Bill C-2 (Historical)

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

Canada Pension Plan

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, having been on the finance committee when Bill C-2 to create the investment board was first dealt with by the House, I was astounded to hear some of the statements made by the member in referring to the CPP plan when it was started back in 1966 as a pay as you go plan. This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of what happened when the CPP was created.

At the time Canadians who had come through the depression years had very little opportunity to provide for their retirement years. It was a decision by the Canadian people through their elected representatives to establish the CPP fund. It allowed Canadians in that situation to begin receiving pension or retirement benefits right off the bat, even without having contributed anything into the plan. It is not a pay as you go plan. It is Canadians taking care of their own. It is Canadians working today and making contributions to a plan which is used to pay benefits to those who had no opportunity to provide for their retirement. I am sorry that the member mischaracterized the Canada pension plan.

The member has mistakenly characterized the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as the instrument of pension administration. The fact is that the Canada Pension Plan Act deals with what benefits are available, whether they are survivor benefits, death benefits, disability benefits, et cetera. That is the instrument which is jointly administered and operated by the provinces and the federal government.

The member would like to have representatives from labour, trade unions, pensioners, and future pensioners on the board. If we start making lists, several different groups will be represented, and once we start making lists someone gets left off.

The Canada pension plan is set up and operated by the governments of Canada, provincial and federal, to ensure there are appropriate pension benefits for Canadians.

Today's pensioners get $8 for every $1 they put into the plan. Today there are five workers for one pensioner and because of our aging society it will be down to three workers for one pensioner. For that reason premiums have had to go up to sustain the plan over the long term.

To suggest that we should somehow manage the investment board for a bunch of other policy objectives is fundamentally wrong simply because these moneys are collected on behalf of Canadians to provide them with pension benefits. It is not there as an instrument for other social or economic objectives. We already support venture funds. We already support the applicable screening of investments in tobacco issues as the member mentioned.

The member has mischaracterized the board as an instrument of policy rather than an instrument to ensure that the market is not distorted with a very large investment fund. It was set up so investments would not be all over the place but rather would reflect the purchasing and selling patterns of the stock exchange as a whole so it had no undue influence on the markets which the member is suggesting that it does. Setting it up that way ensures that returns will be comparable to what other investors would get, ergo the 30% foreign investment limit, which is exactly what Canadians are permitted now under the Income Tax Act.

The member has some explaining to do as to why he has misled the House on these important issues.

Privilege

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Finance with contempt for his failure to comply with the legislative requirement compelling him to table a report from the chief actuary in compliance with section 115 of the CPP Act.

Subsection 115(2) of the CPP Act says:

--the Chief Actuary shall, whenever any Bill is introduced in or presented to the House of Commons to amend this Act in a manner that would in the opinion of the Chief Actuary materially affect any of the estimates contained in the most recent report under this section made by the Chief Actuary, prepare, using the same actuarial assumptions and basis as were used in that report, a report setting forth the extent to which such Bill would, if enacted by Parliament, materially affect any of the estimates contained in that report.

On June 6 the government introduced Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada pension plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act. The speaking notes given out by the government indicate that this will change the earnings of the fund by $75 billion. This is a material effect on the fund and must be accompanied by a full report of the chief actuary.

Moreover, the report must be laid before the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance forthwith. That is subsection 115(8), which states:

Forthwith on the completion of any report under this section, the Chief Actuary shall transmit the report to the Minister of Finance, who shall cause the report to be laid before the House of Commons forthwith on its receipt if Parliament is then sitting, or if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first five days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, and if at the time any report under this section is received by the Minister of Finance Parliament is then dissolved, the Minister of Finance shall forthwith cause a copy of the report to be published in the Canada Gazette. (Section 115(8).

The chief actuary has completed his report. The speaking notes from the department read:

The transfer is expected to improve the investment performance of the CPP. The Chief Actuary of Canada estimates that the change will increase CPP assets by about $75 billion over 50 years.

The last time a bill was introduced in the House making changes to the CPP Act, the chief actuary had his report prepared one day before the bill was introduced in parliament. Bill C-2 was introduced on September 25, 1997, and I have a copy of a letter sent to the minister from the chief actuary dated September 24, 1997, one day before the bill was tabled indicating that:

In compliance with subsection 115(2) of the Canada Pension Plan Act, which provides that a periodic actuarial report shall be prepared whenever a Bill is introduced in the House of Commons to amend the CPP, I am pleased to transmit the sixteenth actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan.

I will table both of these documents with you, Mr. Speaker.

Clearly, our chief actuary is on the ball and respects parliament and follows the law. The fault does not lie with the chief actuary but with the Minister of Finance. The report regarding Bill C-58 is obviously finished and should have been tabled.

Members of the House cannot evaluate the impact of these changes properly without a report. For example, an extra $75 billion may allow the 9.9% rate to fall. On the other hand it could be that the CPP would be unsustainable without this act and that this act was assumed in the preparation of the last, that is the 18th, report. Parliamentarians need to know this.

In 1993 the Speaker ruled on a similar question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River. The issue at that time concerned the failure of the Minister of Finance to table an order made under the customs act as it was his statutory duty to do. The member for Scarborough--Rouge River stated that he entertained no doubt that:

...the minister's failure to table a document required to be tabled by this House, whether intentional or accidental, tends to diminish the authority of the House of Commons and is something that might reasonably be held to constitute contempt by this House

Speaker Fraser ruled on April 19, 1993, that a prima facie case of breach of privilege had been made and allowed the member to move a motion referring the matter to the standing committee on House management. In his ruling Speaker Fraser reiterated that:

The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected. Members cannot function if they do not have access to the material they need for their work and if our rules are being ignored and even statutory instruments are being disregarded.

The Speaker also agreed that disregard of a legislative command, even if unintentional, was an affront to the authority and dignity of parliament as a whole and the House in particular.

On November 21, 2001, the Speaker delivered a ruling in regard to a complaint by the member for Surrey Central who cited 16 examples of where the government failed to comply with the legislative requirements concerning the tabling of certain information in parliament. In all 16 cases raised on November 21 a report deadline was absent from the legislation. As a result the Speaker could not find a prima facie question of privilege. However the Speaker said in his ruling at page 7381 of Hansard :

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist and I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion.

The reporting date in section 115 of the CPP Act is “forthwith”. The term forthwith is used all through our standing orders, Mr. Speaker, and I have watched you comply with such orders. When our standing orders instruct us to put a question to the House forthwith, that is exactly what we do. We do it right away without delay. We do not do it the next day or a week later.

By breaching a statutory requirement to table the chief actuary's report in the House the Minister of Finance is in contempt of the House. I am prepared to move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would also request that Bill C-58 not be allowed to proceed until a report of the chief actuary has been tabled. This is more of a point of order and ask that you rule on that related matter as well.

Softwood Lumber

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member conveniently forgets is that it is this government that repealed the intensity rule. It is this government that made considerable changes to the employment insurance program for the benefit of seasonal workers. At the very same time, the hon. member forgets that he and his party voted against all those changes in Bill C-2.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the auditor general said at committee is exactly what she said in her report in December. What she indicated is that she thought there was a better way of setting employment insurance premium rates. We agree with her. That is why in Bill C-2 we included that as part of the act. I would remind the House, the hon. member and his party that they voted against that bill.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank especially my Bloc Quebecois colleagues for their support. I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the December 2001 budget implementation bill.

The curious thing about an implementation bill is that it always contains measures we support. Often they are measures put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, in this case the provisions dealing with mechanics, which were championed by the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. I believe he deserves our support.

At the same time, we find measures such as the air security charge. For that we have nobody to applaud on either side. Today, we even heard a Liberal member arguing very strongly in favour of amending this part of the bill. His argumentation was very convincing, since he talked a lot about small airports in the remote areas of his riding.

Unfortunately, I fail to understand the logic of his reasoning. He said during questions and comments that in the end he would still vote for the bill. This is the downside of his presentation.

I urge everybody to read what he said regarding the air security tax, which is going to be entirely paid for by travellers. This means for instance that in airports in Alma, Bagotville, Baie-Comeau, Chibougamau, Gaspe, the Magdalen Islands, Kuujjuaq, La Grande Rivière, la Grande-3, La Grande-4, Blanc-Sablon, Mont-Joli, Montreal, Quebec City, Roberval, Rouyn-Noranda, Sept-Îles et Val-d'Or, in every single one of these small or medium size airports, travellers will have to pay this surcharge, when we know full well that the whole issue of terrorism is going to require the implementation of new technologies, but mainly in major airports.

This morning, another member from the Canadian Alliance said that the Standing Committee on Transport had made a very constructive proposal. It suggested that half of the bill be paid by users and the other half by the government. This way, we would reduce the negative impact on the development of these regions.

For this reason alone, we have no choice but to vote against the bill, unless the government decides to withdraw this half-baked measure that has seemingly been hastily put together, a bit like the infrastructure foundation.

In the same bill, in the same December budget where they come up with this new air travel tax, they also invented a new method for dealing with infrastructure expenditures, via a foundation.

Everybody has spoken out against this and attacked it, because it makes no sense that we elected representatives should totally delegate this responsibility to people who have not been not elected, particularly since this government very much had control over the appointment of the foundation's members. As well, this delays investments.

Municipalities throughout Quebec and Canada have proposed projects to their governments. Some have been approved by the Government of Quebec, but cannot be accepted by Ottawa because no money is available for investment. One might therefore have expected this in the budget.

Today, in the implementing bill, there has been a backtrack on this, because the government has realized that the foundation was not workable, and did not meet governmental accountability requirements. I think what was done was appropriate, but now we have another obstacle. Looking at the bill, we see that the government wants to invest directly in the municipalities, without going through Quebec City.

During today's oral question period, I was thinking about this and said to myself “I hope it is not true that we are headed for another hassle like the one over the millennium scholarship foundation. We will end up being forced to spend months and years negotiating to find a way to get the money to the municipalities of Quebec, and of course it will all be blamed on the Government of Quebec, taking advantage of this, the last year of its mandate. A fine way to strangle a government”.

The federal government is allowing the money to go to the English speaking provinces because they are not going to make a problem about it going directly to the municipalities. That is their view of Canada. But in Quebec we want infrastructure expenditures to be co-ordinated, so it would not yet be possible.

We are going to fight in order to bring the federal government at last, after the foundation idea, which made no sense, followed by the fund idea, which would have the money going directly to the municipalities, back to its senses so that it will decide—and I think this could be done very readily—to enter into negotiations in order to have the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program apply to this $2 billion fund.

This way, it would only take one or two days' worth of meetings. There is a mechanism that already exists that could be used to meet infrastructure needs.

And there are considerable needs to be met. In my riding, there are projects to protect water quality. These are important projects. This is a priority for everyone. I think that this work needs to be done in the short term, in order to avoid finding ourselves in a situation where we cannot obtain satisfactory results.

What would happen if in one year or in a year and a half, suddenly, we had another Walkerton situation on our hands and some municipality experienced a terrible crisis like the one that happened in Ontario? If that were to happen, a number of people would say that if they could have spent the money this year, if they could have carried out the projects this year, the situation could have been avoided. When we look at it this way, I would describe the government's attitude as somewhat irresponsible.

They are attempting to save face after realizing that the foundation was not working. Now, why not allow for this money to be quickly injected into the system so that it can quickly be spent? For this, I think that there is still another step that this government has yet to take.

I mentioned earlier that an implementation bill contains both good and bad measures. There is one measure that it contains, regarding employment insurance and parental and maternity benefits in some cases, which we support. It will help people who were hindered by a system that was too rigid and that prevented them from taking full advantage of their maternity or parental benefits if they left the hospital after several weeks. This situation will be rectified. There will be more leeway. This is appropriate.

But between this small step and what could have been done had the government agreed to implement the parental leave plan proposed by the Quebec government, there is a long, long way to go. On the one hand, we have this small measure, which, thankfully, will correct a situation, but on the other hand, there was a parental leave option that would have allowed all self-employed workers to be eligible.

In the end, all workers could benefit from it, whereas the existing federal parental leave program is not flexible. It provides for one year of benefits at 55% of the person's salary. It is not possible, for example, to have 40 weeks at 75%. Low income families might prefer to have that.

For instance, 55% of a weekly salary of $300 is not much. If people could at least get 75% for a lower number of weeks, that would be a start. This is an option that could have been included, but that the existing federal program does not allow.

I am asking the government to continue to look at the issue, so that it can arrive at a solution and agree with Quebec to establish this parental leave program, which several provinces in Canada want, by the way.

When Mme Goupil, the Quebec minister responsible for this issue, proposed this measure to her counterparts from the other provinces, the reaction was very favourable. It is hoped that the system will be operational as soon as possible. Why not begin with Quebec, which has often taken the initiative on social issues and has served as an example for the other provinces, and sometimes for Canada as a whole?

This is like the $5 a day daycare program. It is in the same spirit. We have got a lot of praise for this initiative which, among other things, has resulted in a significant drop in the number of single mothers who rely on welfare. Thanks to this program, these women can now go to work and have access to quality daycare services, at a much lower cost.

In this way, we not only fulfill the need to generate wealth but, in some ways, we are doing our share in ensuring that this wealth is properly distributed and in allowing people to make a contribution by using their potential. These are very appropriate efforts.

We must also get to the bottom of things as regards the impact of another aspect of this bill. We must find out what will happen with the surpluses. Initially, it was said that the foundation would have a budget of $2 billion. That was conditional on the amount of the surpluses. The $500 million fund for Africa would also be set up under the same terms.

On the basis of today's figures and given the practice that we have been seeing for the last few years, the Minister of Finance always announces small surpluses so that, at the end of the year, he has huge amounts with which to pay down the debt. We are not against money being used to pay down the debt but, during a major economic downturn, we would have liked to see some balance and to know the exact figures so that there could be an informed debate. Once again this year, this is not the situation we are being presented with.

During Oral Question Period, I asked the Minister of Transport about highway 185, the segment of the Trans-Canada between Rivière-du-Loup and Edmunston. In this budget, I was not necessarily asking that this particular highway be mentioned, but I would have liked to see more than the $500 million currently earmarked for Canada's highway system. Five hundred million dollars over five years is $100 million a year, which means, for Quebec, $25 million a year, when highway 185 alone, the Trans-Canada between Rivière-du-Loup and Edmunston, will cost a total of $500 to $600 million.

This highway is a deathtrap; 30 people have lost their lives on it in the last three years. With the disappearance of the railway line, this highway has had to serve an entirely different set of needs. Today, there is the heavy vehicle traffic of the Trans-Canada travelling from the maritimes to central Canada, as well as heavy local and tourist traffic. It is almost the only highway in Quebec where, despite my experience as a driver, I personally do not feel safe because I never know what is going to happen next.

I would have liked to see additional money in the budget for this, so that highway 175 or other highways could be maintained. This was one of the promises made during the election campaign—which was one year ago, not ten—by the Prime Minister himself, who promised that large amounts of money would be earmarked for highway 185; still today, nothing has been confirmed. It is hard to imagine how the Minister of Transport will manage to meet the needs in this area when he was unable to get the Minister of Finance to include additional money in the budget for this.

I hope that the money set aside for infrastructure will find its way into this area of concern, but there are many other needs. It would have been helpful to have this information in the budget.

For some weeks now, since before Christmas in fact, the Minister of Transport has had on his desk memoranda from the Quebec Minister of Transport on highways 185 and 175, and other highways in Quebec, saying “We will finance the project on a 50-50 basis, or since highway 185 is the Trans-Canada Highway, we will finance it on a 20-80 basis”.

The Quebec government has already invested $225 million. Money was spent last year, and more will be provided this year. But if we had an extra amount from the federal government, we could speed up the work. Larger amounts would be put toward engineering and architectural studies, so that work can be properly planned. We are still awaiting the government's answer but none has been forthcoming. There is nothing in the December 2001 budget implementation bill to that effect.

The budget also includes Canada's $500 million Africa fund to help reduce poverty, develop primary education programs and promote sustainable development in Africa.

In this area, we realize that in spite of all the rhetoric on the need to increase international aid and write off the debt of the poorest countries in the world, the federal government has not really increased our contribution to international aid. Yet, it would probably be the best way to permanently resolve crises like the terrorist crisis that we are facing now.

I do not believe that the long term solution would be to equip our military as it has never been equipped before. This is not the solution. Terrorists will always find ways to bypass the systems in place.

We must ensure that there no longer is a breeding ground for terrorism, a totally unacceptable behaviour. There must be a better distribution of wealth. Summits like those that took place last week must work toward common goals. I am thinking here about the Pôrto Alegre summit and the New York economic summit, which was usually held in Davos, Switzerland. The Canadian government has a responsibility to do its share in terms of international aid.

I have worked with various players in this field. The government organized round tables. We realized that, as elected representatives, we had to raise awareness of this issue in our communities. When there is not enough money for our constituents, they do not always understand why we should be giving money to other countries.

If we want to smooth the rough edges of globalization, we must ensure that people living in developing countries have the means to progress and to enjoy the benefits of our society, instead of only having the disadvantages and the low paying jobs. People must have access to adequate training and be able to use their skills in their own community. There is a lot of work to be done in this area.

Finally, with this budget, we see many contradictions in the finance minister's statement. In a few weeks, or in two months maybe, the government will have the financial results for the year. Again there will be huge surpluses, including surpluses coming from the employment insurance fund. I will conclude my remarks on this note.

Last fall, I was expecting to receive the report from the chief actuary for the employment insurance fund, as I had in previous years. In January, I still had not received it. I wrote to the minister asking her to send it to us. Two days later, the answer was “There is no report”. Four days later, I was told “Sorry, we made a mistake the first time. There is a report, a copy of which you will find attached”.

And to top it all off, it is obvious that the report was not produced by the chief actuary. The federal government has now decided that the chief actuary at employment insurance will no longer produce an annual report. For the next two years, according to Bill C-2, the government will be the one to set the contribution rate. This is a cover-up operation. Bill C-2 makes it possible to disguise the fact that there is too much money in the EI account. Every year, some $6 billion is taken from it to be used for other government expenditures. They have decided to eliminate that possibility and the public will no longer be able to ask any questions.

The second phase of the cover-up is that the decision was made in the fall for the chief actuary not to report any longer, and all this is because of Bill C-2. The Minister of Human Resource Development remains the one responsible, however, and there are questions that need to be asked in order to ensure that the fund will really be used to enable EI to serve the purpose for which it was created.

We are faced with a situation where, once again, there will be a four, five or six billion dollar surplus, despite the economic downturn, despite the economic fallout of September 11 as well as of the entire softwood lumber crisis and other such things. The means have not been put into place to enable our local workers affected by this crisis to stand behind the position of Quebec and Canada on this. Today, I have listened to what the Minister for International Trade has had to say. As far as his contacts with the Americans are concerned, I can say that it is all right, but they have had to be monitored very closely.

As for the necessity of worker solidarity, the government has not done anything. Today people are going to exhaust their EI benefits and within weeks or months there is going to be a terrible furore. What people expected to find in this budget was some measures that would in whole or in part reflect the plan proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, a recovery plan that would have made it possible to cope with these negative situations. That is nowhere to be found in either the budget or the 2001 budget implementation act.

For all these reasons and despite the positive elements in this omnibus bill, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice but to vote against ,it unless the government finally amends it. We have already made some gains. The concept of a foundation has been dropped. If we keep repeating our arguments, we may score more points. In the meantime, if the government does not change its position, our constituents would not accept our supporting a bill that does not provide for an adequate distribution of wealth.

For all these reasons, I hope many parties and members on both sides of the House will do just like the Bloc Quebecois. I hope that the Liberal member who spoke out against the tax on air transportation will think it over and vote against the bill, as we will do, because it is the best option for the time being.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying how pleased I am to be able to speak to the House of Commons on the budget of the Minister of Finance. I would also like to say how distressing it is to see my colleague over there, who comes from the maritimes, boasting about five surplus budgets since 1993.

This is not the first time I have said such a thing in this House, but this surplus has been created at the expense of workers who have lost their jobs. The Liberals say in this House that the people of Nova Scotia are pleased and understand there has to be some belt tightening. This is unacceptable, and what is more, it is not the truth.

I remember what happened in the 1997 election, when almost all of Nova Scotia elected not one Liberal to the House of Commons. They were not pleased with the Liberal government's cuts. In 1993, before being elected, the Liberal leader, now Prime Minister, said that the Progressive Conservatives ought not to have made the cuts they did to employment insurance.

The hon. member opposite, from Nova Scotia, should stay in the House to hear my speech and listen to what I have to say. During the last election, the Prime Minister said himself that EI needed changes because he had lost support in the Atlantic provinces. So how can the member stand in the House today and tell us that the people of Nova Scotia are happy?

I am sure that what goes for Nova Scotia goes for New Brunswick. Most of the time, people work seasonal jobs. Maybe it is because the member lives in Halifax that he is defending this position. He should go to Cape Breton and see if the folks are happy. He should go to Cape Breton, to the Gaspé Peninsula and to where I come from, the Acadian Peninsula.

On September 11, tragic events took place in the United States. Everyone was shaken by this. However, there are tragedies taking place every day here in Canada because of the Liberal government's cuts. People are committing suicide. Instead of planes slamming into buildings, bullets are being fired into peoples' heads because they are unable to provide food for their family.

The Liberal government itself turned around and went and bought boats to solve the problem of the aboriginal fishery. That is one thing that I agree with. It provided shipmasters in the crab fishery $2.5 million. It gathered the fishers and those who worked on these boats, the deckmen, as they are known, and laid them off, forcing them onto welfare. That is what the Liberals did.

About 15 minutes before I was to give my speech, people from my riding called me to say that they were worried because they no longer qualified for EI.

The member from Nova Scotia has the nerve to rise in the House and say that the people of Nova Scotia are happy. It is disgraceful the way the Liberal government goes after workers who have lost their jobs and tells Canadians that they will have to tighten their belts. It is not Canadians who are tightening their belts, but the men and women who have lost their jobs. The Liberal government promised changes to the EI legislation.

During the 2000 election campaign, it promised amendments to Bill C-44 with Bill C-2. The Liberals said that we should pass the bill quickly because other changes were in the works. All parties in the House of Commons made recommendations to the House and to the minister. The Liberals, who were elected on the strength of their promises to make further changes to the EI legislation, made recommendations as well.

The member for Madawaska—Restigouche was elected on the strength of this promise. The member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the son of the former Governor General of Canada, said that if he were elected, he would make changes to the EI rules. He has not made even the tiniest change since being elected, nor has he said a word about it.

It is not enough that they have gone after EI recipients. Now they are sending out forms. As the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Halifax know, the government is now sending out forms to disabled individuals so that they no longer qualify for tax credits. Everything is done on the backs of the least fortunate.

Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention that I would be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I did not wish to forget this, nor do I wish to speak for 20 minutes. I think that ten minutes will be all the Liberals can take.

The Liberals have the nerve to say that they are happy that there have been five budget surpluses, which were obtained at taxpayers' expense, not to mention the cuts imposed on the provinces. They could have said “We will use this budget to start taking care of the economy. We will help the disadvantaged, we will help small and medium size businesses. We will help people find jobs, we will put them to work”.

But no, they prefer to boast, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, about having a surplus, when people commit suicide, when families have no money, when there are no transfers to provinces. Social assistance benefits were not raised; no premier is willing to raise them to give money to the poor. Some 1.4 million children go hungry in Canada. Eight hundred thousand persons cannot get employment insurance benefits. Meanwhile, the Liberals are boasting. Shame on them.

Shame on those who come from the Atlantic provinces and praise the Liberal government. What the Liberals are doing today is shameful for Atlantic Canada, it is shameful for Canada. It is utterly shameful.

The issues that I mentioned are human realities. They are things that people are confronted with on a daily basis.

Last week, I met fishers to whom the government said “Buy boats, to the tune of $2.5 million, but we are not responsible for dockhands working on these boats. Get organized now. Contact the Department of Human Resources Development”. The fishers went to the Department of Human Resources Development and were told “This is no longer our responsibility. We have agreements with the province”. Then the province said “What do you want us to do with them? They have to do like the others and go on welfare”.

What a nice transfer. This is how the issue is solved. This is how they solve the dispute between the two peoples, the whites and the aboriginals. The Liberals truly did a great job there.

So I hope that, in their budgets and in their thoughts, they will begin to show greater sensitivity than they have done so far. They must stop boasting about having asked Canadians to tighten their belts. They did not ask Canadians to tighten their belts: they did it for them. They robbed the workers who lost their jobs. They even bragged about having surpluses. This is highway robbery. The biggest robbery in Canada's history was committed here in the House of Commons by the Liberals.

Some people leave their families behind to find work. They are forced to go out west. Children are crying, because they want their daddies back home. When they do go home after six months, the federal government sends inspectors and investigators who make them lose their employment insurance benefits. It is despicable for the Liberals to do this instead of doing what they said they would.

Prior to 1993, before they were elected, the Liberals were telling Brian Mulroney “That is not the way to solve economic problems. It is not done by picking on the little guy who has lost his job, it is done by boosting the economy and putting people to work”. That is where the Liberals did not meet their responsibilities when they did get elected. Today they are boasting “Yes, but we have won elections”. Still, they have a human responsibility. That responsibility is to get people working. When people do not have work, the Liberals have a responsibility to help them meet their needs, as they said they would while campaigning.

