce where key elements in building a highly skilled workforce are being taken away. I am talking about job security, income maintenance when unemployed and good access to labour market training so individuals can get back into the workforce should they be unfortunate enough to become unemployed.

What would members say of home insurance program if they had less than a 40% chance to collect? What would we say of any kind of system that paid out less than 50% or what was put in? The odds are better in a Las Vegas VLT where at least 94% is paid out. Here $7 billion is paid out and $7.8 billion is put into surplus and then squandered by the Liberal government spending it on whatever it wishes.

Unemployed workers in this province have been fleeced. They have been hosed since 1996 and they are fed up. They are coming to us pleading for the government to understand what it means to be a seasonal worker, a construction worker or any Canadian who finds himself unemployed and needing income maintenance.

Bill C-2 is as flawed as the employment insurance system.