Thirty-five days before the election, they were prepared to give Canadians anything. The day after the election, they were prepared to take everything away from them, and they have continued to do so for three and a half years. It is shameful to see the suffering and discord they have caused for families. In my opinion, what is going on in Canada under the Liberal government is worse than the events of September 11. It is shameful. I could never repeat this enough.

The Minister of Finance knew there had been a recommendation from all parties. My colleague from Madawaska--Restigouche has been on the committee. So has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development. They have all made recommendations, including the Liberals. They knew that a change was needed to help Canadians out.

Hopefully, my colleague opposite, who comes from Nova Scotia, will rework his speech and next time, will not praise the Liberals, who deserve no praise for making Canadians suffer.

Canada Elections Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak on the bill, which would provide that every ballot would include a category for voting for “none of the above” candidates. I would like to thank the hon. member for Davenport for his ongoing interest in electoral issues and for his many contributions in this area.

Today's discussion relates to the fundamental matter of how Canadians choose their representatives in government. The right to vote is of course a fundamental right in our system of parliamentary democracy. Indeed, few responsibilities of democratic citizenship are more important than the exercising of that right. Through the exercising of this responsibility, Canadians send members to parliament to sit in the House and choose a government.

The government has been very active in improving our electoral laws in recent years. These changes have in large part sought to facilitate Canadians in exercising their democratic responsibility to choose members of parliament.

In 1996 parliament passed Bill C-63, which created the National Register of Electors. Bill C-63 also changed the polling hours so that the polls would close at the same time in the western provinces as in Ontario and Quebec. In 1999 parliament debated and passed Bill C-2 ,which thoroughly overhauled and modernized the electoral law of our country. The bill updated the tax credits for individual political contributions and made it easier for people to run as candidates by making the candidate deposit fully refundable on the filing of financial statements. Earlier this year parliament passed Bill C-9, which made it much easier for parties to qualify to have their party names on the ballot.

Under the bill before us today every ballot printed by Elections Canada would include the line “none of the above”. It seems to me that this would be at odds with the very purpose of elections, that is, to send members of parliament to the House. My concern is that the bill could be seen by Canadians as saying that they should have the option of avoiding their democratic responsibilities.

Democracy is not easy. In fact, Sir Winston Churchill, as many or perhaps all members in the House would know, said, as we recall, that democracy is the worst system there is except for all the others. That is clear. In other words, it is not a perfect system. It is a difficult system. It requires citizens to take an interest in what is going on and make difficult choices sometimes, but that is what voting is all about and that is our responsibility. We do not get to choose the exact person and party we might ideally like to have as our candidate or as a government. We have to choose among the alternatives. We choose among people who are doing the best they can as individual human beings and that is what democracy is all about.

The bill could also lead to cynicism about democracy and about our parliamentary institutions. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Davenport that Canadians already have ways to avoid participation in choosing their government and representatives. Canadians can avoid participating in the electoral process by spoiling their ballots. In every election Elections Canada records the number of voters in each riding who choose to spoil their ballots, so there is in fact a record kept of those people. Canadians can also simply choose to stay at home on election day, as we all know. This is unlike the situation in many countries around the world, such as Australia, where all citizens are required by law to vote. The bill, then, would present a third route of non-participation.

The bill is also unnecessary because our system ensures that Canadians have many alternatives from which to choose in elections. As we know, there are five political parties currently represented in the House and in the last election there were 11 political parties with candidates on the ballot. In total, 1,808 candidates ran for office across this great country.

These candidates and parties spanned the ideological spectrum and took different views on all kinds of issues. Advocates of the right to vote for none of the above may suggest that it is a way to give people an outlet where they are starved for choice, but we Canadians are not starved for choice as we are given a wide range of visions of the future at election time.

In any event, it is now even easier for parties to be recognized so that they can get their names on the ballot during an election campaign. There was a time when a party had to have 50 candidates to have its name on the ballot. Now, thanks to the changes introduced earlier this year in Bill C-9, that number is 12. To get official recognition as a party and to have its name on the ballot, a party needs only 12 candidates across the country. As a result, we can expect that in future elections Canadians will have even more choice on their ballots. I also point out that the proposal would be inconsistent with our own traditions and I am not aware of any other country providing this option in national elections.

I note that last year the people of California considered a measure similar to the one presented in this bill and in a referendum 64% of them voted against including a category of none of the above on ballots in that state. I am not suggesting that what the people in California do should determine what we should do here, but it is interesting that California, which is often considered to be avant-garde in many ways, was not supportive of this measure.

In conclusion, I believe that our current system encourages Canadians to exercise the right to vote and provides a range of possibilities for doing so. The option of adding a new category to our election ballots seems to me unnecessary, potentially harmful to our parliamentary institutions, not in keeping with our electoral traditions and not shared by other major countries for national elections.

I applaud the hon. member for his commitment and efforts at pursuing electoral reform, although in this case I feel that there may be alternatives that would be more in keeping with our traditions and practices.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand blah, blah, blah.

Let me reiterate for the hon. member that it is precisely because of the approach of this government, a balanced approach of continuing to reduce premiums and expand the benefits to Canadians, that we have a program which is there to serve Canadians when they need it.

I would remind the hon. member that in Bill C-2 we repealed the intensity regulation, something for which he and his party asked. We made changes to the clawback rule, something for which he and his party asked. We have doubled parental benefits, and that is very good for Canadian families.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to address the Canadian Alliance motion.

First, while I am not surprised, I am somewhat disappointed. I remember that, during the last election campaign, the leader of the Canadian Alliance told westerners that he wanted to cut employment insurance. When he came to the Atlantic provinces, he said that he wanted to change employment insurance benefits. He was saying two different things.

Today, we realize that the opposition motion says only one thing: that the upcoming budget should, and I quote:

(d) reduce Employment Insurance (EI) premiums by at least 15 cents for next year and continue reducing EI premiums to the break-even rate as soon as possible;

I do not understand why the motion says “to the break-even rate”. Employment insurance is a program which, and I will keep repeating it, belongs to workers and employers. It is a program to which the industry and workers contribute in case the latter lose their jobs.

It is now noon. In Toronto, thousands of people are marching in the streets to protest because they are going to lose their jobs. And 80% of these people will not qualify for employment insurance because they work in the hotel or tourism industry.

As we speak a rally is being held in Toronto. It is not being held in the Atlantic provinces where people have their views and the Fraser Institute from British Columbia keeps pounding on the people in Atlantic Canada. In Toronto there are thousands and thousands of people on the street because the employment insurance that belongs to the working people is not there for them.

Today's motion by the Canadian Alliance only proposes to bring the premium down. Not once in the motion does it say that a program which belongs to the people should go back to them.

It is a shame that my colleague from P.E.I., the member for Hillsborough said that there is no problem in P.E.I. since the intensity rule was taken away. I hope the people of P.E.I. call his office to let him know the problems they have in P.E.I. A couple of weeks ago I was there and P.E.I. has the same problems as they have in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and all across the country where there is seasonal work and as they have in Toronto. It is a shame that my colleague from P.E.I. supports the Liberal position.

The motion talks about bringing the premium down. I did not hear of anyone rallying in the streets because they want the premium to come down. I did not see that, but I did see people in the street because they want the employment insurance that they pay into and which belongs to them. That is what the people are saying.

This was the question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance earlier. He did not defend the government's position not to increase benefits.

When employment insurance was introduced, it was not so that the government could fill its coffers and point to a $8 billion or $6.7 billion surplus every year. That was not its purpose. Its purpose was to help people who had lost their job when the economy was bad, as it is today.

Today, not only do people not qualify for EI benefits, but small and medium size businesses are suffering as well. When is the government going to look after them? If people do not qualify, they will not have any money. And I must say that social assistance is not the answer.

Unbelievable as it may seem, there are single people today receiving only $265 a month. How is it possible to live on this, in a country such as Canada, which we are constantly being reminded is so wonderful? It is worse than in the third world, in my opinion. Two hundred and sixty-five dollars a month will not even pay the rent and hydro.

And the government is certainly not prepared to increase social assistance payments now. You yourself know, Mr. Speaker, that when the Harris government took office, it cut social assistance payments.

The line is always the same, whether it comes from the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance members or the Progressive Conservatives, and it comes from the right, not the centre. There is nothing about it that suggests any desire to help people.

Yet, we made proposals during the election. Every time we asked the Liberals a question—and the Bloc did so often—, their response was the same: “You refused to pass the government's bill before the election”. The government tried to slip one past us a few days before the election. It knew that there was going to be opposition because the Canadian Alliance was already opposed. From the beginning, that party was not in favour of amendments to employment insurance. In fact, one of the demands in today's motion has to do with reducing EI premiums.

Last week I asked the government a question. The only answer it could think of was that it had reduced EI premiums. We never get an answer to our questions.

But beyond this there are families, there are people, there are children. There are 800,000 Canadians who contribute to employment insurance, but do not qualify for it. When we talk about employment insurance, the government says that 85% of those who qualify do get benefits. This is a disgrace. It should be 100% of them that qualify for employment insurance benefits.

But that is not the issue. The problem has to do with the changes to the employment insurance plan. The government now demands 910 hours of work to qualify for employment insurance benefits. This is why workers who contribute to employment insurance no longer qualify. Only 35% of Canadians who contribute to employment insurance get benefits.

The reason people are marching on the streets of Toronto today is because they did not accumulate these 910 hours. This is the problem. And that money does not belong to the Minister of Finance, who boasts about properly managing the money in the government coffers. That money is not in the government coffers. It is money that belongs to workers and I can never say it often enough.

There is also a new budget coming up. People who contributed to the Canada pension plan and who suffer from a disability could claim money from the government, through the tax system. But the government is so petty—and this is ridiculous and unacceptable—that now it is targeting these people, people with disabilities, by forcing them to fill out all sorts of forms. The government says “We will lower taxes, but we will deprive a person with a disability of the right to receive money through the tax system”.

This is just to show how little compassion the government has for people. However, it is more compassionate toward business. Two weeks ago, the government announced that it would not lower employment insurance contributions by five cents. I mentioned it in the House last week. I raised this issue. The government received a few phone calls from employers who said “Listen, you cannot do this to us. We want our five cents, our seven cents”.

No problem. On Friday, the government announced that it was lowering premiums by 5 cents. Honestly, 5 cents on $100 does not make much difference for a company.

But when it comes to employment insurance benefits, when a family fails to qualify, when 65% of people do not qualify for employment insurance, that makes a huge difference for kids going to school. For people who end up on social assistance collecting $265 a month, or families on $700 a month, that makes a big difference. So, what this government is doing is not right, it is not honest.

I hope and I ask from the depths of my heart that this government will have the good conscience, once and for all, to live up to its election promises in this upcoming budget, the promises made by Liberal members.

My colleague opposite, if he woke up, would remember telling me “We will pass Bill C-2, and then we will make the required changes. We agree with you, hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst”. But no changes have been made.

After hearing the recommendations made by all political parties, whether it be the Canadian Alliance, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois, or the NDP, the Minister of Human Resources Development had the audacity and the temerity to rise in this House and say no to changes to the EI program. This is not right, nor is it honest of the Liberal government.

I hope that in the upcoming budget, the government will show that it cares, even a little, for the workers who lost their jobs. When election time rolls around, they will want their votes.

I would like to thank the members for hearing me. I only hope that I managed to wake up some of the Liberal members.

Business of Supply

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker. We agree with the committee that the basic features of the plan are valid.

We were asked to examine certain aspects of the plan which were raised by witnesses who appeared before the committee during consideration of Bill C-2.

What the member is refusing to see is that, in our response to the report, we mentioned the issues it raised. We have already addressed these issues, such as the short work week and undeclared earnings. We intend to look more closely into such issues as apprenticeship, self-employment, and family obligations.

I think that in the present climate of economic uncertainty, Canadians want to know that they can count on a reliable and stable plan. And they can.

The EI plan is stable and reliable and we are going to ensure that it stays that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to something that was amended in Bill C-2. Why then did the members, including the Liberal members, unanimously submit 17 supplementary recommendations?

Was it not precisely because—despite what Bill C-2 contains, which recuperates a maximum of 2% or 3% of the $8 billion surplus—the federal government is still using 98% of this surplus for purposes other than what the employment insurance system was designed for?

When she says that 88% of those gainfully employed would be eligible, I feel compelled to remind her that employment insurance is not designed to insure those who have a job; it is designed to insure those who do not have a job. Only around 40% of those who are unemployed receive employment insurance benefits.

Does the parliamentary secretary to the minister not agree with me that if this were a private insurance plan, she would never in a million years pay into it, because she would consider it robbery?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite said, he already asked that question during oral question period and the minister answered it.

I must say that the September 11 events have had a profound impact on the lives of all Canadians. This government is closely monitoring the situation to ensure that Canadians have access to the support and services that they need.

Human Resources Development Canada has already made a number of adjustments. We launched the pilot project on shortened work weeks. We eliminated the rule on undeclared earnings. We extended parental benefits. We also made major changes to Bill C-2 by repealing the intensity rule and amending the provisions on clawback and on parental return to the workforce. We will continue to make sure that the program takes into account the changes in the labour market.

Employment insurance is designed to react quickly and automatically to changes in the local labour markets since eligibility criteria are relaxed as unemployment rates increase. The number of hours needed to qualify is adjusted every month in every one of the 58 EI areas to take into account local unemployment rates. A change in the local unemployment rate as tiny as one tenth of a percentage point may relax the eligibility criteria and extend the benefit period for people in the concerned area.

Moreover, we offer various labour market measures locally to employees and employers whenever an emergency arises, for instance massive layoffs.

The government's priority is always to make sure that Canadians can find a job. Labour market conditions remain sound in spite of the upheaval created by the September 11 events in the United States. Job creation has been weak but at 7.3 % the unemployment rate has never been as low. For adult women this rate is even lower at 6.1 %. These numbers point to the health of the Canadian labour market.

Employment insurance is a national program that is here to help workers whose job was directly impacted by the September 11 events just as it is here for every other worker. The 2000 Monitoring and Assessment Report reveals that 88 % of Canadians gainfully employed would be eligible to benefits should they lose their job.

I believe that given the information we just gave, it can be said that, thanks to the changes made to date by the government, the program is as ready as ever to meet the needs of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, I asked a question of the Minister for Human Resources Development regarding the unanimous report from members on the EI plan. It is important to remind the House that members of all parties worked on that report.

The report recommended 17 changes to the employment insurance plan, which was deemed insufficient and unacceptable as a social safety net for people who lose their jobs.

I raised the question at that time. It was the beginning of October, a short time after the events of September 11. There was indeed an awareness that changes would have to be made to the EI plan. The minister answered my question then the same way she did today, saying that the plan was working very well and that changes were made through Bill C-2, which abolished the intensity rules, among other things.

The minister noted that we voted against that bill. We did because the bill provided that, as soon as it became law, the government could decide to do as it pleases with the EI fund surplus and establish the contribution rates based on its general funding needs.

In our opinion, the EI should guarantee people a minimum income when they have lost their jobs. The intensity rule, which had been abolished, to give hon. members an idea of its relative importance, represents a saving of some $100 million per year, whereas this year, as in past years, there will be a surplus of close to $8 billion in the fund. So the amount associated with the intensity rule is less than 1% of the surplus.

This means that, at most, all of the measures contained in Bill C-2 would represent a recovery of 2% or 3% of the $8 billion surplus. That is not what our fellow citizens said during the election campaign. They spoke of their desire for a balanced program, one that would ensure people's contributions would provide them with sufficient income when they were unemployed.

There are two ways to do that: either lower the contribution rate or improve eligibility conditions. The problem with our Employment Insurance program is that there is a third party, the federal government, which does not contribute to it but helps itself to huge amounts of money in order to finance its other expenditures.

I believe that, when it does this, it diverts the funds from their primary purpose, which is to ensure a proper employment insurance plan, something we do not have at the moment.

Regrettably, closings were announced once again today in the softwood lumber industry, and everyone in Canada, Quebecers and Canadians, are being called upon to join together so that our position prevails with the Americans.

We would have expected that the federal government, which has done its share in the negotiations with Ottawa, would sympathize with the people who are the most affected by these closings, that is the people who are now unemployed.

Could the government not have taken advantage of the unanimous report tabled in the House, which the Liberal members participated in and which called for major changes to the employment insurance plan? This is the question that always goes unanswered.

Now as the federal government is generating a $8 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, why is it not able to ensure reasonable fairness with the tool it has to use in its fight against poverty?

Can the government give us an answer and finally agree to make changes in this direction? Until now, we have not received a convincing answer.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, what I find scandalous is that the member continues to ask about expanding benefits in the employment insurance fund when it is he and his party who voted against Bill C-2, a bill that was specifically brought in to support seasonal workers.

I would ask him what he says to the 340,000 Quebecers who are now receiving money as a result of that bill being passed when they ask him why he voted against it.

Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act

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

Madam Speaker, on October 26, in the House, I asked a question to the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. My question was as follows:

The government decided to ignore the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which were supported by the Liberals, outlined in a report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”, regarding changes to the employment insurance program.

Given this decision, what steps does ACOA intend to take in order to help people who will have to deal with the gap next January?

The minister answered:

Mr. Speaker, ACOA continues to work together with the communities and provinces of Atlantic Canada to create jobs, which are long term, not short term and to promote sustainable economic development

The question here is a short term one. What happens to young people who do not receive any employment insurance benefits between January and May? What happens to these people? It is as if the Liberal government simply thought that problems could be sorted out in the long term, but that, in the short term, regions should be left to manage on their own.

I am not jealous. I am pleased that the government announced last week that it would put $1 million in northwestern New Brunswick to deal with the gap problem. It recognizes that the gap causes a problem in that region, with an unemployment rate of about 4.5%. But we also have a gap problem in the northeastern part of the province. The unemployment rate there is about 18%; in fact, it is 18%.

In his second answer, the minister responsible for ACOA said that he wished the member for Acadie—Bathurst would work with the government for the economic development of the region. Each time the Liberals visit the region to make announcements, they do not even have the courtesy to invite me, and then they want me to work with them for the economic development of the region.

Yes, I support economic development. I agree that infrastructures must be put in place. I am sure my colleague opposite, who is from Newfoundland, understands what I am talking about. They have the same problems in Newfoundland.

When the report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2” was tabled and changes to employment insurance were requested, a member from Newfoundland presented a petition asking the minister to amend the employment insurance program. I am sure that the members from the Atlantic regions understand that, even the Liberal members. There was a reason Liberals had unanimously said they wanted to see changes in the employment insurance program.

It is really a shame. It is sickening and disgusting to see that there is an $8 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund for the present year alone. How can the government so easily ignore those problems that people are faced with? The suicide rate in my area is totally unacceptable. It is the government's fault, because of the changes it made, and because it is totally unable to show leadership and to change the employment insurance program, which belongs to the workers.

I have said it before and I will say it again, the government is stealing money from the workers and Canadians are paying for that. I am talking about whole families. That is part of the reason 1.4 million children are hungry in this country. There are 800,000 Canadians who do not qualify for employment insurance. It is the Liberal government's fault.

I am looking forward to what the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state responsible for ACOA will have to say to help these people.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the government has continued to take a balanced and prudent approach to managing employment insurance.

I would remind the House that as a result of Bill C-2 we have changed the system to benefit seasonal workers. If the Bloc would have had its way, that bill would never have passed and the 340,000 Quebecers who are now benefiting from those changes, from the elimination of the intensity rule, for example, would not have received their repayments if it had been up to the Bloc.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I say again that changes were made. They can be found in the changes in Bill C-2. They can be found in the decisions that we made to make the small weeks pilot project permanent and in changes to undeclared earnings.

What is also very important to understand is that our members of parliament are working with their communities to find new ways of diversifying their economies because Canadians want jobs.

Softwood Lumber

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise tonight to take part in this emergency debate, which was requested by my party and deals with the economic crisis affecting Quebec and my region because of the softwood lumber issue.

First, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for all the efforts he made over the last few months to try to prevent this crisis, as well as my colleague from Laurentides, who travelled to Washington twice to try to resolve this issue.

Personally, I made representations at the Canada-United States parliamentary association, particularly at the annual meeting that was held last May in Blue Rivers, British Columbia, and just recently, on Monday morning, in the presence of a representative from the U.S. congress.

Once again, despite all the diplomatic and political efforts, Quebec and Canada are facing economic turbulence. Once again, Quebec is facing a problem that was created by the U.S. government.

The Americans are increasingly protectionist, and I would even say increasingly selfish. They ignore the free trade agreement and impose economic measures that slow down softwood lumber production considerably.

In recent years, the U.S. government has become the killjoy of bilateral and multilateral agreements by not complying with trade rules.

I would like to address the Americans' attitude as far as agreements in the agricultural area are concerned. The U.S. has not even respected the GATT agreements by maintaining the heavy export subsidies and grants to sustain their domestic trade, which results in a market distortion. Most countries that do business with them are forced to constantly appeal to the WTO tribunals to get their rights respected.

While Canada is battling before the courts to win its case, thousands of jobs are being lost in Quebec.

As the member for Lotbinière—L'Érable, I have risen in the House on numerous occasions in defence of the economic interests of my region. Today, the decisions of the U.S. government on softwood lumber are jeopardizing hundreds of jobs in my riding.

When they were already reeling under the 19% countervailing duties, the U.S. government last week delivered the final blow to companies directly or indirectly connected to softwood lumber, by adding anti-dumping duties of 12.5%.

In our riding of Lotbinière, a number of companies were already severely affected by the U.S. countervailing duties. In Daveluyville, Doucet Machineries has experienced a considerable drop in purchases and orders. Since the countervailing duties have been introduced, the company has been operating on a job-sharing basis.

In Plessisville, countervailing duties have had an impact on the For-Min group, which includes Carbotec and Vibrotec, which is also slowing down production. Forano U.S.N.R is also suffering as a result of the U.S. government's decision.

The Government of Canada must demonstrate much stronger leadership when dealing with the Bush government, which is not at all shy about interfering with all kinds of economic measures to slow our economy. The Prime Minister needs to tell President Bush clearly that he is wrong on the softwood lumber issue.

It is American consumers who are directly affected by their government's attitude. In fact, as we know, our softwood lumber is of better quality, and costs less to produce than the lumber from U.S. mills. American families who want to build a house are being penalized because they are being denied access to our 2x4 lumber.

On behalf of the thousands of employees whose jobs are threatened, I urge the Government of Canada to demand that the Bush government return to free trade for softwood lumber, and that the U.S. respect its signature.

Softwood lumber producers cannot afford to wait for 10, 20 or 40 days. The U.S. government must immediately suspend the countervailing duties that are choking our provincial and regional economies.

The Bush administration knows that it is wrong. I am asking the Minister of International Trade to settle the issue quickly and efficiently, not through negotiations that will drag on interminably. Time is of the essence. Quebec's economy, the Canadian economy, and regional economies are already suffering in the wake of the attacks of September 11. Quebec, and Lotbinière—L'Érable cannot afford to wait. The United States has the power and the responsibility to act immediately. And it must.

The softwood lumber crisis has become cyclical. We need to come up with a permanent solution for this issue.

The Minister for International Trade should not be going it alone here. He should immediately call all stakeholders to a meeting in order to hear what they want and to work out a common strategy with them in order to resolve this issue for once and for all.

In the last few minutes, I have been critical of the U.S. government in this issue. I would now like to address the Minister of Human Resources Development, who seems unaware of the softwood lumber crisis in our regions. She too must do her job.

In fact, the minister has the authority to relax the EI rules by removing the waiting period, and increasing the number of eligible weeks and the amount of benefits. This would show her solidarity with workers affected by the softwood lumber crisis.

Every time a crisis hits the regions of Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development drones on about Bill C-2, which made only small improvements to the EI system, which is leaving our regions poorer every year.

Again this afternoon, the auditor general pointed a finger at the current EI system, which is building up a surplus year after year. The minister therefore has the financial leeway to take action now.

A treasury board document shows clearly that, since 1998, the surplus in the EI fund has grown at the rate of $7 billion a year. So, over the past three years, this surplus has grown to $21 billion. Despite this huge amount, the minister is still waiting.

Perhaps we should ask the person who decides everything in her department, the Minister of Finance, why the government is doing nothing.

Again, I call on the Canadian government to find a speedy and permanent solution to the softwood lumber issue. Quebec, the second largest producer of softwood lumber in Canada, with over 25% of Canadian production, must receive massive and tangible support from the Canadian government in order to end what I would describe as these unjust and unfair actions by the U.S. government, which are now paralyzing a vital sector of our economy.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, a unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Human Resource Development goes further than the few changes proposed in Bill C-2. If the Liberal MPs have passed it, this is because the amendments proposed are really in line with the campaign commitments.

How can the Minister of Human Resource Development ignore the campaign commitments made by her fellow ministers in all regions of Quebec, commitments so firm they convinced even the Liberal MPs?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government does appreciate it and in fact has been responsive to the concerns of seasonal workers. Indeed, we eliminated the intensity rule in Bill C-2 when we made changes to the clawback provision to make it fairer.

I would remind the hon. member that the fundamental change from a weeks based system to an hours based system has directly benefited seasonal workers by increasing the length of their entitlement. He would be interested to know that their average weekly benefits are about 8% higher than those of other claimants.

Prebudget Consultations

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of the response of the Minister of Human Resources Development to the unanimous report on the issue of employment insurance.

We know that in June all members from all parties agreed that major changes had to be made. There were 17 recommendations. In the context of the present prebudget consultations, it is important to know whether members share the minister's position that the solution is to do nothing, to change nothing and to put no additional funding into the system because it is apparently working very well.

Does the member share that position or does she agree with her Liberal colleagues who sat on the committee and who were still in the spirit of last year's election campaign, in which they all committed to making major changes to the employment insurance plan above and beyond the mere elimination of the intensity rule? The unanimous report, entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”, meaning beyond the bill passed by the government to eliminate the intensity rule, contained 17 additional recommendations.

Does the member agree with the minister or does she agree with the members of her own party and of all parties in this House who were calling for a fundamental reform of the employment insurance plan to enable us to deal with the crisis we are now facing because of terrorism, as well as the crisis in the softwood lumber industry and the overall economic downturn?

Would giving the less fortunate in our society the means to spend some money to meet their everyday needs not be a good way of putting money back into the economy?

Prebudget Consultation

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this take note debate on the upcoming budget. It is our sincere regret that it has taken the government nearly two years, over 650 days, to prepare a full accounting of the nation's finances.

It is unheard of in any free nation today that the government would go almost two years without tabling a budget. There is no premier in Canada or mayor of any city who could get away with such a high degree of unaccountability.

I congratulate the federal Liberal spinmeisters on deflecting media attention away from this glaring record, perhaps the greatest record of the last century in terms of length of time without accountability. This is not a laughing matter. It has been one of the many reasons for the lack of confidence in the Canadian economy.

Two years without a budget is far too long.

The finance minister has totally dismissed our concerns about the economy for months. We talked about the economy slowing down, the out of control spending of the government and how we were heading toward a deficit. The lack of clear information on the government's fiscal priorities was irresponsible and disrespectful toward parliament.

They laughed at us and ignored us. It is inexcusable that it has taken the beginning of a war and the onset of a recession to cause the finance minister and the government to finally table a budget.

It has been interesting to watch so many different areas of government public policy planning over the last seven years. In virtually every area the Liberal ship of state has been adrift at sea without an anchor and compass. When the winds of adversity blow the government panics. It puts up the sails and inevitably runs aground on some rocky reef of poor public policy planning. That is inexcusable.

It has been a decade of being adrift. It is not only in the area of not having a budget or fiscal priorities but also in the area of security where there has been no forward planning. There is only panic as with the anti-terrorism legislation that drifts into areas which perhaps we should not be going into.

We now have the softwood lumber problem that has thrown tens of thousands of people out of work. We warned the government about it for years. Yet it did not react. The panic sets in when those winds of adversity hit. It is inexcusable that nothing is being done and that people are run aground. We will continue to bring it to the attention of Canadians.

On September 11, the world changed and we have to view certain realities from a fresh perspective. It has forced us to review our priorities. We hope that the government will align its priorities with those of the people it is supposed to represent.

There are three critical areas in which the government must realign its priorities: first, the whole question of a deficit of resources for our national security concerns; second, the oncoming Liberal recession; and third, the long term decline in Canada's standard of living. Factual, calibrated and measurable, these must be addressed.

In the area of security, the first and foremost responsibility of any federal government is to defend national sovereignty and to protect the safety and security of its citizens.

That is why the Canadian Alliance, and before it the Reform Party, has consistently called for adequate resources for our police, intelligence and defence services, calls that have gone unheeded. We have done this even though we are a party that believes in smaller and less costly government in almost every other area. However we believe that freedom is not something we can take for granted. Freedom comes at a price and its price is eternal vigilance.

Regrettably, despite the blizzard of rhetoric from the Liberal government, its actions suggest that national security is in fact one of its lowest priorities. We can say all the things we want but we measure people on their actions and the actions of the government suggest national security for its citizens is among one of its lowest priorities.

Over the last few years the government has routinely dismissed our calls for necessary spending to enhance national security and defence. We made those calls long before September 11. It continues to dismiss those calls.

Since 1993 defence spending has been cut by $1.6 billion, a massive 23% reduction in real terms. Any time the Minister of National Defence stands up and talks about a very recent knee-jerk reaction in spending, moving up in a small incremental way, he must account for the fact that the Liberal federal government slashed our national defence by 23%. It was one of the single greatest reductions of any department. The government cut its own preferential spending by only 7%.

I get tired of hearing the Minister of Finance stand up and talk about dealing with the deficit in this country. He neglects to say that he did it by huge cuts in two areas: our national security and our national health care system. That is how he cut the deficit and did only 7% in terms of the government's own wasteful spending. Every time the minister talks about deficit reduction he should be mentioning how he did it and whose backs were affected. That is where the cuts have come.

During this time the reduction in terms of military personnel has declined from 90,000 to 58,000. The Conference of Defence Associations, which is the major scientific and advocacy group related to military needs, resources and spending, has defined in a very recent report that there is a $1.2 billion annual deficit in terms of the needs of our military. That $1.2 billion annual deficit is just for maintenance and ongoing operations and does not even address the ongoing needs of increased national security that we now face.

They are not alone. The auditor general has estimated between now and the year 2012 a $30 billion funding shortfall in defence equipment just in those few years.

The government has given Canada the embarrassing distinction of giving the second smallest defence commitment to NATO. These are the hard facts. Canada's commitment of 1.0% of gross domestic product is less than half of the NATO average of 2.2%. This is not something for which we can be proud. In other words, for Canada to match just the average spending in terms of the commitment that our allies share, it would require us to nearly double our defence budget from $10 billion to $21 billion. There must be an increase even beyond what the defence association says, of $1.2 billion.

I have addressed this subject many times. Our defence critic, the member for Lakeland, and other members of parliament in the Canadian Alliance have also detailed this enormous funding shortfall. We have made it very clear that it is impossible for Canada's military personnel, whom we personally believe are the most dedicated and the most courageous in the world and have proven that in the last century, to adequately meet all the commitments and requirements that are put upon them, which includes continental defence, treaty obligations, UN peacekeeping and now the war on terrorism.

We believe it is wrong to ask our military personnel, whom we believe are the best in the world, to defend this country, its assets and its interests at levels on which they are not able to do so. It is wrong for us to make promises we cannot keep. It is wrong for Canada to leave it to our allies, particularly the United States, to do all the heavy lifting on our behalf.

On September 11 Canada's free ride on national defence came to an end. The time has come for the government to make its lowest priority the nation's highest priority and that is the protection, safety and security of our citizens.

In analyzing what we believe will be the numbers in the budget, we have identified that it will require approximately $2 billion from low priority areas being moved to the Department of National Defence. That is as a down payment on additional future increases to give our military the resources it needs.

Maintaining national security is an increasingly important task of our domestic intelligence and police agencies, such as CSIS and the RCMP. Since 1993, again, the government cutting its own pet projects only by 7%, has reduced the CSIS budget by 28% in real terms at a time when we need more of that intelligence activity than at any other time.

Through the years the Canadian Alliance and our members before us have been telling the government about the concerns worldwide of bandit or rogue individuals or nations and that we would require even more resources in this area, but the government cut CSIS by 28% in real terms. That is a diminishment of our national security.

Given the enormous new demands on that agency it is only reasonable that the funding should be restored at least to the 1993 levels of $272 million. That would entail an increase of $76 million.

The RCMP is also currently in need of more personnel. Customs and immigration also require added resources, not just personnel but for major new technology acquisitions, updated passport scanners and computers, and potentially for advance biometric screening systems. They need all of this and it must be addressed.

It is interesting to hear the government talk about its concern for national sovereignty. The coast guard has seen its fleet cut by 40%.

When the government talks about national security and protecting Canadian sovereignty, it thinks that means we must respond to the minister of culture and stop watching satellite systems that come from other than Liberal approved programs. It believes that is what will keep our national sovereignty in place. Well it will not.

A 40% cut to the coast guard is irresponsible and does put national sovereignty at some risk. It requires new funding to replace aging vessels, to increase the coastal patrols and to acquire satellite tracking systems for incoming ships.

Finally, the Department of Transport will have to assume some of the cost related to airport security. Some of those costs could and should be shared by users but the Department of Transport will have to be there to share some of the costs of increased security measures. Altogether, these and other security related measures are likely to cost in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars annually. I hope the finance minister is jotting these numbers down.

Let me say again that enhancing our national security and working with our American neighbours to create a secure, common perimeter is not an option for Canada. I cannot understand the Prime Minister's paranoia when he says that building a strong continental border and working with the Americans somehow puts our national sovereignty at risk. That is a ridiculous state of paranoia.

The other night millions of Canadians gathered around their Japanese made television sets, wearing their made in China, fleece lined exercise outfits, sitting on furniture made in Sweden, watching an American baseball game played by players from all over the world including Puerto Rico, drinking Coca Cola and munching Mexican tacos. Their sovereignty was not being threatened by those actions and they did not fear their sovereignty was being threatened. However our sovereignty is being threatened when we slash the military and our security forces and say we will not work in common with Americans to develop some strong policies for North America. That is simply irresponsible thinking.

It is a necessity that we work together to increase the levels of security and the levels of safety for all of our citizens. This is all a question of priorities.

My colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast, will outline several billion dollars in wasteful and low priority spending. He, other Canadian Alliance members of parliament and the auditor general have done some good work on this. This year the auditor general pointed out hundreds of millions of dollars of waste, and he called it waste. The auditor general wanted to know who was minding the store. Well the official opposition is going to mind the store because the government does not. We will take on and have been taking on that responsibility.

These areas of wasteful and low priority spending have been identified. We need to reallocate from low priorities of spending and move back to high priorities of spending on safety and security which is what Canadians want. For example, we talked about the $2 billion immediate increase in the defence budget that is required. That is roughly equivalent to what the government spends now on corporate welfare.

The $1 billion that we see in additional security measures is less than the industry minister plans to blow out the door on his Internet scheme.

We expect some intelligent prioritization to go on. When we talk about a billion dollars being blown out the door by an Internet scheme we do not expect a response from him saying that the Alliance does not care about Canadians having computers.

Canadians in the free world are among the highest users of computers and that has been done without the billion dollar plan to get higher speed chat rooms for all Canadians from the government. Canadians have moved on it aggressively themselves and they will continue to do so. Safety and security are areas of priority.

We talk about an oncoming recession. The government needs to get its priorities straight on national security but it needs to be honest with Canadians about the deteriorating state of our economy and the nation's finances. We are tired of empty accusations from the finance minister and the Prime Minister when we raise, as we have been raising for a long time, questions about the economic recession which we were in pre-September 11. We get accused of being unpatriotic. Economists, like Jeff Rubin at the CIBC, predicted over a year ago that within 18 months the dollar would be sitting at 60 cents. We hit historic lows just yesterday. Mr. Rubin had better be careful, the Liberal thought police may be coming to arrest him for being unpatriotic. The government has to become honest with Canadians about this.

Last spring we issued many well-founded warnings about a potential downturn in the economy, one which we were witnessing was taking place before our eyes. We talked about the need for the federal government to tightly control spending in order to avoid going back into a deficit. We talked about that over a year ago.

The Minister of Finance and the government dismissed our concerns and continued to whistle past the economic graveyard and go down the path of increasing our vulnerability to a bleak economic picture. The minister's budget will not be able to hide the fact that he and the government led us into a recession. A decade of economic drift, as I have already indicated, has led us into a full blown recession and all of these indicators were in place before September 11. We are getting tired of the disaster and horror of September 11 being used to cover up the government's out of control spending and poor management which was happening well before that.

The aftershocks of September 11 clearly deepened our economic trouble. That is a fact. Let there be no doubt though that Canada was headed toward a serious slowdown before that tragic day. Economic growth screeched to a halt in the second quarter of this year and it is almost certain to contract in the third and the fourth quarters, with many economists predicting that the slide could continue well into next year. We hope that will not the case but many economists are saying that it will be.

The government should not be accusing us of being unpatriotic because we are concerned about the future and economic uncertainty of Canadians.

Employment was up before September 11. Thousands of job layoffs have taken place. The dollar hit an all time low yesterday.

As the Canadian dollar plummets, it is reaching out in desperation to grab on to some twig of confidence from the government but seeing none it continues to move downward.

The finance minister has allowed spending to get out of control at a time when revenues are beginning to contract. Yesterday's surplus may soon turn into tomorrow's deficit. Many economists, Dale Ore of WEFA, Don Drummond of the TD Bank and others, had predicted these planning deficits by the year 2003. The federal Liberals have been running three year projections in terms of where their spending was taking them. We analyzed the numbers and we could see that they were headed for a deficit before the three year mark. What was their response? They quit the three year planning and they put out two year projections.

If there is a projection that comes out that says we could hit a deficit in two years, maybe all they are going to do is project one year. It is irresponsible. They need to tell Canadians what we are facing. By knowing what we are facing we can prepare for it.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, for instance, is projecting an annual federal deficit of $5 billion by next year. What will that mean? Will it mean that our next projection will be only a six month one because we want to avoid the ones that people are putting out?

If the finance minister and the Liberal government lead us back into deficit, the slowing economy will not be to blame. Out of control spending, fuelled by the undeclared Liberal leadership campaign, has put at risk the surplus that the taxpayers have paid so dearly to achieve, paid for by a reduction in spending on security, a reduction in spending on national defence and a huge reduction in spending on our health care needs.

Spending jumped last year by 7%. That was twice the level of inflation plus population. The finance minister has allowed spending to so far exceed his targets year after year and to exceed this phenomenal growth in revenues being paid by taxpayers. If spending in the current year was at the level projected by the minister in 1997, we would have had a solid surplus of approximately $25 billion if he had kept his surplus in check rather than the $8 billion that most forecasters are predicting.

Markets look for signs of restraint in government spending and accounting but they have not seen it from this government and have made a judgment according to the value of the Canadian dollar.

The government must get its priorities straight. On the economic and fiscal front that means keeping a balanced budget while reallocating resources from low priority, unproductive spending to areas of high priority, including areas of continuing the stimulus effect of tax reductions in very necessary areas.

To stimulate and create jobs and create investment, the government must continue to implement the tax changes it announced last fall. It also has to proceed with other areas of taxing business and individuals in terms of high input costs, EI premiums being one alone where we have far in excess of what we need, even with the oncoming recession, in terms of the insurance fund being there. The government takes those hard-earned dollars, taxing individuals and businesses for employment insurances, and launches the money into all kinds of spending that has nothing to do with employment insurance.

The government should sit down and consider including a yearly basic exemption, as suggested by various industry groups, when it comes to EI. We must also look at eliminating or bringing down the very destructive capital tax. As recently as yesterday the finance minister pointed to capital going to the United States. Why does capital flee? It looks for quality and certainty. The government has provided neither. We have to start doing that and we can within our various systems.

These measures in the areas of input cost reductions and tax reductions can be accommodated within the existing budget. People across the way say that we should spend, spend, spend. Yes, we should spend on priorities but we should reduce on discretionary and wasteful spending.

Only if the government puts a freeze on all future discretionary spending and controls spending in the low priority areas can we do these things, but they can be done. Let us not respond in panic and fear to the accusations that they cannot be done. It is a matter of discipline. These are critical if the government is going to leverage the fiscal policy to join the Bank of Canada's efforts to fight this Liberal recession.

I served as a finance minister in a time when commodity and oil and gas prices were going down. Even in a down time of plummeting commodity prices and with the Asian crisis, we had the discipline and foresight to continue tax reductions to send the signal of confidence to the economy, an economy which continued to be confident because it was being stimulated; investment staying instead of fleeing. That is what has to happen here.

When the finance minister tells us there is no room for additional relief in these areas, I have to question him. Where did he find the extra $6 billion for the ministries of industry and human resources development, those great stewards of the public purse, to spend on those pet projects? Then he says there is no room to allow Canadians to keep their hard earned money in their pockets.

Canadians know that an extra dollar left in the hands of a hard-working citizen or innovative entrepreneur will do a lot more to create jobs and wealth than a dollar in the hands of a federal Liberal politician. Canadians continue to suffer. Every time the finance minister gets up and does his arm waving he never addresses these facts.

We have the highest income taxes in the industrialized world. That is a fact. I want to see the arm waving today when he gets up and starts talking about the great things he is doing for Canadians.

The government needs to get its economic priorities straight by spending less on interventionist pet schemes that do not work and putting more on priorities for Canadians by allowing them to keep more of their hard earned money in their pockets.

The upcoming federal budget represents an enormous missed opportunity by failing to take more decisive action in all the areas I mentioned: proper spending, tax reduction and paying down debt. We will watch for the arm waving today. Any way we shake it out, even though there have been payments on the debt, and the official opposition has acknowledged those payments, they have not been what they could have been. It is another hallmark of the era of lost opportunity and the federal debt today stands higher, at $557, billion than it was in 1993. That is the plain basic fact.

Yes, when the surplus has been splashing over in its economic bucket, the government has allowed some of that to go to the debt but not as aggressively as it should have. It has not legislated the down payment of debt.

These are the signals the market needs to see so that investment will stay here and not run southward where it will be taxed at a less punitive rate.

Canada is headed into a recession exposed by some fundamental economic weaknesses. We continue to carry one of the largest debt burdens in the industrialized world. It costs taxpayers over $40 billion a year just to carry that debt. It costs $100 million a day to reduce a debt that should have been reduced far more aggressively and should have had a law behind it saying that a bigger chunk of the surplus would go to its reduction.

Our dollar has lost 25% of its value against U.S. currency since 1993. We want to see Liberals stand and applaud today when the finance minister gets up to address this. We want to see how loud the applause is when he says that it is true that our dollar has lost 25% of its value since those people took office in 1993. That makes all Canadians poorer relative to our American friends.

There is a 22% gap between the Canadian and U.S. standard of living, which amounts to a difference of $29,000 for an average family. We want to see the cheering on that today when the finance minister stands and does his usual rant. We want to see the pompoms go up in the air.

U.S. productivity has grown at a 50% faster rate than in Canada over the past decade. I want to see the finance minister go after the Chamber of Commerce for being unpatriotic because it has said the nineties will stand out as the poorest decade relative to growth since the 1930s.

All these figures point to Canada's greatest economic challenge, to stop the slide in our standard of living and eventually, as we stop the slide and put in place the proper policies that stimulate confidence, I believe that on the race track of economic growth we can sprint ahead of the American economy. We do not have to lag behind. Every time the dollar drops and debt increases or some other economic measure hits us, the finance minister stands and says that it is the Americans.

Canadians can outpace them. We are a little upset that this year the Mexican peso is outpacing the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar. We congratulate President Fox. We offer no congratulations to this finance minister for allowing that to happen. We want to hear those cheers today when he stands up and addresses these factors.

We have a vision of our economy being strong and focused, a government that is disciplined and our business, our people, our hard workers literally being able to sprint past the Americans when it comes to productivity and growth. It is possible as long as we have a government that can recognize that.

The United States congress is in the process of passing an economic stimulation package that includes $100 billion in immediate tax relief on top of the $1.3 trillion tax cut that was passed earlier this year.

Canada cannot afford to stand still. The flight of capital and people is happening. There are 98,000 highly educated, highly skilled Canadians moving south this year alone. We have to get our economic priorities straight. That does not mean just more stimulative tax relief but tax reform that is designed to reduce and eliminate the disincentive that Canadians face right now when it comes to work, savings and investing.

The Alliance proposal is to eventually eliminate the marginal income tax rates. That would be a clear step in the right direction. The federal government should also explore ways to move Canada away from its huge overreliance on income taxes. It has to continue to look at reforming taxation, especially corporate taxation, relative to the recommendations brought forward by the Mintz commission.

If we are to close this gap in the standard of living, we must also implement some structural reforms, especially related to inefficient programs. The government took a big step backward in this regard, with Bill C-2, by rolling back its own very modest employment insurance reforms out of political fear and nothing else. Instead, we would pursue experience, rating and other reforms designed to modernize Canada's labour markets.

We should reform equalization to stop penalizing provinces that are starting to get ahead, especially those provinces having the ability to move ahead thanks to their non-renewable resources. Possibly for the first time since Confederation, Atlantic Canada has the opportunity to realize the promise of Confederation. However the federal government will continue to clawback its hard earned efforts at moving ahead. That is unacceptable.

The federal government has to drop its dogmatic approach to health care. Health care costs continue to skyrocket through the roof. The government's response has been to not restore health care to its 1995 levels. This is an economic situation as much as it is a health care and security situation. The government must begin to allow provinces to be innovative with internal market mechanisms within the public system, if we are going to preserve our provincial economies and help them to weather the storm that was set loose upon them when the government slashed their health care transfers by almost 35%.

We have to pursue serious reform of some of our entitlement programs to ensure that they are sustainable, making sure that maximum return to those people, especially on fixed income, is achieved. There are many ways in which that can be done. This federal government refuses to look at those possibilities.

The government should exercise real leadership in terms of striking down provincial trade barriers. It has not done that. It should be pulling the provinces together in many areas where those barriers still exist and get the type of reduction in those provincial trade barriers that is necessary.

Federal regulations need to be analyzed in a way that the costs are looked at carefully as to what regulations are effective and needed and which are ineffective, outdated and unneeded. That is a huge cost to business and a drag on our economy.

Rather than taking any of these bold steps to strengthen our economy and to secure our future, the finance minister, along with the rest of the government, continues to be adrift. The government ship of state is adrift at sea, tossed about on the waves of circumstance without an anchor when needed, without a compass when needed. For every serious challenge we face, the recession, the falling loonie, our slide in productivity, the finance minister blames some external forces.

We can be masters of our own destiny but we have to take charge. In difficult times like these Canadians want and deserve tough decisions, not familiar excuses from their national government.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to do everything in its power to ensure that the government gets its priorities straight. These include providing adequate resources for our national security; fighting the Liberal recession, while maintaining a balanced budget; and reversing the current downward trend in our standard of living.

I move an amendment to government Motion No. 17 as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding:

“and in particular, the need to increase spending on national defence and public security by reducing waste and spending in low and falling priority areas, such as the proposed new Industry Canada-HRDC strategy paper, preserve and accelerate scheduled tax reductions, restore confidence in the Canadian dollar, and avoid falling back into a fiscal deficit.

Privilege

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to charge the Minister of Transport with contempt. The minister has brought the authority and dignity of the House into question and has breached the new procedure that was established by the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee.

On Thursday, October 25, while the House was in session, the minister held a press conference to announce a $75 million bailout for Canada 3000. While this brand of disrespect is not uncommon for the Liberal government, I believe that this is the first time that such an act has occurred since the adoption of the first report of the modernization committee. At page 4 of that report the committee states:

Concerns have been expressed that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent phenomenon, it continues to be a source of concern. The Committee is recommending two initiatives to address it.

First, it is important that more ministerial statements and announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first—or, at least, concurrently—in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

The committee recommended that the government make greater use of ministerial statements in the Chamber and that the House leaders be advised in advance of these statements.

I was not advised of this announcement. When I stood in the House on Thursday and asked the Thursday question, the government House leader had the opportunity right there and then, but failed to do so.

There was no reason why the Minister of Transport could not have advised the opposition and there were no procedural difficulties preventing the Minister of Transport from making his announcement in the House. I am certain that all parties would have extended every courtesy to the minister if he had chosen to respect the House and make his announcement here.

It is important to know that the House adjourned early on that day for lack of business. It adjourned early last Monday and Friday and it adjourned early on Friday, October 19, and on Monday, October 22, so wherein lies the problem with debating these issues on the floor of the House? A $75 million bailout is no small change. Where does the minister think the authority to spend the $75 million comes from?

The government and its departments are continuously making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system in this manner. We have had the deliberate leaking to the media of contents of Bill C-15 and, more recently, of the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-36.

One of the reasons the modernization committee felt it necessary to address the issue was that in the last two parliaments the government got away with mocking the legislative process at every turn, belittling the role of members of parliament. I will cite a few of the more serious examples.

On Thursday, October 23, 1997, the government announced that provincial and federal governments had constituted a nominating committee to nominate candidates for the new Canada pension plan investment board. The nominating committee was provided for under subclause 10(2) of Bill C-2. The House had not yet adopted Bill C-2.

On January 21, 1998, the minister responsible for the wheat board met in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, as proposed in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Substantial amendments to Bill C-4 tabled at report stage by opposition members were scheduled for debate in the House. While the House debated how many directors should be farmer elected versus being government appointees, the minister was holding meetings as though the bill was already law.

When the Canadian millennium scholarship fund was being established, a published article in the Toronto Star announced that Yves Landry had been named as the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Mr. Landry was quoted as saying “I am only one member of the board and my job is to be a facilitator”. There was no legislation before the House setting up the foundation, nor had the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion in revenue to the foundation been adopted.

The Minister for International Trade announced on March 30, 1998, the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group. At that time, the House had not set up a Canada-China interparliamentary group.

Finally, the date of the last budget that was delivered in the House, so long ago we have probably forgotten, was announced by the Prime Minister outside the House.

Each disrespectful act we allow to stand unchallenged becomes a precedent that serves afterwards to justify more acts of disrespect. The modernization committee recognized this and felt it necessary to make a statement.

The adoption of this report outlined what standard the House expected from ministers in this regard.

On page 119 of Erskine May there is a reference regarding a select committee that was appointed to inquire into the conduct and activities of members and to consider whether any such conduct or activities amounted to a contempt of the House and whether any such activities were:

--conduct...inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from its Members.

The minister cannot claim ignorance because the House pronounced itself on this issue through the adoption of the modernization committee report. When the Minister of Transport made his announcement outside the House on Thursday, October 25 while there was still an opportunity to make it inside, his conduct was clearly inconsistent with the standards the House was entitled to expect from him. As a consequence the minister is in contempt of the House.

The other related parliamentary tradition that the government likes to forget about is the issue of and respect for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.

The Minister of Transport and the rest of his colleagues, and particularly the Minister of Justice, should review the definition of ministerial responsibility from page 63 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May. It states:

—ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament—

Where can we find the truthful and accurate information regarding the decision to hand out $75 million to Canada 3000? Not in Hansard of Thursday, October 25. Where it was found was in the Globe and Mail of October 26.

I am beginning to think that being held in contempt in the House is of little concern to the government. Let us look at the example of the Minister of Justice who was held in contempt for leaking to the media the contents of Bill C-15.

When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review another charge of contempt involving the minister, I pointed out that we no longer respect, to the same degree as in the past, the principle that ministers have a duty to parliament to account and to be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments.

I cited the example from 1976 involving the Hon. André Ouellet, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Mr. Ouellet made a comment on the acquittal by Mr. Justice Mackay of the sugar companies accused of forming cartels and combines. As a result, Mr. Justice Mackay cited him for contempt of court. He was found guilty of the charge and resigned his cabinet post over the incident.

A charge of contempt by the House should be considered just as serious, if not more serious, as a contempt charge in a court. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice chose not to take responsibility in the time honoured tradition of ministerial accountability, as did Mr. Ouellet.

Getting back to this case, I will conclude my remarks by saying that had I had an opportunity to respond to this announcement by the Minister of Transport I might have asked the minister why he can justify giving Canada 3000 $75 million but cannot spend one dime on the softwood lumber industry that lost millions of dollars over a trade dispute with the United States. Thousands of people are out of work as a result and thousands more are expected to lose their jobs.

Also, what about the farmers who suffered through this summer's drought?

These are some of the questions we might have asked if the minister had given us an opportunity, but we did not. The minister might want to talk about timing, about how the House was not sitting. It was not sitting because the government chose not to have it sitting. It adjourned early. We have adjourned early too many days over the last little while.

Certainly I saw the minister on television that night at 7 p.m. The House adjourned early,and I cannot remember if it was 3 p.m. or 4 p.m., but surely he must have made the decision earlier in the day. He could have spoken to the government House leader and made sure it was put on the agenda so that we could have done it in the House and it could have been done properly.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that we have a case of privilege, I am prepared to move the proper motion.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The government decided to ignore the recommendations made by the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which were supported by the Liberals, outlined in a report entitled “Beyond Bill C-2”, regarding changes to the employment insurance program.

Given this decision, what steps does ACOA intend to take in order to help people who will have to deal with the gap next January?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, back in May, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development presented to the minister a unanimous report on the urgent need to go beyond Bill C-2.

Close to five months later, the Liberal government responded to the 17 recommendations by rejecting all of them. Even though six out of ten people who are unemployed continue to be excluded from the employment insurance program, the minister simply said that everything was fine.

Yesterday, when the minister was unable to indicate the estimated EI surplus, she justified her ignorance by saying that it was a “notional” surplus.

The minister showed once again that she is in over her head as a cabinet member and that she remains insensitive to the workers' plight.

Committees of the House

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to submit herewith two copies, in both official languages, of the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled “Beyond Bill C-2: A Review of Other Proposals to Reform Employment Insurance”, that was tabled in the House on Thursday, May 31.

The Acadians

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague opposite that the government and the minister in particular are in the process of drafting their response to the recommendations of the House standing committee that looked at the EI issue. We will respond to the committee report within the timeframe prescribed by the act.

I can assure my colleague and all members of the House that this concern about a certain clientele that is not covered under the employment insurance plan is shared by government members as well.

That is why, over the last few years, we made changes to the plan to ensure that it meets the needs of Canadians and is better adapted to the changing labour market.

Most recently under Bill C-2, the bill on employment insurance which the House passed, we eliminated the intensity rule because it did not improve workforce attachment. We adjusted the clawback provision which no longer applies to Canadians who seek temporary income support for the first time or those who receive special benefits.

Under Bill C-2 parents coming back to work after taking care of young children qualify for regular EI benefits with the same number of hours required of other workers.

Each year we assess the impact of the plan on Canadians across the country. We will continue to ensure that it is well adapted to the changing labour market and to the needs of Canadians. Our plan is flexible and it meets the needs of Canada's labour force.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that the employment insurance system is sound and it is there for Canadians who need it. Let me also remind the hon. member that our government makes changes where there is evidence that changes need to be made.

I remind the hon. member that we recently made changes in Bill C-2, and I remind the House and the hon. member's constituents that they voted against those changes.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to assure the hon. member and tell him that the employment insurance program is sound and it will be there to support the Canadians it is intended to support.

Our most recent monitoring and assessment report indicates that 88% of Canadians in paid employment would be eligible for benefits if they need them. Having said that, the government continues to make improvements in the program, and we need look no further than Bill C-2 for indications of that approach.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, the Government of Canada monitors and assesses the impact of the Employment Insurance Act on Canadians and we make changes as changes are necessary. That is why we doubled parental benefits. That is why we introduced and passed the amendments in Bill C-2. That is why just last Sunday we published in the Canada Gazette a proposal to change EI regulations that would guide the treatment of undeclared earnings.

Those changes were proposed so that the EI program would be more reflective of the work patterns of claimants. It is an idea that was presented to us by the FTQ, as well as other stakeholders. Again I point out that we make changes as warranted.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The government made significant changes to the employment insurance program with Bill C-2. Yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois said that the minister did not want to make any changes beyond Bill C-2.

Can the minister assure the members of this House and all Canadians that she firmly intends to monitor and assess the employment insurance program and will continue to make whatever changes are necessary?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, two things should be clear to the House by now.

First, the government is prepared to monitor and assess the impact of employment insurance and to make changes when changes are necessary.

Second, Bloc members have finally realized their serious error in voting with the Alliance against the government on the amendments to Bill C-2, which now supports their constituents, seasonal workers and parents.

It will be a long hot summer for Bloc members who go back to their ridings and try to explain to their constituents why they did not support the government.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what some people said about the amendments in Bill C-2. For example, the building and construction trades department of the AFL-CIO stated “Generally we are supportive of the reforms that are suggested in Bill C-2”.

The Canadian Federation of Labour said “The positive collective measures contained in this bill should be adopted rapidly”. We adopted those amendments rapidly but with no help from that party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government took advantage of people by promising, in the middle of an election campaign, substantial changes to the Employment Insurance Act, when it never intended to do more than was contained in Bill C-2, which everyone, even the Liberal members, found fell far short of the mark.

Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport deny that he promised unemployed workers and unions much more substantial amendments than those contained in Bill C-2 and that he did so to calm the rumble of discontent threatening to upset the Liberal campaign? Could he not rise today and remind the Minister of Human Resources Development that this was the case?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning at a press conference, Richard Goyette of FTQ-Construction said that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport promised during the campaign to deliver an indepth reform of employment insurance that would go well beyond the present Bill C-2.

Will the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, the one who made a promise on behalf of the government to unemployed workers on the North Shore, have the courage to rise in his place today and tell the House whether his election promises were limited to getting Bill C-2 passed?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during oral question period, the Minister of Human Resources Development gave her version of the election promises made by the Liberals to unemployed workers in Quebec.

The minister said, and I quote, “we promised to deliver the amendments that have now been passed in the context of Bill C-2”.

Is the minister telling unemployed workers that the Liberals' election promises were limited to getting Bill C-2 passed?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the continuing attempt of hon. members to cover up their political error in voting against Bill C-2 gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the many things we have done to change employment insurance.

We have gone to an hourly basis, which is very good for seasonal workers because every hour counts. We are working with provinces and territories to build pilot programs in support of older workers. We have doubled parental benefits. We have repealed the intensity rule. We are committed to continuing to monitor the Employment Insurance Act.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we promised to deliver the amendments that have now been passed in the context of Bill C-2. We are working in communities in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick with workers and employers because for us it is not only about providing benefits through employment insurance but it is also about finding real jobs. When will members of that party figure that out?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was not even voted on, they pulled it. But we stand against organized crime.

The unanimous Human Resources Development Canada report bears the title “Beyond Bill C-2” which means, in case the minister does not understand, that the government must go beyond it so that young people, women and seasonal workers are no longer penalized by the eligibility rules; so that older workers may be retrained; so that the self-employed, who are not covered at present, may benefit from it.

Are we to conclude that she has just turned a blind eye to all the recommendations of the standing committee on human resources development, recommendations—

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that it is this government that has on many occasions updated the Employment Insurance Act to reflect the specific needs of Canadians.

By asking these questions over and over again, as the hon. member has, it is becoming clear that what all the Bloc members are trying to do is cover up for the fact that they made a mistake last fall in voting against Bill C-44 and again this spring by voting against Bill C-2.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of the unanimous report by the standing committee on human resources two weeks ago, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking day after day for the government to follow up on the committee's recommendations before the end of this session.

On each occasion, the government has refused to commit, when Bill C-2, which has just been passed, is clearly insufficient for the unemployed.

Can this government explain its unwillingness to help the unemployed by following up now on the unanimous report by the standing committee on human resources?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, especially Canadians living in the province of Quebec, know that the Bloc has no credibility on the issue of employment insurance.

When we asked Bloc members to co-operate with us last fall and make the changes in Bill C-2, they denied it. When they had the opportunity to vote on these important amendments in support of seasonal workers this spring, they voted against them. They voted with the Alliance.

The questions they ask day after day are nothing more than a smoke screen. They might as well admit that they were wrong and that they should have supported the government on these important changes.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely I know the attitude of my colleagues. The attitude of my colleagues is one that works with the government to pass amendments like those in Bill C-2 that will reduce the number of hours required to receive special benefits and that will double parental benefits; and to meet with me and members with their communities to talk about economic development.

On this side of the House we know that employment insurance is important but we also believe in a balanced approach, which means diversifying economies in those regions of Canada that need our help.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government is prepared to make adjustments to employment insurance based on conversations with Canadians and the information that we received from reports, including our annual monitoring and assessment reports. Bill C-2 is a clear example of this approach.

What is not clear is how the Bloc matches its rhetoric with its voting pattern here in the House. When it is given the option to change the employment insurance program in support of seasonal workers and families, it chooses to vote against it.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is totally false. The government was the one that did not want to debate the matter, failed to introduce the bill, and preferred to call an election.

The election promises made went far beyond what was included in Bill C-2. The bill was passed. We are talking about something else. The situation is clear: the unemployed need help, but the political will to help is lacking.

Why is the government not in as much of a hurry to do something for the unemployed as it was to do something for the billionaires with their family trusts and to raise MPs' salaries? Why this double standard?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the changes made to the employment insurance program following passage of Bill C-2, are clearly insufficient.

These changes leave too many of the unemployed still out in the cold. Lobby groups of the unemployed, the unions, even some Liberal MPs, acknowledge that something has to be done. But the government will not budge.

If the government has not already forgotten its election promises, can the Prime Minister commit to providing some help for the unemployed before the end of this session?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has little credibility left, when it comes to employment insurance. One day it votes in favour of maintaining the intensity rule, while the next day it claims that changes should be made to the employment insurance program to help seasonal workers.

Will that party now admit that it made a mistake when it voted against Bill C-2 and seasonal workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps repeating that the opposition is to blame for Bill C-2 on employment insurance not being passed before the election.

Recently, his own party members, in a unanimous report, recognized that the measures included in Bill C-2 were clearly inadequate.

If the Prime Minister does not want to listen to the Bloc Quebecois, will he at least listen to the unemployed and to his own members, who are telling him, in a unanimous report, that what currently exists is not enough?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. The government had all the means and the power to pass its legislation last fall. It refused to do so. It introduced Bill C-2, which is inadequate. It promised more than that during the election campaign. We on this side are supporting the bill to increase MPs' salaries. However, we think it is more urgent to do something to help unemployed workers.

If there is such a rush to increase salaries, could he now act just as quickly and generously when it comes to unemployed workers in this country and help young people and women in the regions? Is he going to get a move on?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I think Bloc members need to go home and explain to their constituents why they were against repealing the intensity rule. I think they need to go home and explain to their constituents why, on the very day that their amendments to Bill C-2 were being presented, they voted to suspend the House. I think they need to explain to their constituents back home why so many witnesses supported us with Bill C-2.

Today they are playing politics. Last fall they were playing politics. On this side of the House we have made changes, and very good ones.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the track record on this side of the House is very clear. We made significant changes to the Employment Insurance Act, not the least of which was the doubling of parental benefits and, as I pointed out, the changes under Bill C-2.

As we were trying to pass Bill C-2, it was the Bloc that actually voted for the House to close down. Where is its interest when it comes to employment insurance?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member rightly states that the government recently passed Bill C-2, where we repealed the intensity rule, where we made changes to the clawback initiative, and where we made it easier for parents to get benefits upon re-entry into the workplace.

Where were they? They were blocking that act. From my point of view I think members of the Bloc have a lot to respond to in their own constituencies.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that just recently we passed Bill C-2 in which we repealed the intensity rule. That does have a direct impact on seasonal workers.

As the hon. member points out, the issue of seasonal work is one that pertains to particular regions across the country. That is why we are working, region by region, with communities to help diversify the economy and find new solutions for employment for Canadians living in those parts of the country.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House and the hon. member that it was Liberal members on this side of the House who worked with the government to ensure the changes presented in Bill C-2 found speedy passage.

I would remind the House that it was the Bloc members who voted against the intention to repeal the intensity rule, who voted against the changes to the clawback provision and who voted against the changes to the re-entrance provision for parents. I think they have a lot of answering to do to their constituents.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled “Beyond Bill C-2: a Review of Other Proposals to Reform Employment Insurance”.

I am very pleased to present the report, which was endorsed by all parties on the committee. This is not an easy thing for a committee to do with a topic that attracts such great interest as employment insurance.

The report is a deliberate follow up on the work this committee did on Bill C-2, which the House passed. It deals with issues that were raised by the 80 witnesses we received during the Bill C-2 hearings. We tried to present the concerns of all of those people to the government in this report.

I am most grateful to members of all parties on our 18 person committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 1997

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at third reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 and the Financial Administration Act.

There are two parts to the bill. I will emphasize the aspects related to the Budget Implementation Act, 1997. My colleague, the chair of the public accounts committee and chief critic for the treasury board, will address the amendments to the Financial Administration Act.

The bill seeks to increase funding for research and development through the Canada foundation for innovation by some $750 million over an undefined period of 10 years. This follows quite logically the remarks I just delivered on Bill C-22 when I discussed at length the irresponsible approach the government was taking to program spending.

I spoke about how in the fiscal year just ended program spending had grown by 7.1%, how the government had overspent its budgeted amount every fiscal year, and how for the next four years the government was estimated to average spending increases of about 5%. I expect it would be substantially more than that.

I also talked about the phenomenon known as March madness where ministers make spending announcements without proper authorization. I talked about how in April 2001, the last month of the fiscal year, we spent some $16 billion or 70% more than the average monthly amount.

This is of relevance to the bill before us. The government is proposing that we authorize an additional $750 million for the Canada foundation for innovation. Let me say at the outset that the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, supports in principle an appropriate and responsible level of funding for research, development and innovation in academia which can be of economic value to the country. We believe government can play an appropriate role in that respect.

However such funding must be limited by the available resources. We are concerned that the $750 million funding envelope has no defined time period or parameters. It is not limited. The government says it may be spent over the next 10 years or so, or perhaps not. That is not a responsible approach. For a spending program like this the government has an obligation to come before us and detail where it expects to come up with the money and in which years and to book the money as spent in each of those fiscal years.

The auditor general has not only criticized the ongoing practice of March madness as inherently inefficient. He has repeatedly criticized the practice of booking future expenditures in one year as the government did with the famous millennium scholarship program and as it is doing now with the Canada foundation for innovation.

This accounting practice would not be accepted in the private sector. The government is ignoring its own rules and the recommendations of the auditor general in the way it is managing the moneys it seeks to authorize through the bill.

Another concern is that the government does not have a clear framework for financing science or research and development. We are dealing with major scientific and R and D projects on a case by case, piecemeal basis. My colleague from Calgary Southwest, our science and technology critic, has made and will continue to make important remarks on the subject. We need very clear criteria for the allocation of money for science, technology, research and development. Throwing the money into a big envelope and saying it will somehow be distributed on an equitable and meaningful basis is not good enough.

How do we adjudicate the relative economic and social value of a cyclotron project in British Columbia versus a nuclear research facility in Ontario versus a research program for astronomy? All these things come before us. Each has merits in and of itself but parliamentarians have no overall objective criteria by which to judge the value of competing R and D demands.

For that reason our party platform proposes that parliament appoint a chief scientist, a position which exists in many other national governments. Such a person would be the principal adviser to both the government and the legislature on scientific questions. He or she could help develop a clear framework to priorize the many competing demands related to R and D, science and technology. This would not require a large or expensive bureaucracy and it would be helpful to have such objective, external advice.

Those are our concerns regarding the first part of the bill. I will briefly outline our concerns regarding the amendments to the Financial Administration Act, concerns my colleague for St. Albert will elaborate further.

The clause seeks to clarify that parliament must provide explicit authority to departments, agencies, boards and commissions of the government in order to incur debt. That is very interesting.

I was briefed on the bill by officials from the Department of Finance who explained that the clause came about because of one of the government's innumerable legislative drafting errors. The error allows the Financial Administration Act to be interpreted in a way that permits departments and agencies to incur debt on their own authority without explicit authorization from parliament delegated to the Minister of Finance.

Over the past couple of years the Department of National Defence has been in a pitched quasi-legal battle with the Department of Finance over this question. The DND has sought independent borrowing authority not delegated by parliament which of course has the power of the purse.

We therefore support the aspect of the amendment regarding borrowing authority. However it begs the question: How can the government consistently bring forth legislation with such significant drafting errors which parliament must then spend valuable legislative time rectifying? That is a serious concern.

In bill after bill, as finance critic, I deal with all sorts of tax amendments which seek to amend errors in bills originally presented by the government. We must accept to a certain extent the bona fides of departmental officials and the government, the ministers who bring these bills to parliament, that they are technically correct. However too often they are not, as in this instance.

The amendment also deals with certain regulations surrounding the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board because of another drafting error. When the government made amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act it forgot to include the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The CPP investment board is therefore subject to intervention by the finance minister. He can go into the CPP investment fund and strip cash out of it, contrary to assurances given at the time of passage of Bill C-2 in the last parliament which created the CPP investment board.

However because of a drafting error the finance minister, contrary to every assurance granted us, can go into the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and fire personnel, trash or write his own business plan, and strip cash out of the fund. This loophole needs to be plugged. It should never have occurred in the first place.

We will therefore be opposing the legislation. We will urge the government to take a much closer look at bills of this nature to ensure they do not create future problems which we must then go back and solve.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-5, an act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act—Chapter No. 3.

Bill S-4, an act No. 1 to harmonize federal law with the civil law of the Province of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law—Chapter No. 4.

Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations—Chapter No. 5.

Bill S-2, an act respecting marine liability and to validate certain by-laws and regulations—Chapter No. 6.

Employment Insurance

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, in this case the Canada Employment Insurance Commission made a unanimous decision to pursue a judicial review of the umpire's ruling. The scope of the umpire's ruling went beyond the particular case under consideration. Therefore the commission felt that it was important to seek that verification from the courts with respect to that ruling.

However the hon. member should note that we have taken a number of steps in the House to ensure that the employment insurance program is more responsive to the needs of Canadians. I think of Bill C-2 which the Bloc voted against.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we have the Bloc asking for changes to the Employment Insurance Act when it voted against the amendments that were presented in Bill C-2.

If it were up to the opposition, the intensity rule would still be part of the act, medium income Canadians would still be subject to the clawback, and the re-entrance rule would not have been changed. I suggest that party is not standing up at all for workers in the province of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government always honours its commitments, and the member opposite knows that perfectly well.

On the matter at issue, the member also knows perfectly well that it was his party and others that prevented us from passing Bill C-2 on March 29 by adjourning the House. He knows that his party, including his deputy House leader, denied unanimous consent to pass this bill before the election.

It is a rather tardy act of contrition by the members of the Bloc Quebecois to be claiming today that they defend the interests of the unemployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Bill C-2 is nothing more than a sleeping pill to put the unemployed to sleep. No one is fooled by this government's position.

In the midst of the campaign, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, the minister responsible for Quebec and even the Prime Minister made a commitment to do justice to the unemployed and to the workers and employers, those who finance the plan.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development or someone in the government assure us that the government will honour its commitments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond for the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

The member knows very well that Bill C-2 has now passed all stages in the House of Commons and is currently before the other place. We hope to have it passed in the very near future.

We must be seeing some act of contrition on the part of those who tried on a number of occasions to prevent passage of this bill to improve benefits to Canadians.

Gold Mines

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, the government is following the implementation of EI reforms very closely and, where necessary, is making the required changes to maintain the effectiveness of the program.

Fundamental changes introduced in 1996 continue to produce results and to help Canadians. Recently we proposed amendments to Bill C-2 in light of the recommendations made by the auditor general who feels that the process for setting premiums is not sufficiently transparent.

On February 22 the auditor general told the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that over the next two years work would be done on how the rates should be set in the future.

I therefore think that the bill buys time so that we can find a better way of calculating the rates paid by employees and employers. The Standing Committee on Finance has also indicated that the process should be reviewed.

Under these circumstances the government felt it was inappropriate to ask the commission to continue to set the rates.

In order to ensure stability and predictability the government will be suspending the commission's authority to set rates for a period of two years so that a thorough review of the process used can be conducted.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on the adjournment motion.

On March 23, 2001, I asked a question regarding Bill C-2. This bill was aimed at amending the Employment Insurance Act and had not been passed at the time. I asked if the government was willing to withdraw clause 9, which now allows the government to set the premium rate without having to take into account the advice of the Employment Insurance Commission.

The minister answered that even if the auditor general had said that, he had also said something else. However she did not mention the very comments of the auditor general who said that he preferred the status quo in the Employment Insurance Act to Bill C-2 because it created additional uncertainty regarding the use of the money.

Now that Bill C-2 has become law we are faced with a situation where the government has simply created a payroll tax, a regressive tax.

People who contribute to the employment insurance plan pay premiums on their income of up to $39,000 a year. However someone earning $48,000 pays no premium on $9,000 of it, whereas people earning $25,000 pay premiums on 100% of their salary. It is a regressive payroll tax, especially since some people do not pay any premium at all. Foremost among those are we members of the House of Commons.

That means that now that the government has decided that the money it contributes to the employment insurance plan will legally be used to cover government expenses as a whole, we will not be doing our share. We will not be doing our share in this regard. I agree that for people who do not earn a lot of money the situation is rather offensive.

Therefore I am asking the government if it would not be possible to hold a debate as soon as possible on the issue of this payroll tax, because this is becoming a new form of taxation. This is a third way of financing the government's general operations on top of income taxes and the GST. As it is, I find this unacceptable.

If they wanted to use it as a payroll tax it should be a fair tax. Will everyone contribute? Will the cap be raised so that everyone contributes on the basis of his or her income?

As for EI contributions used for debt financing those who earn $30,000 a year contribute on 100% of their earnings. Yet those earning $50,000 a year pay premiums on only 75% of their income. As for us, we are contributing absolutely nothing.

Granted we pay income tax. EI contributions should be used for employment insurance purposes. For several years the government has been raking in $18 billion a year in contributions and gives back only $12 billion in benefits. Now it has legalized the fact such surpluses should not exist.

I would also like to see the government keep its election promise. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the member for Bourassa who is responsible for amateur sport, and the minister responsible for Quebec all said there would be a parliamentary committee to bring about a true reform of the employment insurance plan, not just what we found in Bill C-2—like the elimination of the intensity rule for which we had been calling for a long time, but a true reform.

Will the government make the commitment to follow up on the results of the negotiations and the work of the committee, especially if there are unanimous recommendations?

We do not want to wait two months, three months, six months or a year for the government to deal with this issue, because there are women, young people and seasonal workers who still find themselves in an unacceptable situation today. Until measures are taken to correct the fact that a young person who just entered the workforce is required to work 910 hours to be eligible, the situation will remain unacceptable.

I am waiting for an answer from the government. Now that it has realized that EI contributions are a payroll tax and has promised changes, will the government keep its word and starting in June give people an employment insurance plan that enables them to have sufficient income while they are unemployed?

Canada Elections Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an occasion for which I as a parliamentarian am deeply grateful that this institution exists and I have an opportunity to express myself when I have serious misgivings about legislation that is passed through the House.

By coincidence, the member who spoke before me, the member for Brandon—Souris, touched precisely on the area of concern that I wish to devote my remarks to, and that is the question of third party advertising and how it was dealt with in Bill C-2, the previous legislation, and how it should be dealt with in the future.

I have to give some background just so people will understand what happened. The member for Brandon—Souris in fact gave some of the background and I am grateful that he has done so because it saves me going over that ground.

I think the general public should understand that the Canada Elections Act sets limits on campaign spending by candidates. In each riding it varies a little according to geography, size and population, but most candidates for a federal election are restricted in their spending during the campaign to usually around $60,000. I think my campaign ceiling for election expenses is around $65,000.

Going back a little, during the 1993 election campaign, which was my first experience in running as a candidate, the law was such that there was a limit under the law on third party advertising expenditures. There was also a blackout period.

What is being referred to there is the idea that people or groups who are not related to the political party or the candidate might wish to buy advertising during an election period to support one candidate or another, or one party or another, or to advance a controversial issue during an election campaign, hopefully to get a debate going among the candidates.

In its wisdom, parliament, prior to the 1993 election, put restrictions on third party advertising. The idea was that the limit of expenditure on groups who wanted to take out advertising during election campaigns supporting one candidate or another was restricted to $1,000. Indeed there was a very long blackout period.

The theory behind that limitation was that if candidates were restricted in their spending, they were restricted in their spending so that there would be an even playing field. Whether one is a candidate from the government in power, an incumbent, a candidate from a party in opposition or a candidate from a small fringe party, everyone faces the same amount of potential election spending. It is relatively modest at $60,000. Most groups and organizations can raise the amount of private donations necessary to reach that objective in spending, so it is quite reasonable.

However, when we add third party advertising into the equation, as it exists in the United States where there is a great deal of soft money around during an election campaign, then there is a danger of distorting the process. There might be a situation where a special interest group, a corporation or whatever else—and this does happen in the United States—spends enormous amounts of money, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars even in a single riding, to run advertising election material with the specific intent of seeing that one particular candidate, whether it is an incumbent or otherwise, does not succeed in the election. The restriction in my view in 1993 was very appropriate.

As was described by the member for Brandon—Souris, that provision was challenged prior to the 1997 election by the National Citizens' Coalition on the charter grounds that it limited the right to free expression during an election campaign. This provision prior to the 1997 election campaign was suspended.

This was my second election campaign, Mr. Speaker, and I should tell you that in my first mandate as a member of parliament I undertook quite an initiative to bring special interest groups that were receiving public funds to account. I put out several reports calling for transparencies of such groups and I named some of these groups.

Needless to say, during the 1997 election, when the limit on third party advertising disappeared, what happened was that I was enormously attacked by television ads, by print ads and by radio ads. The spending to attack me as the candidate by these special interest groups, some of them charities but most of them not for profit organizations linked to various charities, was easily far more than I spent. In fact in the 1997 campaign, even though my election spending ceiling was about $65,000, I only spent $32,000.

The reason is that I am very much a grassroots candidate. I have no corporations behind me. I have no big interests behind me. My campaign donations are exclusively from the ordinary people in my riding who have confidence in me as an individual. It is more their confidence in me as an individual than my party affiliation that has enabled me to raise the money in my riding that permitted me to run the campaign. I have received no money even from the party during my election campaigns, not only in 1997 but in the year 2000.

After the 1997 election campaign the government undertook, through Bill C-2, to address the challenge that the National Citizen's Coalition had succeeded in. When the Alberta court ruled that the limits on third party advertising expenditures were unconstitutional, the government undertook to redraft the law in Bill C-2 in which it defined limits on third party advertising expenditures.

What it said basically in Bill C-2 was that third parties that wanted to engage in buying advertising during an election campaign should be required to identify themselves and they would be limited to only spending $3,000 in each riding, to a maximum of $150,000 across the country.

There is the problem, and that is why I am here speaking today and why I am so very concerned. When Bill C-9 came forward it was an attempt to correct the problems that exist in Bill C-2, but there was no opportunity to address the problem of third party advertising because Elections Canada had still not reported on the effect of third party advertising under the new rules, who indeed had registered and what they had done.

I have here a printout from Elections Canada that describes the registered third parties that participated in campaign 2000. I got this only when Bill C-9 was in committee, so there was no opportunity to discuss it before committee and I have to bring it before the House. What we have here is the name of the registered third party and the name of the applicant who submitted an address, and that is the complete information.

Not surprisingly, what we have here is a number of special interest groups and organizations. We have unions. We have the Canadian Medical Association. We have an animal rights organization. None of that is surprising. We also have third party organizations that identify themselves only by name. We have Rick Smith of Red Lake, Rod Gillis of St. John's and Liz White of Toronto. That is all we know about them.

Bill C-2, the law that exists, requires no more information. It is sufficient to register a personal name. The people who are making the application are the people who take the name of the third party that is actually buying the advertising, presumably to take one stand or another for or against a candidate or for or against an issue that may be before the electors.

There is one set of third party registrants that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. The first one is the coalition for the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The next one is the Edmonton supporters for the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The third one is Edmontonians for the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The official titles of these third party organizations contesting this election name the member for Edmonton West. That member is the sitting justice minister.

Here is the problem. I am pleased to be able to say that there was no attempt to hide anything. These three organizations made it very clear that they were taking out ads under the law to support the Liberal member for Edmonton West. The problem is that under the current legislation, given that each third party organization that wishes to take part in the election campaign in a riding can spend $3,000, these three organizations were enabled to spend $9,000 in advertising to support the member for Edmonton West, the justice minister.

Indeed, had there been 10 such individuals who wished to be third party organizations buying advertising during an election campaign, they would have been able to spend $30,000 supporting the hon. member for Edmonton West. Twenty individuals would have been able to spend $60,000 supporting the hon. member for Edmonton West.

We can see the problem is that there is no control whatsoever on individuals, separately indeed, deciding to support an individual candidate in a riding and investing more money than that candidate himself or herself would spend in the riding. We have a problem there. The whole spirit of a ceiling on candidates' expenses could be circumvented by all the members of a riding association, for instance, deciding to take out third party advertising.

This is a dramatic example. I am actually very grateful that these people who were supporting the justice minister were upfront so that I can actually present this very dramatic example of what is wrong with the act.

Mr. Speaker, if you do not think that is meaningful you should be aware that the hon. member for Edmonton West won her seat by a single vote in 1993, and that in the year 2000, when these three third party organizations were buying ads in support of her, she won her riding by only 730 votes. If anyone should think that third party advertising does not have a bearing on an election campaign and cannot influence an election campaign, I assure them they are wrong, particularly if the campaign is closely contested.

When campaigns are closely contested, the real problem is that Bill C-2, as it exists now, makes it possible for organizations that we cannot clearly identify as to intent to spend enormous amounts of money to support one particular party or candidate in an election. In other words, Bill C-2, because it is loosely written, opens up the same opportunity for abuse in election spending as now exists in the United States.

I should say that it is not just a case where, as in the case I cited, an incumbent is getting support. There is also another organization which very amusingly calls itself the Zap-a-Rock organization, and it was obviously raising money in Etobicoke and we presume that it was aimed at the health minister.

What we do not know is the intentions of organizations like the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which is a very aggressive international for profit animal rights organization that makes a great deal of money by promoting animal rights causes. We have even here the Christian Heritage Party of Canada which has taken out third party advertising spending status and it, in the previous election, was a registered political party.

The point always comes down to this. As the legislation is written now, we have no guarantees as individual candidates that there cannot be spending on advertising in our riding by a dozen, 60, 50 or 100 special interest groups whose combined spending can more than overpower the campaign ceiling on expenditures that we are required to meet ourselves as candidates and that is defined by the Canada Elections Act.

It something so fundamental to our democracy that anyone in this country should be able to run for high office, for federal office, and not have to curry favour among outside organizations to enable them to spend money on advertising either across the country or in their ridings.

In my particular case, as someone who had alienated an entire sector, the not for profit sector, by criticizing numerous charities and by criticizing numerous non-profit organizations, in the election of 1997 they banded together, they grouped together and brought out advertising against me. The current legislation prevents that from happening, but there was nothing stopping every organization that I criticized from separately taking out $3,000 worth of advertising and going after me.

That is a chill on a member of parliament doing his duty, whether it is not for profit organizations or for profit organizations or any other special interest group out there. If members have to worry about organizations being able to buy more advertising against them during an election campaign than members are entitled to spend on the entire campaign, then I am afraid sitting members of parliament will think twice before they speak their minds in the House, will think twice before they aggressively go after those organizations they feel are not doing a proper job in this society or, indeed, are even questionable in the most literal sense.

We as members of parliament need to have a situation whereby the spending limits during an election campaign are known, are precise, and if organizations are dissatisfied with individual candidates, then the way they should go after those individual candidates is by investing in the parties in opposition to those candidates or in the candidates themselves of those parties, but, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very wrong, very, very wrong and dangerous if we have a situation where individuals, be they individuals as groups or individuals as persons, can separately, buy advertising during an election campaign, separately, that cumulatively might be an expenditure in the hundreds of thousands of dollars against an individual candidate. This is a very serious threat to our democratic process.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the charter and freedom of speech, it is understood that there have to be reasonable limits on freedom of speech. If freedom of speech is interpreted as allowing an open field of election spending against candidates when the candidates themselves are restricted in that spending, then I think we are all in serious trouble.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much if I will take the full 20 minutes, therefore leaving time for members of the government side or opposition benches.

I am very pleased to be able to put forward our party's position on the third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

I would also like to commend and congratulate my colleague, the House leader of the Conservative Party and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who has the carriage of this piece of legislation. In my opinion he does yeoman's duty in making sure that positions are put forward. In fact maybe even the government could take notice of the quality of the suggestions put forward.

Perhaps it could even accept some of those suggestions for the future because, as was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker, the government has a part to play in this piece of legislation. The part that it has to play is to look at the process used to put forward Bill C-2 prior to the last surprise election called in October 2000. Bill C-2 came forward and there were many problems with that piece of legislation, as we have now identified. There were many difficulties with that legislation.

Had the government listened to opposition members and looked at the very valid amendments that were put forward, it would not have had to rush through a very bad piece of legislation that now has to come back with another amendment, Bill C-9, to be able to fix the myriad of problems that it faced.

I will deal specifically with Bill C-9 as it is before us. The bill reduces from 50 to 12 the number of candidates a party would have to field for purposes of having its candidates' party affiliation indicated on the ballot. It also clarifies and harmonizes certain provisions in the act and proposes one amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I should also say that we in the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation for any number of reasons, one of which is that the Senate still has the opportunity of reviewing it and perhaps making some clean up changes that are necessary.

Also, despite the work accomplished by parliamentarians in a very short period of time when Bill C-2 was under consideration, the government admits that certain translation and concordance errors between the English and French versions slipped through into the new elections act. It was sloppy workmanship and I am sure the government will accept its full responsibility for that.

When Bill C-9 was debated at second reading, the government House leader said that the application of the new legislation had revealed a number of irregularities that had to be rectified. That is in Hansard at page 1053. Some of these could have caused problems because, as we see further on, they went beyond a simple act of concordance between the English and French versions.

A member of the government said that the government did not have to worry about that because it was not its job. Well it is the government's job to make sure that legislation is in fact the right legislation for Canadians, particularly when it deals with the Canada Elections Act. This is what is at the heart of our democracy and at the heart of what we as parliamentarians in the House should be dealing with, where the electorate, the public of the country, have the right to put the people who they want in the House for a particular time.

The legislation is too important to simply say that it was not the government's fault. It was the government's fault and we are trying to fix it now.

The integrity of the electoral system is important to Canadians. There is no doubt that errors could have been avoided if the Liberal government had given parliament more time to consider the provisions of the new Canada Elections Act with greater care.

I would like to spend a few minutes outlining some of the specific amendments that are dealt with in Bill C-9. As has been mentioned before, and I am sure I will repeat some of the comments that were made, I will touch briefly on some of the areas that are of particular concern to me and certainly to my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The first part that we heard about earlier was party affiliation on the ballot. When Canadians go into a polling booth and look at the ballot they know that my name is associated with a particular political party, as are other names of people sitting in the House. The amendments proposed in Bill C-9 are due in large part to the court ruling in the Figueroa case.

In response to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, clause 12 of Bill C-9 would amend subsections 117(2) of the act reducing from 50 to 12 the number of candidates required for their party affiliation to be indicated on the ballot. This new provision would apply only if the nomination of the 12 candidates had been confirmed for the general election or, as in the case of a byelection, in the immediately preceding general election.

While the Lortie commission report recommended 15 candidates as the minimum, the Liberals have chosen 12 because that is the number of members of parliament that a political party requires to be officially recognized in the House of Commons.

The fact that this legislation deals with 12 as being the number for party affiliation is accepted by our party. Certainly most of the parties in the House have been represented by substantially more candidates than have run in previous elections. The fact is that we do have party affiliations. I am very proud of my party affiliation with the Progressive Conservative Party.

Therefore, I believe, and my party accepts the fact, that the affiliation should be identified on a ballot so that when Canadians go to the polling booth they will know exactly who and what party they are voting for to sit in the House of Commons.

Currently section 18(1) of the act currently provides that the CEO may carry out studies on voting, in particular with respect to alternative voting means, and devising and testing an electronic voting process for use in a future general election or byelection.

The use of such a process must be approved in advance by a committee of the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters. This is an accepted part of the legislation but I do put a caveat on that. We must be very careful when dealing with any type of alternate way of counting ballots. As we have seen just recently in the United States election, there are a number of different processes used and some of them are not quite as competent as perhaps others. We should be very careful when suggesting that an improvement to the system will make it better because in some cases it does not necessarily do that.

During the consideration of Bill C-2 by the Senate, a number of senators, both Progressive Conservative and Liberal, said that they were disturbed to see that the Senate was excluded from this process.

Pursuant to the commitment made by the government to members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs during the consideration of Bill C-2 in May 2000, Bill C-9 would amend section 18(1) to include in the approval process the Senate committee that considers electoral matters. Normally such matters are referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The input from our colleagues in the other place is an important aspect of this process and one which I am pleased to see included in Bill C-9.

We heard comments from my colleague from the Bloc who suggested that his party will put forward an amendment or subamendment to change this particular clause. Our party agrees with what has been put forward in Bill C-9 which was not put forward in Bill C-2. We can sit in the House and debate the legitimacy and the necessity of the other House but I am not prepared to do that right now. What I would like to say is that there must be a backstop when a majority government puts forward legislation in this House. There must be a second opinion of the legislation.

A perfect example of that particular situation was when Bill C-2 came forward. It was pushed through with very little discussion, if any, and no changes were made to a very bad piece of legislation. It has now come forward again because of that. This is a prime example of why the Senate must have an influence on this legislation. Bill C-9 speaks to that and we are very pleased that the government has corrected this very glaring error.

Another part of the bill deals with the registration of the electors themselves. Subsection 44(1) of the Canada Elections Act requires the CEO to keep a register of electors, in other words, a permanent voting list containing the names of all Canadians qualified to vote.

Under subsection (2) of the act, the list shall contain each elector's family and given names, sex, date of birth and civic and mailing addresses, as well as any other information that the CEO may require under section 55 of the act. Section 55 allows the CEO to communicate information in the register to a province when it decides to establish a list similar to the federal one.

Information compiled by the CEO under section 195 of the act, statement of ordinary residence by an elector belonging to the Canadian forces, may not be communicated to the provinces because the wrong provision is cited in subsection 44(2).

Clause 4 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 44(2) to correct that error, an error that should not have gone forward but did. It is subsection 195(7) and not subsection 195(3) that allows the CEO to communicate to a province information about the ordinary residence and members of the military.

A substantial amount of Bill C-9 deals with third party spending reports. Subsection 353(1) of the act requires third parties to register with Elections Canada once they have incurred election expenses of more than $500.

Subsection 359(1) requires third parties to file a report documenting the value of expenses and advertising, as well as their funding sources during the campaign and for the six month period prior to the issuing of the writ.

Clause 20 of Bill C-9 would amend subsection 359(1) to specify that only third parties required to be registered with the CEO must file such a report.

When Bill C-9 was tabled, several observers thought that the government would propose amendments dealing with the ceiling on expenses imposed on third parties during election campaigns.

Under section 349 of the act, a third party is defined as “a person or a group other than a candidate, registered party or riding association of a registered party. It could mean an unincorporated trade union, trade association or any other group of persons acting together by mutual consent for a common purpose.

The Canada Elections Act passed in May 2000 provides that, during a general election, the ceiling on third party election spending is $150,000 at the national level and $3,000 for each electoral district. In a byelection a third party may spend $3,000.

On October 23, 2000, Mr. Justice Cairns of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an injunction prohibiting Elections Canada from enforcing the third party election advertising spending limits in the Canada Elections Act.

Originally the injunction was to be in effect until Judge Cairns handed down his ruling on the main matter before him, that is, the constitutionality of provisions relating to third parties in the new elections act. The injunction was upheld shortly afterward by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The injunction was granted in response to legal action undertaken by the National Citizens' Coalition led by a former Reform Party member, Stephen Harper. The coalition is currently contesting the new provisions.

However, on November 10, 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted the injunction in its ruling in Canada vs. Stephen Joseph Harper. Eight of the nine justices were in favour of staying the injunction until the constitutionality of the contested provisions could be ruled on or by the courts. Only Mr. Justice John Major opposed this decision.

In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the majority opinion of the court held that:

—the public interest in maintaining in place the duly enacted legislation on spending limits pending complete constitutional review outweighs the detriment to freedom of expression caused by those limits.

In response, Elections Canada announced that the provisions regarding third party spending would not be enforced for the period from October 22, 2000, the date that the writs were issued for the general election, to November 10, 2000. They would however be enforced after that up to November 27, 2000 which was polling day.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has still not ruled on the constitutionality of the Canada Elections Act provisions with regard to third parties.

While we welcome legislation, perhaps this should have been avoided if the government had not done such sloppy work on Bill C-2.

We will be supporting the legislation going forward for a number of reasons, as I have tried to indicate in this dissertation. We would also suggest very strongly that one of the reasons we support it is that it will have an opportunity to be heard on the Senate side. We will have an opportunity to discuss, debate and perhaps put forward amendments to legislation that could be better enforced and put forward better in the Senate.

I hope we have learned some lessons from the inconsistencies and problems that came forward with Bill C-2 and do not repeat them with Bill C-9. Hopefully, when we bring in legislation, put them to a committee, and listen to legitimate concerns, complaints and suggestions as to how they could be made better, that maybe the government will listen to those concerns and suggestions openly and honestly, and make those changes at that point in time, as opposed to taking forward legislation that is inaccurate.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in turn to speak to Bill C-9 at this final stage.

I would like to indicate right away that our political formation will support this legislation, but without any great enthusiasm. I would even say that we do it out of pique, in a way, because we recognize that parliament must abide by the court decision in the Figueroa case.

We also recognize that there are in the current Canada Elections Act, resulting from the reform adopted in the last parliament, a number of mistakes, all in all minor, that could nevertheless have had some rather dramatic effects in certain respects.

There are problems of agreement between the two texts, of poor translation from English to French since this bill was obviously first drafted in English.

There are also a number of mistakes in the numbering of some subsections and paragraphs. Again, this may seem trivial at first sight, but on closer look this could have had in the last election effects that although not dramatic could certainly be described as prejudicial.

Basically we should correct these difficulties, these small problems, these technical mistakes as I call them, in the Canada Elections Act.

If some technical mistakes were introduced in the elections act, I think we have to recognize that it is simply because we have proceeded hastily—unwillingly, I may add—with the elections act reform in the last session of the last parliament.

We proceeded with too much haste and this haste was dictated to us by the government, whose motives were—we saw it later, but we had suspicions at the time—essentially political and partisan. The government wanted to campaign under the new act, and since the government party was planning an early election we had to pass the new elections act as quickly as possible.

We had to proceed hastily, which prevented us from doing the work as conscientiously as we wanted to or as we should have, and the main result was that we were unable to make substantive changes to the elections act.

There were certainly very interesting changes, which had the effect of improving the act or the Canadian electoral system. However the fact still remains that we should have certainly examined changes that were much more substantive, but with the limited time available we obviously were unable to do so.

I must tell the House that as representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada in this House we should be deeply troubled and concerned by the rate of participation in elections, which is constantly declining.

We were able to see, particularly during the last federal election, that the rate of participation was dramatically low. We were able to see, particularly during the last federal election, that the rate of participation was dramatically low in spite of all the efforts made by the chief electoral officer to inform Canadians and Quebecers of the procedure to be registered on the voters' list and to exercise their right to vote.

This drop in the rate of participation also occurred in spite of the many changes made to the act to make it easier to vote. In fact, it is possible to vote under almost all circumstances in Canada and abroad. Some would even say that the Canada Elections Act is written in such a way that makes it easy, and a few journalists demonstrated this in the last election, to vote fraudulently.

We facilitate as much as possible the exercise of people's right to vote. In spite of that the participation rate is getting lower at each election. As I said, as parliamentarians I think this worrisome trend in our democracy must be cause for great concern.

If people are losing interest in politics and in the election process, we must draw certain conclusions and make certain changes.

We must carry out a reform of parliament that takes the expectations of the people we represent into account. They must be absolutely convinced that what we are doing here is being done on their behalf, that we are representing them, that we are protecting their interests and that we have a real say.

There is cause for concern with regard to for what I would call the democratic drift that threatens the process of globalization we are going through and the negotiation of the FTAA in which parliamentarians are definitely not involved.

We do need to change our parliamentary system, and that includes an indepth reform of the Canadian electoral system.

When we examined Bill C-2, which was supposed to be one of the most major reviews of the Canada Elections Act, we could have made substantial changes. We agreed with those changes but for political and partisan reasons we did not make them. That resulted, as we know, in the participation rate during the last federal election being one of the lowest since 1867. We missed a unique opportunity to carry out an indepth reform.

We must recognize that since the beginning of this new parliament the government has been dragging its feet somewhat on parliamentary and electoral reform. With this bill we could have started afresh, but no, the government has chosen to make cosmetic changes, to correct some technical mistakes to which I alluded and to abide by the court's decision in the Figueroa case. I will come back to these two issues a little later.

I would like to talk briefly about what we could have done. I hope the government House leader is listening to what I am saying. I hope we will have the opportunity very soon, after the chief electoral officer tables his report or his recommendations following the last federal election, to review, amend and reform much more thoroughly the Canadian electoral system so that our fellow citizens will feel that this system is relevant to the decision making process.

We might examine the voting procedure and the representation system. We had a debate in the House some time ago and we discussed the possibility of striking an all party committee to look into all these issues. The government has unfortunately shown very little interest in the idea of even discussing a more thorough reform of the electoral system.

I was surprised to hear the government House leader say that we would have the opportunity to examine more thoroughly the issue of the electoral system once the chief electoral officer has stated his position on the subject. I must say that he missed an excellent opportunity of showing tangible interest in this when we debated a motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party.

We might examine the representation system. Would it be relevant or not to integrate into Canadian legislation an element of proportional representation in our electoral system? Should we adopt a purely proportional electoral system? Of course there are pros and cons. We have already had an opportunity to discuss this.

As for the advantages, there is the fact that it would eventually allow for a better representation of women and young people in parliament. As far as the electoral process is concerned, minority groups would be better represented, and election results would better reflect the various points of view and ideologies in society, including some of the more minority ones.

With a proportional representation component the system will avoid the distortions sometimes created by the first past the post system which makes it possible for a government to gather almost 100% of the power with only 40% of the votes. A proportional representation system would allow for better co-operation with the opposition and would encourage government to take into account the opinions of the opposition.

Of course, there are some disadvantages to such a system. We will have to take them into consideration when we consider the system so that the necessary corrective mechanisms can be put in place. Instability can result from pure proportional representation and sometimes from a system with a proportional representation component.

There is also the risk that a proportional representation component could also create two classes of members: those who have ridings and constituents to whom they are accountable and to whom they must provide services and those who are appointed from the party lists.

To whom are the members accountable? To the people who elect them or to the party who puts them on the ballot? Those are questions that still need to be asked if we at some later point come to question the appropriateness of integrating proportionality into the Canadian electoral system.

We could have examined the system of appointing returning officers, a system that gives Canada the image of a democracy that is somewhat behind the times, somewhat aging, somewhat archaic. I, an opposition MP, am not the only one who says so. Canada's chief electoral officer said the following when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on October 28:

—when I go out on the international scene I do not recommend that the Canadian system be emulated where it comes to the appointment of returning officers I clearly indicate, as I do in Canada, that the appointment of returning officers under the present system is an anachronism.

The Lortie commission, in volume I of its report at page 483, stated as follows:

A cornerstone of public confidence in any democratic system of representative government is an electoral process that is administered efficiently and an electoral law that is enforced impartially. Securing public trust requires that the election officials be independent of the government of the day and not subject to partisan influence.

It must be acknowledged that in the present system returning officers are appointed by the governor in council, that is to say the government. They are not appointed as the result of a call for nominations. They are not appointed as the result of an independent examination where they will be selected on their intrinsic abilities, their own qualifications. They are appointed as the government sees fit. They are appointed according to their political stripe.

In my opinion this is basically undemocratic and archaic in a democracy that claims to be modern. Returning officers need to be appointed by the chief electoral officer. They need to be dismissable by that same officer. They need to be appointed after a public call for nominations and selected in an independent process of examination of their ability to carry out their duties. They need to be answerable to the chief electoral officer.

I trust that we will eventually have an opportunity to address such an amendment. It is high time we brought this change in the Canada Electoral Act. It will be noted that all opposition parties agree with this and that the only one against it is the government, because incidentally it has the privilege of appointing returning officers.

I hope we will also have the opportunity to examine the whole issue of political party financing, which is a basic issue in a democracy. In a democracy it is one person, one vote; not one dollar but one vote.

It is important that we consider the facts. This government has been elected on a platform of honesty and integrity and of condemnation of the previous Progressive Conservative government for its spending and mistakes, but experience has shown that, with the present government there is sometimes a very strong link between contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada and people who are awarded contracts by the Liberal government.

It is strange and surprising. This patronage system where contracts are awarded to contributors to political parties is a remnant of the past.

That system should be influenced only by those who are entitled to vote on polling day. If the influence must also express itself with a monetary contribution, those who are entitled to vote on polling day should be the only ones to be able to exercise that influence in between elections and during election campaigns by giving money to political parties. Only the voters should have the right to finance Canadian political parties.

That is what we have in Quebec: financing of the political parties by the public. Quebec's party financing system is held up around the world as one of the most modern systems, since we can be absolutely sure of its probity because only voters can contribute.

Members on the other side might tell me “Yes, but it is well known that this legislation encourages people to circumvent the law, since businesses may well contribute to a party through an individual”. The Quebec election act clearly prohibits this. Penalties are therefore imposed for contravening not only the letter but also the spirit of the law.

The Quebec election act also provides for a cap on election contributions. In Canada the people watching us and the people in the gallery will be perhaps surprised to know that there is absolutely no ceiling. A company can give any amount to a political party. There is no limit to contributions in Canada. There are limits to election expenses but not to contributions. In Quebec contributions are limited to $3,000 per voter. There are therefore two components to public funding: the contribution ceiling and a clear definition of who can contribute, that is voters only.

At the very least we might have expected that the federal government would agree to set a limit, a ceiling, for contributions if it did not want to set very strict limits on the source of the contributions, but even that is too much to ask it. Why would the government deny itself generous contributions when it can count on them year after year? The major banks give the party in power tens of thousands of dollars. It would certainly not deprive itself of this manna falling in its lap which it generously repays, as the facts indicate.

We would also have the opportunity perhaps to consider, or we might have had the opportunity if we had made the effort to really do so last time, incentives to increase the proportion of women involved in the electoral process and consequently taking part in public affairs and the political process.

France has just passed legislation requiring half the assembly to comprise women, which will mean that half the assembly will comprise women. Some of the Scandinavian countries have established legislation setting a minimum for the proportion of women in their legislatures.

There could be this sort of legislative incentive or financial incentives to encourage political parties to promote the entry of women into politics, which might encourage them to increase the number of women candidates in the running at elections. I want to point out in this regard that it was the government House leader himself who, during the review of Bill C-2 introduced in the last parliament, urged members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to propose such an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. At the time the hon. member for Longueuil presented an amendment, but it was subsequently rejected by the government.

Where is the consistency when the government House leader asks members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to propose measures to increase the number of women involved in the political process, only to then have the government defeat an amendment to this effect? There is a lack of consistency and there is a problem in terms of real political will to make substantial amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

We also raised a number of lesser issues such as the tax credits for contributions to political parties. The policy currently followed by the government is fundamentally discriminatory because the tax credit program is unfair to low income taxpayers making contributions to political parties.

If a low income taxpayer makes a contribution to a political party, chances are that the tax receipt which he gets will make absolutely no difference. If his income is not taxable, his tax receipt is absolutely worthless.

What is the value of a contribution by a low income taxpayer who takes the trouble to donate part of his savings to a political party and to make a financial contribution to the exercise of democracy? The state generously rewards those who make handsome contributions and have sufficient income to claim a tax credit but does not encourage in any way low income earners who wish to take part in the electoral process by making contributions to political parties.

We raised this inequity but the government refused to remedy it. The elections act contains another inequity. It was acknowledged by everyone in committee, even the Liberal members, yet they refused to make any changes to the elections act relating to the participation of self-employed workers in an election campaign.

If I am a self-employed carpenter with my own company the elections act does not allow me to work for one candidate or another, for example to make lawn signs, because that would be considered a contribution or a campaign expense.

There is something abnormal about treating the self-employed differently from any other citizens when they want to take part in the electoral process. If a carpenter working for a company does the work, this is allowed provided he does so as a volunteer. Yet if a self-employed carpenter wants to do the same in order to be part of the electoral process on behalf of one or another candidate, he is not allowed to do so because this would be considered a contribution or a campaign expense.

Clearly there are flaws in the Canada Elections Act. Certain features must be completely overhauled. The government has shown no interest in moving ahead with this until now. I hope that it will demonstrate a much more open attitude in the future, considering the fact that the public's interest in politics is now declining.

We must take note of this and have the courage to make the decisions required under the circumstances so that the electoral system the political system and the parliamentary system better respond to the expectations of the people we wish and claim to represent in the House.

Let us now get back to the central features of the bill under consideration. First, Figueroa forces the government to reduce the number of candidates that a party must nominate in order to have its name appear on the ballot.

Obviously this has no impact on the 50 candidates that a party must have nominated in a general election to qualify for tax benefits, financial benefits, from the government. Now, however, only 12 candidates will be required in order for the party's name to appear on the ballot.

Obviously there is a rationale behind this. The rules used were those that apply in the House, which require that in order to have party standing a party must have at least 12 members. Similarly a minimum of 12 candidates is required for a political party to have its name appear on the ballot. Fine. This is a formula whose value we can certainly recognize and accept.

This being said, it must also be recognized, as pointed out by Canadian Alliance members, that for all intents and purposes we are creating a new category of recognized political party. Of course this is not what the wording of the bill says, but this is what it means. Political parties that can have their names on ballots and those that run a number of additional candidates may be entitled to the benefits enjoyed by the government.

It must also be understood that this new provision, which seeks to comply with the court ruling in the Figueroa case, has one major flaw regarding byelections. A political party can be created between two general elections and be recognized by the public as such, but under the rule just proposed by the government that political party will not be allowed to put its name on the ballot. This is under the ruling of the court itself a violation of the rights of citizens to be informed of the party being represented by the candidate running for office.

We have a prime example of this in the case of a member now sitting in the House. In 1990, when the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie became the first Bloc Quebecois member to get himself elected, no one in Quebec would have challenged the fact that the Bloc Quebecois was a political force, a political party in the making but a political party nevertheless.

The rules that prevailed at the time did not allow the current leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, to put the name of his political party on the ballots. However, under the government's proposed rules, he would still have been in the same position because his party would not previously have had 12 candidates running in a general election.

I proposed an amendment to the government House leader that could have corrected this discrepancy. It must be understood that this discrepancy leaves the government open to new legal challenges, which will again be very costly for taxpayers and which it again risks losing. According to the words of the judge in Figueroa, the voter's right to be fully informed of a candidate's political affiliation must be maintained. This applies in a byelection as well.

What I proposed point blank to the government House leader was that a party be officially recognized as a political party as soon as it agrees to present 50 candidates at the next general election. Naturally the reply was “Yes, but what if it does not present 50?” The elections act must provide a way for the government to recover the money it would have given this party. Provision must be made for this, of course.

However this would at least mean that this party's candidate could put the name of his or her party on the ballot in the meantime. The advantage of this proposal was that different categories of parties would not be created and the discrepancy that will remain in the elections act after Bill C-9 is passed would have been removed.

There is also another provision that is somewhat disturbing to us. Before dealing with it I would simply like to say concerning the proposal we made that members of parliament will have understood well what I said, that is that the government House leader rejected this proposal out of hand, saying “You know, this goes beyond the scope of this bill” and so on. The result was the same: the government refused to consider a substantive proposal from the opposition. This is probably because simply it had not come up with the idea itself, as seems to be its way of running things since 1993.

I was going to say there is another provision in clause 2 that seems unacceptable to me. It is the one aimed at ensuring that when the chief electoral officer wants to test new voting systems, and in this case we are thinking more particularly about electronic voting, he will not be able to proceed without the prior approval of the procedure and House affairs committee which has to examine all matters related to the Canada Elections Act.

The government, after a Liberal senator woke up and said “They forgot to include the Senate”, said “Yes, this is true. Oops, the Senate has not been included. We should also ask the approval of the Senate committee responsible for electoral issues”.

When an unelected institution demands to be given a voice we realize how outdated the Canadian political system is. Maybe we would have agreed, and we moved an amendment to that effect but it was defeated by the government, that the Senate could express its views. There is something of a paradox here when the approval of an unelected house is required for a proposal of the chief electoral officer on the exercise of the right to vote.

Once again the government's argument has been that as long as the Canadian constitution has not been amended in order to reform or abolish the Senate both houses have to be included in any legislative process.

This is not a legislative process but a consultation process. The chief electoral officer needs the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is not a legislative process in any sense. We are talking about consultation.

We might have agreed to let the Senate express its views, but that is a far cry from giving it the right to approve a proposal by the chief electoral officer who is responsible for the implementation of the elections act and who is very knowledgeable about our electoral system and the exercise of the right to vote. He would have to present his proposal for approval by senators who are not elected but appointed by the government of the day.

The government's desire to include the Senate committee in this provision of the bill is certainly questionable because this is not about a legislative process. We are talking about consultation on whether the chief electoral officer should go ahead.

Bill C-9, which we are considering, also raises a number of questions relating to the possibility for an independent candidate to have access to the revised electoral list.

Questions were raised and some are still unanswered. There are still many reservations about the bill. I think the government, if it has clear answers, did not give them to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Maybe there was once again too much haste because several members came out of the committee process with unanswered questions and concerns.

According to several of us, every candidate in an election, no matter whether he or she is associated with a political party or independent, must be on a level playing field and have the same tools as any other candidate. In this regard there are obviously unanswered questions in Bill C-9.

I can hear the government House leader saying “No, no”. As I said before, if the government had clear answers on the question, it neglected—I will put this politely—to give them to members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because some members still had some concerns after the minister appeared before the committee.

Obviously for the government, we disagree, because we have missed the point. For the government the failure to understand always lies with the other party. It is always the opposition which has failed to understand. This is perhaps an indication of one of the problems we have in the Canadian parliamentary system, one which makes us think about the changes that should be made. That is another matter entirely.

In conclusion, since we indicated our willingness to vote in favour of the proposed legislation from the start, we might at least have expected the government to demonstrate a certain degree of openness to our proposals, given that we showed openness by indicating from the start that we were going to vote in favour of this legislation.

In the case of Bill C-2 the government was completely unreceptive to any substantial amendment that might come from opposition members, particularly Bloc Quebecois members since, as I said, we indicated that we were going to support the legislation proposed by the government.

Outside the Liberal Party there is apparently no salvation. If a party other than the Liberal Party makes a substantial proposal, and we have seen this in the past, not in connection with this bill, that proposal can only be a bad one. Regardless of how positive and worth while it might be, it absolutely must be rejected.

I see this as evidence of this government's narrow mindedness and arrogance once again. It attaches little importance to members of the opposition, although they were elected just as democratically as the members of the government, and any differing views expressed in the House.

In closing, to give credit where credit is due, despite the reservations I have just been expressing, I must thank all those who made consideration of Bill C-9 possible.

I would like to particularly thank and congratulate the committee members and the MPs from our party and others who have expressed their views in the House on Bill C-9. I also want to thank those who appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the committee staff who provided us with a great deal of support in our consideration of this bill.

I also want to thank all those who were involved in the drafting of this legislation, the Privy Council staff, Michael Pierce, Ms. Mondou and their team; the people at Department of justice; and of course those at Elections Canada.

Again I thank the staffs of our party and other parties who made a contribution. I would be remiss in not noting the contributions of my own staff, particularly Patric Frigon, for so much support in my consideration of this bill.

I will conclude on that note, with the comment that I hope the government will learn something from the speed with which we put electoral reform through in the last parliament, which now obliges us to make changes, cosmetic ones in some cases because of that excessive haste. I also hope we will be able if the opportunity arises, and I hope the House leader is open to this, to carry out an indepth reform of the Canada Elections Act to bring it in line with the expectations of our fellow citizens.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am very pleased to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-9, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the elections act.

Before I begin my remarks I want to commend the hon. member for Lanark—Carleton for his significant contribution to this debate. His comments are highly appreciated.

The bill has two main focuses. First, Bill C-9 would amend the Canada Elections Act so that candidates, other than those of registered parties, may have the option of indicating their political affiliation on the ballot. Second, it provides for various technical amendments that would correct certain details of the new Canada Elections Act. The bill is supposed to amend the Canada Elections Act that became law on September 1, 2000 in the last parliament.

The Liberals passed the bill only a few months ago. The bill we are debating today is the Liberal government's attempt to correct the mistakes they made in the previous bill in the 36th parliament.

The official opposition is continuing to try to force the government to do its work, as we asked it to do in the 36th parliament. I spoke to that bill in the last parliament and I warned the government about the pitfalls which it did not prevent.

As I said at second reading of the bill, I do not mind helping the Liberals to do their homework. I will present some ideas which the government can listen to and adopt amendments to the bill so that it does not have to amend it again after a little while.

The chief electoral officer appeared before the procedure and House affairs standing committee that conducted hearings on the bill last month. He said that these technical amendments did not raise any administrative concerns, apart from the fact that they were not exhaustive. The chief electoral officer also said that he had discovered other provisions that would warrant revision since some of these technical amendments created undesirable effects. The light is flashing, but I do not know if the Liberals are listening.

For example, Bill C-9 does not resolve the incongruity of the situation in which eligible and suspended parties are considered exactly like third parties. There should be some difference between a small political party and one that has been suspended. These two types of party status are seen as the same. However they are different and our laws should reflect that. At this late stage of the bill's progress, that is third and final reading, I ask the government what will it do about the fact that suspended parties are treated the same way as a small party. It is unfair.

There is also a concern that parties, which are not represented in the House regularly, raise questions about their participation in the electoral process. The chief electoral officer is concerned about the frequency and wide range of complaints about how smaller parties are treated and the obstacles they face trying to compete with large, more established political parties like the governing Liberals. Our electoral system should be fixed so that everyone is treated fairly and equally. The weak Liberal government that lacks vision is not addressing these problems in the bill.

The chief electoral officer will be tabling a report in the fall of 2001 wherein he will suggest ways to improve the current system. We look forward to his report, but I am sure that members on the government side do not.

The bill's provisions regarding the identification of political affiliation on ballots raises another question. It creates a two tier political party system, with different kinds of benefits accruing to political parties, depending on whether they are large parties with 12 or more candidates or small parties. The Liberals are only passing the bill because they want to limit their competition. That is undemocratic.

During the debate at second reading we heard many speakers indicating the problems they had experienced with Elections Canada during the last election and in the previous election. The government could make improvements to the way we conduct our elections. The Liberals have refused to pass Canadian Alliance amendments proposed at committee stage. Those amendments would have made the bill more acceptable to smaller parties.

For example, leaders of Canada's smaller political parties testified before the procedure and house affairs standing committee on the invitation of the Canadian Alliance critic for intergovernmental affairs. Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party; Chris Bradshaw, leader of the Green Party; and Miguel Figueroa, leader of the Communist Party testified to the discriminatory spirit of the bill.

Under the bill proposed by the Liberals, large parties with 12 or more candidates or registered parties would have the right to receive final electors lists, issue tax receipts, reimbursement of partial election expenses, broadcasting time on national TV and preferential rates during prime time. Smaller parties and independent candidates are barred access to those resources.

At committee stage of Bill C-9, the Canadian Alliance tried to have several amendments passed but the Liberal dominated committee refused them. We tried to have the Liberals adopt the following amendment:

The Chief Electoral Officer shall deliver a printed copy and a copy in electronic form of the final lists of electors for each electoral district to each candidate.

We wanted to change the word party to candidate. This would make the act more democratic. There is no reason to prevent any candidate from receiving that list. It would be undemocratic if candidates were not treated fairly and equally and were not given the electors list so that they could do their campaigning. How could we prevent them from having access to the final electors list while candidates from established larger political parties have access to that list? That is very unfair. The Liberals refused to accept that amendment.

Another amendment submitted by the Canadian Alliance would strike the phrase, in the preceding election, from subclause 12(2)(d). In the case of a general election a party has candidates whose nominations have been confirmed in at least 12 electoral districts.

The way the clause reads now and would continue to read prevents a candidate in a byelection from having the party name with which he or she is affiliated appear on the ballot unless the party was qualified to have its name appear on the ballot in the previous general election. This again is an unfair situation that new political parties would face in a byelection.

The Liberals should not be afraid of new political parties. The government should be careful not to put any barriers in the way of new parties. This would encourage democracy to flourish, but the Liberals do not want that.

In clause 17 of Bill C-9 we tried to have subsection 335(1) of the act replaced with the following:

In the period beginning with the issue of the writs for a general election and ending at midnight on the day before polling day, every broadcaster shall, subject to the regulations made under the Broadcasting Act and the conditions of its licence, make available, for purchase by all political parties for the transmission of political announcements and other programming produced by or on behalf of the political parties, six and one half hours of broadcasting time during prime time on its facilities.

Once again, the official opposition was pleading the case of smaller or newer political parties. We wanted to remove the word registered from appearing before the word party so that any party could have access to broadcasting time, thus giving all parties an equal opportunity.

We tried to make it possible for a party to become a registered party if it could obtain the names of 5,000 electors who were members of that party or who supported the right of the party to be a registered party. It would be fair and make our democracy more open and transparent. However the Liberals refused it.

Most Canadians feel that under our electoral system every candidate in Canada must have equal access to the electoral list and the ability to issue tax receipts regardless of political affiliation, but the Liberals do not want that. They are so arrogant and heavy-handed and into power and control that they want to crush even the smallest voices in our electoral system. The bill is all about incumbency protection.

It is apparent that the Liberals would go to any length to protect their seats and even deny the democratic rights of other Canadians. We must not forget that the bill is the government's response to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling on Communist Party leader, Mr. Miguel Figueroa's challenge to the limitations imposed on smaller parties as a result of Bill C-2 that came into effect in November 2000.

Bill C-2 was flawed. The Liberals did not listen to the opposition, other Canadians and witnesses who appeared before the committee. I spoke in the debate on that bill in the previous parliament and I warned the Liberals that their phony bill would be challenged in the courts. I warned them that they would lose the case. It was challenged and they did lose the case.

The Communist Party has pledged to sue the government as soon as Bill C-9 is passed. I warn them again. I may have to speak again when the bill comes back before the House. I remind them that it is the opinion of the four political party leaders who testified before the committee that the Liberal government is only grudgingly complying with the Ontario court's decision. It is doing so in the narrowest possible sense. Anyone supporting Bill C-9 is pulling up the drawbridge to the House of Commons.

If these measures had been in place 10 years ago, new parties like the Reform Party of Canada would have been barred access to the vital resources that facilitated its rise to the office of the official opposition and now the Canadian Alliance Party.

Among other technical matters Bill C-9 also stipulates that if the chief electoral officer wishes to examine alternative voting processes such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the approval of both the House and the Senate committees. Under the current legislation only approval of the House of Commons committee is required to give the chief electoral officer the freedom to examine alternatives that are innovative and could help modernize our electoral process, which is a good thing.

However on this side of the House our ears perk up when we hear the word Senate. Are the Liberals preparing to have the Senate kill any innovative ideas the chief electoral officer wants to propose? We know for sure that we cannot trust the government.

At committee hearings the Canadian Alliance proposed to amend this part of the bill but our amendment was again struck down. We know that the Senate is not elected. How could it interfere with the election process when senators are not elected? It is very unfair and undemocratic. The Canadian Alliance policy declares:

To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we will consider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic voting, and fixed election dates, and will submit such options to voters in a nationwide referendum.

Bill C-9 does not go far enough to democratize our electoral process. We believe all parties should be treated equally and fairly, not merely those with 50 or more candidates or 12 or more candidates.

It is unfortunate that when the House was debating Bill C-2 in the last session the Liberals ignored the Reform Party's recommendation to drop the 50 candidate rule. As usual, the Liberals were forced into action not by the wishes of Canadians but by a court ruling.

When Bill C-2 was before the procedure and House affairs committee, constitutional lawyer Gerald Chipeur made it clear to the Liberals that the 50 candidate rule would be struck down. The Canadian Alliance always rejected the Liberal's claim that the 50 candidate rule was designed to protect voters from frivolous parties.

The Canadian Alliance believes that voters and not the government, this arrogant, weak Liberal government that lacks vision, should decide whether a party or candidate is worthy of their vote. If Canadians feel a candidate or political party is worthy of their vote then they should vote for them. It should not be up to the government to tell Canadians which candidate or party is worthy of their vote.

The Canadian Alliance is very unhappy that Bill C-9 creates two classes of political parties. There should be an equal and fair opportunity for each party and candidate in the electoral process. However the bill denies that. It creates two classes of parties.

The Canadian Alliance believes the Canada Elections Act should be neutral and treat everyone equally and fairly. Bill C-9 is not neutral because of the reasons I have mentioned. It creates two classes of political parties and does not give equal opportunity to all candidates. We are therefore left with no option but to oppose the bill.

The government still has time to give Bill C-9 a second thought. I know it is late, but the government should have given it a second thought and accepted the amendments, listened to the witnesses in committee and given every candidate and party an equal opportunity.

The bill is not only undemocratic; it is anti-democratic. We have an elected dictatorship in Canada and that will not change if the bill is not changed. Let us see how Canadians feel. We on this side of the House oppose the bill.

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

moved that Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly today on the bill which proposes a few amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

As members of parliament will know, from time to time we need to revisit our laws to make sure they keep up with the changing needs of Canadians.

Sometimes this entails introducing totally new legislation as happened with Bill C-2, the Canada Elections Act, in the last parliament.

While the impetus for change usually comes from the public or this House, it can also be the result of rulings by the courts. An example is the Figueroa case heard recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In this case the plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the provisions in the Canada Elections Act relating to the registration of political parties. He argued that requiring a party to nominate 50 candidates before it could be declared a registered party, and thus before having tis name appear on the ballot, violated section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms since smaller parties could not achieve this threshold and were therefore denied some of the financial benefits accorded to registered parties.

In its ruling, the court ruled that it was in fact reasonable to require parties to have 50 candidates before they qualify for financial benefits. I repeat that the court said it was okay. The reason it did so and I quote the court. It said that the requirement “is a reasonable method of distinguishing between parties whose involvement reaches the appropriate level of participation and parties whose involvement does not”. That was a quote from paragraph 88 of the court's decision.

The provision of the Canada Elections Act pertaining to the eligibility for financial benefit remains unchanged.

The plaintiff also challenged those provisions requiring parties to have 50 nominated candidates before their names could appear on the ballot.

The argument was that having a candidate's political affiliation on the ballot was desirable since it provided voters with important information they needed before making an informed choice. In other words, if there were two John Does on the ballot and one of them was John Doe from such and such party, as opposed to John Doe, independent, voters would have the right to know that it was John Doe from such and such party.

In this case the court ruled that this use of the 50 candidate threshold was not valid and represented an unjustifiable limitation on the right of voters to make an informed choice since it denied them important information about candidates, as I have just shown.

As such, it violates section 3 of the charter. Consequently the court referred the offending portions of the act back to parliament and gave it a specific time frame to take remedial action. This is why it is important to respond to its ruling.

The bill before us responds to this part of the ruling by proposing to lower the threshold for including party affiliation on the ballot, in other words the informative part, to just 12 candidates, which is less than a quarter of what it would have required before.

I spoke in committee to why the number 12 was used. It was used because it is a threshold with which we are familiar. It is one that exists elsewhere for political parties, namely 12 is the minimum number of members of parliament to be recognized by the Speaker as a party for the purposes of the House. That would suppose that a party with 12 candidates would elect all of them all of the time. Although that is unlikely it is at least possible, and that is the number we used.

We could have used a slightly higher threshold, namely 15, because it was the one recommended by the Lortie commission. The Lortie commission, appointed by the previous Conservative government, had made such a recommendation in the past. In any case, certainly if 15 works 12 is a number that is even less onerous and therefore would work not only as well but some would argue even better.

All these issues were studied by the parliamentary committee. I thank the committee for the excellent issues that were raised. I did not always agree with everything that was raised by some hon. colleagues in committee, but largely they were very constructive, as they usually are. I hope my responses to them in committee were as equally informative as their questions were interesting.

During these hearings the question of how many candidates should be required was discussed at length. There were members who called for a far greater number than 12, while others wanted to lower the number. As a matter of fact, there is a private member's bill before the House by a member of the Canadian Alliance arguing for a stronger threshold.

There must be a threshold some place. The court spoke to this eloquently. It said the designation on the ballot had to be what it called a party in the real sense of the word. That was the expression used by the court. One person is not a party. I, running under my own party, would not have the status of a party. A party that would bear only the individual's name would not satisfy that criterion. Again the court referred to that in its decision.

The balanced approach was required. To use a threshold that had foundation in law, the number 12 certainly has that and the number 15 as well. Both were reasonable and we used one of them. It is the balanced approached. Mr. Speaker, you will be very familiar with the government's usually balanced approach to most things, if not everything.

Voters could be, as I said, misled if a ballot indicated a candidate was affiliated with a political party that was in fact not a political party. That would not serve to make the system more transparent but could arguably make it less so.

As a matter of fact, one colleague was very concerned about the fact that people could put their names on a ballot for the purpose of giving publicity to a commercial enterprise. In other words they could simply satisfy the criteria for the ballot and advertise. One hon. member gave the example of her real estate office or something like that. That is not what the ballot is designed to do. It is difficult to reconcile all these things, but we tried to use the number that would make it all work.

As I mentioned, the rationale for choosing 12 is already found in our parliamentary system. Once passed, this measure would allow political parties with at least 12 candidates to have their names appear alongside those of their candidates. In other words the ballot would say that John Doe is running under the XYZ party, if that happened to be the name of the particular group of people.

As to the other provisions, I will mention them briefly before concluding. These tend to be technical amendments designed to correct a few anomalies that have become apparent since the new Canada Elections Act came into force and terminological changes aimed at making the English and French versions more consistent. As such, they should make our existing electoral laws even better.

I wish to thank parliamentarians from all parties who took part in this exercise, and I mean this sincerely. I also wish to thank those who worked hard on drafting Bill C-9: the people at Elections Canada, the Department of Justice, Privy Council, my own team, and of course all those working on the bill right now.

I will conclude by repeating the promise I made to the parliamentary committee. What we have before us today is not an overhaul of the Canada Elections Act. It is simply a response to the court and the correction of certain technical details, certain anomalies.

Nevertheless, we remain committed to again overhaul the Canada Elections Act, as must be done, particularly on the heels of an election and following the report and recommendations of Canada's chief electoral officer, which will probably be released shortly.

Later there will have to be consultations with the political parties, not just in the House but within the parties themselves because sometimes political parties have important things to say and they are not just said by parliamentarians. There will have to be this kind of consultation with them and with the general public in due course.

That is not what is before us today. We are looking only at the corrections I have just mentioned, but the firm undertaking to improve the Canada Elections Act in general remains and I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate this in the House, as I did in committee a few weeks ago.

On that note I will close because I know that parliamentarians will soon want to move on to Bill C-24. In order to speed things up a bit, I will conclude my remarks here.

I thank my colleagues in advance for the contribution they will make to this debate.

Judges Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges. This would cost the federal government approximately $19 million.

The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2000, and would raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts would increase to $217,000 from $196,500. These same increases would also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada would remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges would see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while the salary of the chief justice would rise to $254,000 from $230,200.

This is the fourth time the government has sought to amend the Judges Act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were relatively minor pieces of legislation.

In April 1998, Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Bill C-37 also increased judges' salaries retroactively, providing an 8.3% pay increase over two years. This meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges, with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I would be hard pressed to think of any other public servant, or any hard-working Canadian for that matter, who received that kind of pay increase in 1998.

According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from 1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. It is safe to assume that the salaries of most Canadians across the country would be affected by that statistic. Not only have the salaries of judges increased at a rate substantially higher than those of most Canadians, but their salaries are already indexed. I think that is important to remember.

No other senior public servant or any other lower level public employee has been given such a significant pay increase in the last number of years. While the government indicates that the raise is a reasonable one, it is interesting to note that senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%.

It is not only public servants and other public employees who do not receive these types of extensive benefits. The very people who administer our justice system, the people on the ground who do the practical work in looking after the safety and security of Canadians first hand, seem to be ignored.

For example, in 1998, the same year that federal judges were given these generous salary increases, RCMP officers who had their salaries and wages frozen for five years were finally granted an increase of a mere 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. If the concern is that judges receive these raises to ensure that there is no corruption of our justice system or any undue influence, is the same not true for the men and women who serve in our federal police forces?

A second pay increase was given to RCMP officers in April 1998 and later that year they received another small increase. However, over the five years that their salaries were frozen and in the next year, 1998, the RCMP received an increase of only 3.75%. These frontline officers are putting their lives on the line every day for Canadians, but the average three year constable received an increase of less than $2,000 over those years.

In contrast, the bill would provide an 11.2% increase to judges who are making well over $120,000 or $130,000 a year, some over $200,000 a year. There are so many other people within our justice system who are absolutely vital in ensuring that the system is functioning properly but are not getting the same kind of increase. These are often the same men and women who are forced to cope with the results of several years of cutbacks to the justice system.

One would assume that if money can be found to increase the salaries of judges, then money could also be found to give local police and RCMP the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.

Also, in many provinces crown attorneys do not have sufficient resources to prosecute the cases they are charged with. In this context I am especially thinking of the new legislation the government is bringing forward in respect of organized crime. While I support many of the principles, I wonder about the genuine attitude of the government in failing to provide adequately for the resources for frontline officers and frontline prosecutors to get the job done. There is no question that in the Canadian justice system there is a significant amount of delay and backlog, which needs to be remedied.

Another appalling situation in our country is the embarrassingly low wages paid to members of our armed forces. It is ridiculous that people who protect our nation, both at home and abroad, and put their lives at risk to ensure some measure of security for all Canadian citizens are fighting with antiquated equipment and are often forced to go to food banks to make ends meet. Now we hear that the minister is authorizing a raise in the rents that our armed forces have to pay. I do not think that is acceptable.

I understand from the government that the main rationale for this pay increase for judges is that the federal government must compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is required to ensure good candidates, I do not believe that there has ever been any great shortage of candidates for the bench.

In such cities as Toronto and Vancouver, where a $200,000 plus yearly income for a lawyer may not be unusual, it is not outside the realm of possibility that such people may not be attracted to the bench for fear of a pay cut. However, in Manitoba, for example, I believe there would be no shortage of competent lawyers available for judicial appointments at $190,000 and, indeed, at perhaps even less considering the compensation packages and extra benefits that come with such appointments.

Perhaps that is a problem of the mandate of the commission and of the restrictions it had. Perhaps those regional differences should be reflected in salaries or expenses. The commission was operating at a bit of a disadvantage. It did not have the appropriate mandate to discuss those kinds of significant differences.

Many Canadians in the legal profession, no matter what their salary, would consider it a great honour to be appointed to a judgeship at any level. Over the past decade there have been an average of eight candidates for every opening on the bench. As I understand it, the eight candidates are previously screened for suitability. One assumes there would be at least one qualified applicant out of the eight. I have great respect for the legal profession. I believe there are many more than eight qualified candidates for one position.

The majority of my constituents, and most likely the majority of Canadians as a whole, would not consider a salary increase of almost 20% for federal judges over a three year period to be the best way to increase the quality of our justice system. We must ask ourselves how the government can justify giving federal judges a salary increase of 11.2% over and above the 8.2% increase they received in 1998.

The increase would in no way remedy the current backlog of federal court cases. That issue must be dealt with by the administration of the courts, the responsibility of which primarily lies with the judges. I have great confidence that the judges are capable of taking steps to ensure justice is dispensed in a timely fashion.

The pay increase would in no way help the thousands of front- line police officers who are at a severe disadvantage in their daily efforts to fight crime. I am not saying judges should not be well paid. They should be well paid and most Canadians would argue that they are. It is a question of whether they should be paid more than they are already.

My party has great reluctance in supporting the bill on the basis that it ignores the real problems of the Canadian justice system and the manner in which judges are appointed. That is another issue we could perhaps leave for another day.

The backlog of the courts would not be remedied by the bill. The appointment process, which many Canadians believe should be reformed to make the judiciary more independent and publicly accountable, would remain the same.

The administrators of the justice system, the provincial attorneys general, crown attorneys, police officers and members of the federal police force, the RCMP, would still be handcuffed by a lack of sufficient resources.

Perhaps nothing can be done with respect to the proposal in view of the structure and mandate of the commission and the constitutional obligations recently imposed upon parliament by the Supreme Court of Canada. However I urge all hon. members to consider a better way of dealing with the issue.

Canada Elections Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of these occasions when I am a little puzzled by what happens in this place because if I were an opposition member of parliament I would be firmly opposed to this particular amendment.

Rather than serve the opportunities of parliament in general in making sure that the government does not dominate, what this does is it gives back to the government enormous power over whether or not an official vote using electronic means will take place.

Originally in Bill C-2, there was a clause, the clause that is under debate right now, which basically said that the chief electoral officer can experiment with electronic voting, but if he wants to actually undertake an official vote with electronic technology he has to get the prior approval of the appropriate committee of the House of Commons. That committee, incidentally, we would assume to be the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

What the amendment in Bill C-9 does is it takes away this exclusive power of the committee of the House of Commons to decide whether an official vote will be taken with electronic means and adds in a committee from the Senate. So now under Bill C-9 there would be two committee approvals required. The motion before the House would again revert us back to Bill C-2 by taking away the approval of the committee of the Senate.

I point out that what we are talking about here is an official vote. That is what the clause says, an official vote. That means somebody is going to be elected or not elected.

The way the original clause read, by giving the decision on whether electronic voting should be used or not in an official vote, it was giving it exclusively to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a committee that is dominated, always dominated, by the government. Basically, the original clause guaranteed that if approval was sought government approval would be given, either side. Or if the government disagreed with the possibility of using electronic voting, let us say it is a byelection, the government, using its majority on the procedure and house affairs committee, could stop it from happening.

This is where I get really puzzled. Basically, what the amendment does is it takes away some of that government power. It dilutes it by requiring approval to come from the appropriate Senate committee as well. That is not such a bad thing because the Senate is indeed not an elected body and it is not under the same direct pressure that MPs are from their own governments. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, on a standing committee it is very difficult for members on any side to buck the basic policy of their party, and you would not expect it to happen on the procedure and house affairs committee in this particular instance.

However, for a Senate committee, even if every member is appointed by the government, it would not matter because the senators are still unelected and when it comes down to a matter of having to use their conscience, their discretion on something that is extremely important, we are talking about someone being elected officially to the House by a certain means, so, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, on the opposite side, on the opposition side, every MP should be opposed to the amendment.

I note that the Canadian Alliance speaker that spoke just before me made a mistake because he suggested that all opposition MPs were in favour of this particular amendment that is proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, but in fact I did note that the speech from the Conservative member was opposed.

I would suggest that the opposition members reconsider because, while as a government MP I am happy to give my government lots of power and lots of things, I can tell you I am very nervous about giving my government, which could be the government of another party in the future, any kind of exclusive control over deciding whether or not an official vote should be taken by one means or another.

I point out, and I emphasize this to all members, that we are talking about approvals that come in committee. We are not talking about something that is debated in this entire House. We are not talking about a vote in the House or a vote in the Senate. We are merely talking about approvals in committee and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the way the clause was written in the original bill, Bill C-2, was seriously flawed because basically it gave the power of approval to a committee of the House which is dominated by the government, which would have meant it would have been a rubber stamp approval anyway, and the amendment which the government itself is introducing goes a long way toward diluting this power and making sure that, as best we can, there is another calculation, another evaluation of the issue by the members in the other place, who I think we could trust in a situation like something as important as a vote that would bring a new member to the House of Commons, that we could count on the senators no matter what their original party affiliations to act in their very best judgment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion in amendment put forward by my colleague for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. It seems to me that it is totally relevant.

During my speech I may have the opportunity to respond to a number of the assertions made by my colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which, notwithstanding all the respect I have for him, appear to be slightly false.

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has best described a moment ago in his speech how things have been done so far and why we are putting forward this amendment.

He explained how this provision of the elections act, within Bill C-2, came to be, to ensure that if new voting techniques were to be tried it would be only after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which normally looks into these matters, approved the implementation of such a pilot project.

Everything was going well. The amendment proposed in Bill C-2 was passed. It was included in the Canada Elections Act which was used, need I remind members, in the last general election.

Bill C-9 corrects a series of small errors that had gone unnoticed because Bill C-2 was passed in such a hurry. Again, I need hardly remind the House that if this legislation was rammed through in such a hurry, it was essentially due to political considerations as the government wanted amended electoral legislation as quickly as possible in order to call an early election, which is precisely what happened and which confirms our opinion in this regard. The government has now introduced Bill C-9 to correct a series of small errors that had gone unnoticed in Bill C-2 given the haste I have just talked about and also to correct another element of the bill that is more substantial as it gave rise to a court ruling.

I should also point out that certain recommendations were made to the government following the Figueroa case. The government preferred to take the case to court, at taxpayers' expense, rather than consider the opinions expressed. It lost the case. It is coming back to us now to introduce a more substantial amendment in order to comply with the court decision in Figueroa concerning the number of candidates a political party must field in order for the name of the party to appear on the ballots.

Among those technical amendments they proposed one, amendment No. 2, which modifies section 18.1 of the Canada Elections Act to ensure that before any pilot project can be implemented to modify the voting process, the chief electoral officer will have to obtain not only the approval of the House of Commons committee that normally considers electoral matters, that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but also the approval of its senatorial counterpart.

I submit respectfully that it is surprising that we would have to consult a non-elected institution to determine the relevance or the opportunity of any pilot project concerning an election. That is why we thought it was appropriate to propose that this reference to the Senate be removed.

Needless to say that this amendment which we proposed in committee was rejected because the government House leader argued that ours is a bicameral parliament. Therefore we have two Houses, and as long as there are two Houses, as long as we do not decide otherwise—which brings us back to the debate of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle—we must face that reality and take into account the fact that the Senate must concur in any legislation. Very well.

I am not particularly in favour of the Senate in its present form or of a second chamber within Canadian parliament, but I nevertheless agree that since we respect the institutions as they are right now we must involve senators in the passing of any legislation, until further notice. But this is not what we are debating now. What we are taking about is consultation, opinion and approval regarding the implementation of a pilot project, a new method of voting. If I have the time I shall return to this later.

This is simply a technical opinion. How is a group of unelected representatives in a position to provide an opinion on such a matter? I ask you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are not going to give me any answer, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking anyway.

The question has to be asked eventually, as my colleagues for Regina—Qu'Appelle and for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have suggested. Ultimately, we will have to look at the role of the Senate, at whether it is appropriate to maintain that institution. That is not however what interests us in this debate. The purpose of the amendment is not to exclude senators from the legislative process. It merely requires the chief electoral officer, when he wishes to test new voting methods, to consult those who being elected themselves are perhaps in a position of being able to provide him with appropriate feedback.

Recently, the government House leader has been doing the rounds and trying endlessly to convince us that the amendment presented by our colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière does not say what that member meant it to say.

I do not know if the government House leader has the extraordinary gift of being able to read people's thoughts and thus knows what my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière had in mind when he drafted this amendment and when he introduced it in this House.

Personally, I think that this amendment says exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House said earlier, namely that it seeks to ensure that before testing new voting processes, the chief electoral officer must get prior approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons and must consult the Senate committee that considers these matters.

The claim made by the government House leader, which goes against the view of his parliamentary secretary but is supported, seemingly, by the Privy Council's learned legal officers, is that this amendment would require the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consult its counterpart in the Senate before giving its approval to the chief electoral officer.

I respectfully submit that I cannot figure out which version makes Privy Council's legal officers come to that conclusion. Perhaps it is the English version which, incidentally, is a translated version since the motion was originally drafted in French.

In the French version a comma replaces the word “et” in an enumeration. In the current text, if we replace the comma with the word “et”, the amendment is very clear and specific. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the chief electoral officer must get the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and must consult its Senate counterpart before implementing a new voting process.

Unfortunately, I am running out of time and I will not have the opportunity to express my view on electronic voting. However I must say, with all due respect for the other place, that we chose not to exclude it from this technical process, but to get it involved through a consultation process. This is why I am asking all hon. members to support this amendment.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am very pleased to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-9.

Bill C-9 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

In the last session I spoke to Bill C-2 which was passed in the House. The Canadian Alliance or Reform Party at the time opposed the bill. The Liberals should be ashamed because Bill C-2 had so many serious flaws in it that it was not only undemocratic but almost anti-democratic. Bill C-2 made Canada look like a dictatorship.

Among other technical matters Bill C-9, which is an amendment to Bill C-2 passed in the last session, stipulates that if the chief electoral officer wishes to examine certain things like alternative voting processes such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the approval of both House and Senate committees. Clause 2, which we intend to amend, states:

The Chief Electoral Officer may carry out studies on voting, including studies respecting alternative voting means, and may devise and test an electronic voting process for future use in a general election or byelection. Such a process may not be used for an official vote without the prior approval of the committees of the Senate and the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters.

The term Senate is used and that is why the amendment is being proposed. I congratulate the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière who moved an amendment which reads:

That Bill C-9, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 33 on page 1 with the following:

“committee of the House of Commons that normally considers electoral matters, after consultation with the committee of the Senate that normally considers those matters.”

The Canadian Alliance supports the amendment because it takes the role of the Senate out of the bill. Our policy book, which is dictated by grassroots members of the Canadian Alliance, states in section 71:

We will support the election of senators who would then have a democratic mandate to carry out their constitutional responsibilities. We will further support the distribution of Senate seats on an equal basis determined through constitutional discussion with the provinces and territories.

The Canadian Alliance advocates Senate reform. Senators try to do their job the best way they can. As co-chair of the Senate and House of Commons Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I had the opportunity to work directly with senators. There are senators who work very hard. There is wisdom in the other chamber and we look forward to the sober thought from the other place.

There are senators who want to have a veto in our elections act on how Canadians elect members to represent them in the highest chamber. The Senate wants to have a veto in the bill, a veto the weak and arrogant Liberal government is allowing in the bill. That is a serious concern. Senators are elected in other countries. Our largest trading partner, the U.S, elects its senators.

The point which would motivate us in the Chamber to support the amendment is that senators are not accountable to constituents because they do not have any constituencies. They do not represent constituencies. They are appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada and tend to be accountable to him.

I commend B.C. Senator Gerry St. Germain, who has offered, and who is prepared to resign from his senate seat provided the Prime Minister appoints an elected senator to the Senate. That senator has made a bold step and I appreciate his intention.

The Canadian Alliance members support the amendment. Under the current legislation, only approval of the House of Commons committee is required. Giving the Chief Electoral Officer the freedom to examine innovative alternatives that could help to modernize our electoral process is a good thing but it should be limited to the elected members who represent Canadians in the House of Commons.

On this side of the House, our ears perk up when we see the use of the word Senate, particularly in reference to it interfering in the election process. Are the Liberals preparing to have the Senate kill any innovative ideas the Chief Electoral Officer may propose? Maybe we cannot trust the Liberal government. The Canadian Alliance believes that the voters, not the government, should decide whether a party or a candidate is worthy of a vote.

As all opposition parties will be supporting the amendment, it is now up to the Liberals. If they do not accept the amendment, it would be another example of how they are making Bill C-9 anti-democratic.

Employment Insurance Act

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Yes, and women as well, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough reminds me.

Members should look at what it is like today. It tugs at my heart. A man who worked at the shipyard came to me almost with tears in his eyes. They no longer have EI and they do not have another job. I had never seen this before.

They do not want welfare. They want their dignity. As far as I am concerned, if they go on welfare they will have their dignity because they will not have done so by choice.

I suppose Bill C-2 and Bill C-44 were designed to make significant changes to our employment insurance system, and all of us here would hope for the better. However that is not necessarily what has happened. Most of the debate surrounding Bill C-2 relates to what has been called the intensity clause, which would see claimants' benefits reduced if they have had to seek employment insurance with greater frequency.

In Bathurst, New Brunswick, there was a former Liberal member who was in the cabinet. Do hon. members remember? I will never forget when the government brought in the new EI regulations. The people were hurting. The parish priest, on a Sunday, marched down the main street in Bathurst with the people. Never before had a parish priest done that. The hon. member who sat in the cabinet told the priest he should have something better to do on a Sunday.

Do hon. members know what happened? Because of what happened and what the government did, the member was not re-elected. Nineteen members in the Atlantic region were not re-elected. When the Liberals almost got wiped out in the Atlantic region the government said it had better do something and take another look.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, formerly Bill C-44. I would like to say thanks to the hon. members from the NDP. They certainly can relate to the situation and the difficulties people have had, particularly in the Atlantic region. I know there are other parts of the country that have had a difficult times as well.

I will refer to the last question that was put to the hon. member. In southwestern New Brunswick communities that depend on seasonal workers are lumped in with bigger communities like Saint John, my riding, and Fredericton which have their own unemployment problems. That makes the numbers artificially low in areas where they are in fact a lot higher.

In Saint John, New Brunswick, they talk about the unemployment rate being around 8%. People in Blacks Harbour, which is not too far from Saint John, are lumped in with us. The unemployment rate in Blacks Harbour is 45%, but because it is lumped in with us they say the unemployment rate there is 7% or 8%. That is not fair.

We are pleased that the intensity rule is being changed in the bill. However there is a great need for other changes in the bill that have not been addressed. Our people need their dignity.

Every one of us in the House of Commons is able to go home and feed our families. We are able to dress them. Some have young people going to college. I wonder if members ever stop to think about the people coming into my constituency office who can no longer afford to feed their families. Never have my city and my riding been like this before.

Four thousand men worked at the shipyard. Those men made good salaries and contributed to the economy. Things were booming. We had the Atlantic sugar refinery before the government took it away from us and closed it down. Those men also contributed to the economy. We had VIA Rail and those men contributed to the economy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the devastating changes that were made to EI back in 1996 have really starved a lot of rural communities and ridings like my own, Winnipeg Centre. The changes made to the EI system in my riding alone pulled $20.8 million per year of earnings out of my community. That is money that will not be spent in my riding.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst pointed out that this has an effect on small business. Every dollar spent gets spent four times before it finds its natural state of repose, usually in some rich person's pocket, but it gets circulated in the community. This has a huge impact on areas like mine which are economically depressed.

There is one riding in Newfoundland where the changes to EI pulled $57 million worth of benefits per year out of that riding alone. It is no wonder the government is enjoying this incredible surplus, this incredible revenue generating machine. It is like a cash cow that I think the government has become addicted to. It is like some provincial governments become addicted to gambling revenues. This government has become addicted to the revenue generating ability of the EI fund.

I started out by saying that there are two things in Bill C-2 of which we approve. Those are doing away with the intensity rule and raising the clawback provision threshold.

What the government failed to face were the two fundamental problems with EI. One is the eligibility issue. The bar is set far too high to qualify. The second is the method with which it calculates the benefit that a claimant will receive or what we call the divisor rule. It failed to address those two key fundamental issues. As a result less than 40% of unemployed people actually qualify for unemployment insurance.

What kind of an employment insurance program is that? What if we had a house insurance policy that we were forced to pay into but if our house burned down, we would have a less than 40% chance of getting any benefit whatsoever? We would think we had just been cheated or hosed by some fraudulent insurance salesman. That is what the EI system is doing to unemployed workers today.

There is a gender issue here too. If the individual is an unemployed woman, she has less than a 25% chance of collecting any benefit whatsoever. If the individual is an unemployed youth under the age of 25 he or she has a 15% chance of collecting even though the person is forced to pay into this insurance program.

I firmly believe that if we deduct money from people's paycheque for a specific purpose and then use it for something completely different, it is a breach of trust because we have developed a trust relationship with them when we told the them that if they paid into this insurance fund and were unlucky enough to become unemployed, we would pay a benefit. That was the promise that was made. Yet that is only true for less than 40% of Canadians, so it is a breach of trust. In the best light it is a breach of trust. In the worst light it is out and out fraud. We have deceived Canadians into thinking they have an income security system in their employment insurance system but we are denying them the very benefits.

If the government were serious about improving the unemployment insurance system, it would have listened to the 60 presenters who came to the standing committee from all walks of life. We had people from municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour groups and employer groups. All of them found serious flaws in an insurance system that generates revenue for the government to the tune of $750 million a month, not per year. Every month the employment insurance system pays the government $750 million in dividends. That money goes directly into the general revenue. It is not even dedicated for any specific purpose.

I actually heard the House leader of the ruling party once stand up and give us this logic. He said that if the employment insurance system ran into a deficit, the government would have to pick up the loss and pay. Therefore, when it was in a surplus position, the government should keep the surplus.

We did some mathematics. We added up all the times that the EI system has been a deficit situation. The total, cumulative, aggregate amount of money that was ever paid into it when it was in deficit was $13 billion. The total surplus is now $35 billion, predicted to be $43 billion by the end of this year. Even if we accepted the government's logic, what about the other $25 or $28 billion? Take back the $13 billion that was paid in and use the rest for income benefits and maintenance for the people for which the program was designed.

There are only two designated uses for EI money in the act. One is income maintenance for the unemployed and the other is apprenticeship and training. We are not supposed to build highways with it, or paydown the deficit with it or give tax breaks to the wealthy with it. That is not a designated use as contemplated under the act. That is why I say when money is deducted from a person's paycheque for a specific reason and then it is used for something completely opposite, essentially that is a breach of trust in the very best possible light.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst raised another point. Where does the government get off claiming ownership of that money at all? In 1986 the federal government stopped paying into the UIC program. That money is solely and exclusively contributions by employers and employees. It used to be one third, one third, one third paid by the government. It does not pay anything into it anymore. Where does it get the proprietary right to any surplus? Where does it get the right to dictate what the contribution rate would be?

Frankly, the government should have no say whatsoever. It should take a small administration fee for administering the program. The program should be run by those who are actually involved in it, which are the employers and the employees.

It has been enormously frustrating in my whole career, first as a union leader and now as a member of parliament, to wrestle with a dysfunctional program such as employment insurance and to see the failure and mismanagement of a program. Now it has gone beyond mismanagement. I figure it is out and out abuse because it is using it as a revenue generator, which it was never intended to be. It was there to provide income maintenance to people who were unfortunate enough to fall into a situation where they lost their job.

The whole EI program seems to be some kind of a tough love attitude now. We are going to force these people to pull up their boot and get back into the workforce by starving them. It seems to be based on the premise that most people would rather sit on EI than work. I find that offensive. As a working person myself, I find that an offensive attitude.

This came up in 1987 when I think the Forget commission toured the country looking for amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. It studied the UIC system. One labour leader came before the commission and said that the government was always trying to find people who were ripping off the system or who were committing fraud in collecting unemployment insurance. In actual fact, there are more federal government cabinet ministers convicted of fraud, on a per capita basis, than there are EI recipients convicted of fraud.

At that time, I believe seven or eight of Brian Mulroney's cabinet ministers were busted, caught and convicted of fraudulent activities. In that same year only 200 unemployment insurance recipients were caught and busted for fraud. Out of a million some odd people collecting EI, only 200 people were found to be actually committing a crime. Out of 30 some odd cabinet ministers, eight or nine of them were convicted of fraud. It is good to keep it in perspective sometimes.

One amendment the government could have made, a very small cost factor and a change demanded by industry, was the issue I asked the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst about. When apprentices were in the community college portion of their training, their eight-week community college instalment, whether plumbers, electricians or carpenters, the government started penalizing them with a two-week waiting period, as though they were unemployed.

Apprentices are not unemployed when they are attending community college. They still have jobs. They still have attachments to the workforce. They are simply going through the steps of the community college portion of their education and training. Why then are apprentices being penalized this two week waiting period?

We asked the government to consider that at the committee stage. I personally asked the minister if she would entertain a friendly amendment to the act to give satisfaction to the many apprentices who are involved with this. I even pleaded the case by pointing out that a lot of apprentices were choosing not to go on to their training component of their education because they could be without that two weeks' income. A lot of apprentices were dropping out of the apprenticeship system.

That is just one example of how the government did not listen to what Canadians were telling it was wrong with the EI system.

It is a regrettable day. We are backed into a corner. We are going to vote in favour of Bill C-2 to get through the few details that we would like to see go through. However the government missed the mark. It did not hit the nail on the head at all.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood. I thought we had moved on from questions and comments.

Would the member for Acadie—Bathurst expand on one amendment that many groups brought to the committee? These groups wanted to know why apprentices, who are in the trade school portion of the apprenticeship program, are penalized with a two week waiting period. Would an amendment to Bill C-2 that would no longer penalize apprentices for that two week waiting period not have been more beneficial?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to join my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst in pointing out some of the many shortcomings of Bill C-2.

I will start by saying that I admire the work the member for Acadie—Bathurst has done. He is, probably more than any member of parliament, a leading authority on the subject. He took it upon himself to travel to every province in the country, I believe 28 cities and communities, to listen to workers and employers about EI and other issues. He then wrote a very good report on the subject. I urge all members to get a copy of the report and to listen to what people who really care about these issues have been telling us.

I am pleased to add to the comments of the member for Acadie—Bathurst. He quite correctly pointed out that although there are some elements in Bill C-2 that we can support, such as doing away with the intensity rule and raising the clawback provisions to a reasonable level, it fails to address the real problem with employment insurance which is that hardly anyone qualifies any more. The bar is set so high on the eligibility rules that less than 40% of all unemployed people qualify. What kind of an employment insurance system—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to share my time with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. He once was a blue collar worker and is certainly familiar with the problems faced by construction workers and will be able to speak to this issue constructively.

It is a pleasure to address Bill C-2, not that I am pleased with Bill C-2 because it really does not go far enough. The standing committee on human resources development heard witnesses from all over Canada and more than 60 of them came here to Ottawa. I want to thank those who travelled to Ottawa to express their views on Bill C-2 concerning employment insurance.

None of these witnesses said that Bill C-2 went far enough. They focused more on what was not in the bill. That is what was worrying them. I want to thank them for coming to parliament and speaking on behalf of Canadian workers and even management.

We might look at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which I have accused of not representing the chambers of commerce throughout the country. Its representatives were saying that employment insurance should not be changed and that it would not encourage people to relocate.

The Prince Edward Island Chamber of Commerce testified before the committee and said that it did not agree with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It does not want people to relocate, it wants them to stay home. There are seasonal jobs in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick, in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. There are also some in the Gaspé peninsula, in Quebec, in northern Ontario and in northern Manitoba. I am sure my colleague from Winnipeg Centre will be able to tell me about it.

The situation is the same in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in British Columbia. I have travelled to all the provinces. I also went to Whitehorse in the Yukon. Everywhere I went, unemployment was a problem. Employment insurance was created to take care of the unemployed. This system belonged to employers and employees.

When the employment insurance reform happened in 1996, it was all fine and well at the time for employers to say “This is what we must do. We must encourage people to work”. They quickly realized that in small and medium size businesses in Canada, where up to 74% of jobs are to be found in an area like mine—in just one riding—we are losing $69 million in benefits every year. This means that small and medium size businesses lost all these benefits.

Those who receive EI benefits do not have any money left once they have bought food and paid their debts. Who gets the money? The grocery stores and the banks where the car payments and the mortgage payments were made. They are the ones who get all the money.

People soon realized that it was small and medium size businesses that lost the $35 billion that was taken away from workers. With all due respect, EI recipients are not likely to have two bank accounts with millions in them. Many of them do not have any money in their bank account.

The Prince Edward Island Chamber of Commerce did well in representing seasonal workers when it appeared before the committee. Its representatives told us that they did not want the government to make any more cuts in the EI plan, that they wanted to see the plan restored.

Bill C-2 abolishes the intensity rule. As the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, this bill does not go far enough. Coverage should be increased to 60%. I would even push it further and say it should be increased to 66%. It should be two-thirds of the salary.

We must accept the fact that there are seasonal jobs in our country. We do not have seasonal workers. There is no such thing as a seasonal worker. Workers are not the ones who decide on a Friday that they will no longer have a job the following week. It is not the construction worker who decides. He does not decide if there will be construction work for him tomorrow or next week. It is not up to him. It depends on the health of the economy.

I have said it many times before. They took the cart and put it before the horses. The horse has never been able to learn to push the cart. That is the problem. They have taken money away from the economy to help everybody. That is what the employment insurance plan was for in the 1940s. That is what it had been created to do, to help those who lost their job.

It is criminal to take income away from people in the middle of winter. It is criminal to keep a lumberjack who works hard in the woods to make a living from getting employment insurance benefits to help provide for his family because his work is seasonal. That is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable that people working in a fish plant cannot provide for their families because the Liberals decided to cut EI in 1996.

These same Liberals were saying back in 1992 that if they were elected they would eliminate the cuts made by Brian Mulroney. That is what they were saying in 1992. We have press cuttings to prove that. What they have done to workers and Canadian men and women is unacceptable.

Let us have a look at the clawback clause. It is unfortunate that Canadian Alliance members keep saying that we are always on the side of workers who are constantly on EI. The unemployment insurance plan does not belong to the government or to a political party. It belongs to Canadian workers. It belongs to them and not to politicians. This money is not ours. It belongs to workers and employers who have contributed.

It is unacceptable that workers in the construction or automotive industry are laid off for two months, as is currently the case in Ontario, while their plant is being retooled to produce a new model, for example. It is unacceptable, in this day and age, that they do not have an income to meet the needs of their family during that time.

When members of parliament leave the House of Commons in June and come back in September, they keep their salary. Why should the salary of a construction worker be cut? Why should the salary of a worker in the automotive industry be cut? Why should we not treat these people as we would want to be treated? It is unacceptable.

However, we know one thing. After I was elected I said that I would support any change to employment insurance which would go in the right direction. As far as I am concerned, abolishing the intensity rule is a first step; it is better than reducing it to 45%. I support that.

Regarding the clawback rule, I support abolishing it and increasing the limit from $39,000 to $48,000. It is unfortunate, however, that the government changed its mind and decided to include clause 9 in Bill C-2. I will explain why. In so doing, it has made people wonder what the government has to do in an area where decisions were normally taken by the commission.

I said it right from the start, in 1997, and I have repeated on several occasions in this House “The government stole the money anyway”. This will not stop me today from supporting the changes to the intensity rule and this will be my recommendation to my caucus.

I wish to ask for one thing from the government. With respect to the promises the government made during the election campaign—and this is not only about Bill C-2, because even the public works minister bragged about putting other measures on the table, in Quebec—I hope and ask that, as voted in committee, we will be able to make recommendations to the minister between now and June 1, and that she and the Prime Minister of Canada will show an open mind and that they will not do so for electoral purposes only. Real changes need to be made for the well-being of Canadian workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2, now in third reading, is, let us not forget it, the same as Bill C-44, which had been introduced in the last parliament before the election campaign as an act of contrition by the Liberal Party. It was as the party it had said “We did reform EI in a way that is extremely hard on the workers, the unemployed and the employers. In the end, we more or less used the till to fight the deficit. We are introducing this bill because we have recognized, long after everybody else, that the intensity rule, for example, was a low blow and unacceptable for the workers”.

It deprived people, most of them with low salaries, of the money to make ends meet. We were told that the reduction would amount to only $10 or $11 a week, but for the worker who earned $250 or $300 a week and lost his or her job, this small amount was what was missing to buy butter, to finish paying the rent or things like that.

The Liberal Party realized that its reform did not make sense. but nonetheless, during the election campaign it said that it would go further than Bill C-44. The Prime Minister himself said that “Major mistakes have been made and EI has major shortcomings, and they should be corrected”.

When the House reconvened, we were very surprised to have brought before the House Bill C-2, which is a mere copy of Bill C-44. But what is important to mention is that a poisoned gift was left in the bill in the form of clause 9. Under this provision, the government would alter the legislative arrangements for setting the premium rate.

In other words, after the vote to be held this afternoon, if the Liberals maintain their position, the government would no longer have to strike a balance between the EI plan and the plan requirements. It would no longer have to give back to the plan the money it used for purposes other than what the EI plan was originally set up for. In fact, it would be able to spend the money on any government operation.

What this means is that this clause will legalize the mismanagement of funds, the theft of the hard earned money the government has been taking from the pockets of workers and the unemployed for several years now. This is why, right from the outset, we in the Bloc Quebecois have said that we would not be voting in favour of this bill if that provision was left in.

We were able to get the consensus of all the other opposition parties. We also have the support of the auditor general, management and unions. Both the CLC and the Conseil du patronat du Québec said they did not want the federal government to make sure it can do whatever it wants with the money without having to account for it.

The figures have been more or less the same for the past few years: each year, $18 billion is collected in premiums and $12 billion is put back into the plan. This leaves a surplus of $6 billion, which is used to cover the government's general expenditures, to pay down the debt with money belonging to those who contribute to a fund that has become a very regressive payroll tax.

Members should know that premiums are paid on a maximum annual income of $39,000. This means that people earning $45,000 do not pay premiums on the extra $6,000 and, therefore, do not contribute their fair share toward this portion of the government's general expenditures. Those with the lowest earnings contribute more than their fair share.

Even worse, people like us, MPs, and all those who are self-employed, such as physicians and lawyers, those who do not pay into the plan, make no contribution whatsoever. They do not carry their share of the burden, not out of malice but simply because the government has turned this into a regressive payroll tax, allowing it to dip into the pockets of those most in need. And it did not stop there.

Since 1997 there has also been a terrible tightening up of EI eligibility criteria. Fewer people qualify. I heard the parliamentary secretary mention 88%. What she is saying is that 88% of workers would qualify for benefits should they become unemployed. The purpose of the EI plan is to provide financial support not to those who have a job but to those who are unemployed. In this case, it is not 88% but rather 40% of the workers who really qualify for employment insurance when they lose their job.

Since the reform, thousands of young people pay premiums from day one and in the end they never qualify for benefits. Only 25% of the unemployed young people qualify. This means that 75% of them are paying for nothing.

Clearly, we had many reasons to oppose the bill. We still played the parliamentary game and I think that in the end it will have paid off. Sixty or seventy groups were heard by the committee. The great majority of them were from Quebec and had been recommended by the Bloc Quebecois. One after the other they systematically told us that it was not Bill C-2 but real reform of the employment insurance system that they wanted.

They talked about everything that was wrong with the bill. The committee unanimously adopted a motion that I brought forward. I will read it because I think it is the only message of hope we have on the whole employment insurance system. It reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

Between the November 2000 election and the date when parliament returned, the government did not do its homework. Perhaps the Liberals told themselves “Let us give it a try. Let us table Bill C-2 as if it were Bill C-44. It might work and we will not have to give them more”.

However we were there to do our job. We heard witnesses in committee and they showed that many more amendments were required. All committee members, whether from the Liberal majority or the opposition, supported the motion that I proposed. I hope this will allow us to finish the job in the coming weeks, so that by early June we can have a new government bill that will correct the other flaws of the plan.

There are many things that are unacceptable. Let us begin with the creation of an independent employment insurance fund. The frustrations of the workers and employers who appeared before us had to do with the fact that people contribute to a plan over which they have no control. They find this unacceptable. That issue will have to be debated again because it is not true that people who contribute to the plan will continue to give 33% of the money to the government.

Either the government will turn contributions into a payroll tax—and then we can make a complete overhaul—or we will have an independent fund but that issue is still on the table.

There are other matters that are urgent as well, very important ones having to do with unemployed workers' bread and butter, such as abolishing the waiting period. No benefits are paid during the first two weeks of a period of unemployment. This is a throwback to the old Unemployment Insurance Act of the 1940s. Now that people pay premiums from the first hour, why must we still have this waiting period, which no longer exists in many countries? It should be abolished.

Coverage could also be increased from 55% to 60%. Unemployed workers were among those who helped to pay down the deficit but they did not get tax breaks because they do not earn enough to qualify for any significant deductions. One way of helping them would be to give them an adequate income between jobs.

Our seasonal workers also need a status which is independent of economic activity, because a period of growth like the one we are now experiencing has a negative effect on them. We require them to work more hours to qualify but we allow them fewer benefit weeks when all is said and done, although they are in jobs which give them 15 or 20 weeks of work year in and year out, economic growth or no economic growth. They do not get 25, 30 or 40 weeks of work in forestry or tourism because the economy is booming. They might get an extra week or two but not 8, 10, 12, or 15. This is something that needs to be addressed.

We also discussed the whole issue of self-employed workers, of whom there are an increasing number in society. They represent an important segment of the labour force but are not covered by any plan. It would be necessary to reflect, to make recommendations, to ensure people of worthwhile, minimal protection. We need, to take advantage of the present situation since we sense that it is possibly going to lead to a downturn, or perhaps already has. Before we get into a recession, or worse yet, a depression, we need to have a system in place that will provide people with enough to survive on. I am willing to bet that the present system will not.

There are all manner of other improvements needed. There is the discrimination toward young workers and women who are new to the workforce. They will be required to have accumulated 910 hours of work before being eligible for employment insurance. It has already been shown, although it took three years, based on the statistics, that the intensity rule was not having the desired results. This has cost people $250 million since 1997.

I requested an amendment to Bill C-2 that would take the retroactivity back to January 1, 1997. The reply from the minister, who had to authorize this, since royal assent was required, was “We find that is too much money to have to pay back to people”. It was not, however, too much to take from them in the first place. It was perfectly all right to take it from the low wage earners. This is one more thing that needs examination and correction as soon as possible.

Then there is the whole matter of the older workers. We live in a society that has produced people who often have worked in a factory or in various sectors where there are massive layoffs as they reach the age of 45, 50, 52, 53, or 55. These people find themselves without a job and cannot easily be retrained for other types of work. All the active measures are in place to help them learn other trades but it is not true that a forestry worker can be turned into a computer technician overnight. There is a limit that cannot be crossed. There are people like that.

We live in a society benefiting from gains in productivity but the government should have the courage to distribute them properly, to create a bridge so that when people 52, 54 and 55 years of age cannot be reclassified in another job, we can find a way for them to carry on until they are entitled to their old age pension. This too is part of an employment insurance plan.

I will give some examples but there are a whole lot of others that will have to be corrected by June 1. We must be able to make proposals. In my opinion, the ultimate scenario is one in which there will be a number of proposals that could receive unanimous committee approval, I hope, and a number of others that will not but at least the door would be opened after five years' effort.

Let us think back to 1995-96, after the employment insurance plan was tightened up. At the time, we said it was unacceptable. We heard the Prime Minister say “The unemployed are beer drinkers”, something he apologized for in the fall of 2000. The trend has been reversed but we must not stop halfway. We must devise a real, adequate employment insurance plan.

It is sad that all this is happening when the government is grabbing the fund's surplus and no longer wants to comply with the act's provisions requiring the system to balance out over a single economic cycle.

The chief actuary of the EI plan has said that a reasonable surplus to deal with any economic crisis would be in the order of $14 billion. Yet the current surplus is over $30 billion. The only way the government has found to avoid meeting its obligations is to remove from the EI commission the right to set the premium rates. We are faced with a situation that is not very pretty.

However, we know why the government has done this, that is because the EI commissioners have gone as far as they could. They could not, in conscience, go any further and tell the government that it was reasonable to leave the premium at $2.25 when the plan could balance out with a premium of $1.75. The employers and the unions were unable to support the government's policy. Therefore, the way the government found was to say “We will remove your moral responsibility, we will remove from you the responsibility of making a decision and, thus, we will be able to do as we please”.

Faced with this situation, we feel it is obvious that the legislation is still unacceptable. I say to all workers, all employers and all the unemployed that the representations were not made in vain.

Tenacity is important. A task has been given to the human resources standing committee. It has until June 1 to recommend further amendments to the employment insurance plan. I think a door is now open and we will be able to finally convince the government that it has a responsibility in this matter.

Obviously the finance department and the federal government are really intent on grabbing as much money as possible. With that money, they can then spend in all kinds of sectors that are not under their jurisdiction.

The witnesses who appeared before the committee and all those who have a good grasp of the situation have shown a great deal of tenacity. For one thing, they have certainly understood that the federal government has diverted their contributions to the employment insurance plan.

The deduction on our cheque stub does not indicate general government expenses or payroll tax but employment insurance premium. For every $3 in premiums, $2 go to the EI fund and $1 to other expenses. This, people still find unacceptable.

During the campaign and at the beginning of the debate on this issue, the Liberals accused the Bloc of stalling this marvellous bill and suggested that those we are supposed to stand for would not put up with our attitude.

I did some checking. I went in the field and asked around to see whether ordinary citizens thought we were right to say that the bill was unacceptable, because it is not true that the government is doing its job by putting $500 million into a plan with a $28 billion surplus. People said to us “Go and say that it is unacceptable for the government to help itself to the surplus like this. Try to win other points, try to get them to see reason”.

The work we have done and the witnesses we have heard from are proof of people's tenacity. I am not saying that the battle is over and won. I am saying that we will have a chance in the next two months to submit a report through the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which will make it possible to finish the job and to bring about real EI reform. I hope we finally achieve this result because we will have done our job.

After being told that people chose to be unemployed, after seeing something like the intensity rule imposed, we will have abolished it and we will realize that it is the same sort of situation with young people. They are not going to work longer just because 910 hours are required. They are going to work as long as there are jobs and opportunities and we give them a chance. In this way, we are going to help the regions hang on to their resources.

This is an important point. For decades there was a social pact between Canada's resource regions and its central regions. We in the resource regions provided the raw materials: wood, wood products, agriculture and tourism. In return, we had an EI plan that gave people a decent income during periods of unemployment, particularly during the winter.

With the new EI plan, this pact has been broken. Workers have seen their income support taken away and have been told to manage on their own. In return, the government has not really given them anything to help them diversify their regional economies. One of the consequences has been the exodus of young people.

When, in our areas, there are no young people to take over, it is a catch-22 situation that must be resolved. One of the tools we have to do it—and it is not the only one—is to provide reasonable eligibility conditions for employment insurance so that the young worker who has accumulated 600 hours is not forced to move in order to get the 300 missing hours, never to return after all the resources we put into training him. As we can see, there are still many things to be changed in the employment insurance system.

We will vote against Bill C-2 because the government has decided to maintain the misappropriation of the premiums paid into the system. I believe that this attitude is responsible and that we have the opportunity to transform further the legislation. In that sense, I hope I will get the same support during the next few months. I also intend to consult the people and ask them what their priorities are.

We know very well the requirements that should be in the employment insurance system. We can negotiate efficiently until June with the government to find out what the priorities of the people are. I will do that during the next few weeks. I will try to ensure that we will be able to bring about other changes that will be those that the people really want.

In this way, we will be able to carry out our mandate, which is to ensure an adequate distribution of wealth by means of a real employment insurance system and not a system by which the government puts in its pocket money coming from employers, employees and the unemployed.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons in the debate on the third reading of Bill C-2 in regard to the government's 1996 reforms to the EI system.

Before I speak to the content of the bill, I just want to take a moment to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee to tell us what their concerns were. Most of them felt that the legislation is inadequate, that at best it is tinkering.

It would seem that we at least have the government's attention, because for the next number of weeks the standing committee on human resources development will be taking a broader look at labour market issues, with specific attention to be given to the EI system. This is clearly necessary given the depth of concerns raised by all sides during our study of Bill C-2.

Everyone agreed that what was required was a thorough review of the system with a view to how it could be improved. Whether that is what we end up with at the end of the day remains to be seen, but at least we have been given the opportunity to try. All the witnesses are to be congratulated for helping us convince the government to allow greater study of the EI bill.

Before the last election Bill C-2 was known as Bill C-44, which died on the order paper. Bill C-2 is designed largely just to tinker with a few of the changes made to EI in 1996. Some people have suggested it may even have been part of the government's re-election strategy, but perhaps I will say more on that later.

The EI act and the EI system have become so convoluted and confusing that what is really required is an entirely new act. All employers and employees need to be treated fairly and equally and the role and limits of employment insurance in Canada need to be clearly defined by law.

The Liberal misuse of EI is really a betrayal of workers in traditional seasonal employment. Current EI rules do not encourage education, training and skills development. The key to reducing dependence on EI in areas of traditionally seasonal employment depends on this. We absolutely must reform the system to provide heavy emphasis on skills development, education and training in order to break the cycle of dependence on the EI system.

It is incumbent on the government to develop a strategy for workers in traditionally seasonal employment, which to a large extent is a rural Canadian issue. The Canadian Alliance is more than ready to assist in this regard.

One of the provisions of the 1996 legislation that Bill C-2 seeks to remedy is the so-called intensity rule. The intensity rule was introduced to discourage repeat use of EI by gradually reducing benefits from 55% to 50% over time.

The minister has stated that the intensity rule had the unintended consequence of being punitive. Indeed, some industries have seen their entire workforce subject to the maximum reduction of benefits. Workers in some industries, like the fishery, point out that they are not seasonal workers.

The provisions of the clawback system are quite complex and convoluted. By exempting from the clawback individuals who have collected one week or less of EI in the past 10 years, the main point of the clause is to eliminate the graduated schedule of high repayment rates for frequent claimants. With Bill C-2, an individual who has collected two weeks of EI in the past 10 years will be subject to the same 30% clawback as an individual who has collected 200 weeks of benefits.

What of the worker in the high tech sector who finds himself or herself downsized and out the door, only to be gainfully employed again in a few weeks? If this happens twice in an eight year to ten year period, is that person a frequent user?

We already know that we will be taking a look at the larger EI issue in committee in the coming days and weeks. Whether the government takes any notice of our work remains to be seen.

My colleague and I will be advocating some of the things I spoke of earlier. We will be advocating skills development, training and education, and education for young people in communities that traditionally rely on seasonal employment. We must provide those young people with alternatives to seasonal employment or, at the very least, something to fall back on during the off season. We must also provide training and skills development for individuals currently working in areas with traditionally seasonal employment. We must provide these individuals with job skills for the workplace of the 21st century.

Another thing came up during committee testimony. Apprentices should be paid allowances during the two week waiting period while taking courses. Not only would this help employees, but it would help employers too.

Finally, the government must undertake a long term commitment to infrastructure spending. The one area where the Liberals should be spending money is the one area where they have not. A strong transportation infrastructure will allow regions that rely on traditionally seasonal employment to attract more investment and greater opportunities.

The bill as it stands is a smoke screen at best. It touches the edge of the reforms passed in the House in 1996, but fails to recognize what is really required: an overhaul of the system.

The committee recognizes the need to do more and will hopefully come up with a solid set of recommendations for the minister. We can only wait to see if that will translate into legislation that is actually meaningful and productive for the millions of employers and employees in Canada.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly one way to get the government members to join in this debate.

There was almost unanimous agreement that the government had no right to take over the rate setting processes from the commission. There was almost unanimous consent from all parties, with the exception of the government side, to removing this aspect. Although the government said that this was a temporary measure for only a two year period of time, it is very clear to all of us in the House, and to most Canadians, that whenever the government takes over control of anything it very seldom, if ever, returns that control where it belongs.

Both employers and employees, and I will include the unions in this, are very much against the government using the EI surplus of $35 billion to balance its books. They feel that money has been accumulated by premiums of both employers and employees, and should be used for no other purpose than the employment insurance account. This is just one more example of how the government has taken control. It has taken responsibility, authority and control of matters like this and put them into the hands of a small group of people in the cabinet.

I would like to report the position as I heard it from the business community. The Canadian business community was almost unanimous in the opposition to major elements of this bill. While the business community believes that people in seasonal industries need assistance, they do not believe that it is appropriate for it to come from the employment insurance fund of which they are required to pay 60%. The business community felt the EI fund should not be used by the government to fund social programs. It felt that was a taxation that should be shared by all Canadians, not just the business community and the workers.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce viewed Bill C-2 as being inconsistent with development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit and did not advance Canada's competitiveness in a global economy.

A survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs went unfilled because of a shortage of suitable skilled labour. It is criminal that there would be 250,000 to 300,000 jobs that we cannot fill because we do not have a trained, skilled labour force.

It was also obvious from the witnesses that we heard that this bill is a major concern in rural areas of Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Approximately three-quarters of the witnesses representing local communities or organizations were from these regions. They talked a lot about the impact the 1996 changes had on their communities. In some cases millions of dollars had been removed from the regional economy. That should be a concern to the government.

I want to respond to some comments that have been made about the attitude of people in Atlantic Canada. Comments have been made that Atlantic Canadians might be considered to be lazy. Lazy people do not work in Cape Breton coal mines. Lazy people do not go out in December to pull up lobster traps in the cold and the dark.

While some businesses have complained about being unable to find workers, there is little wonder when one considers that the maximum weekly employment benefit is $413. A minimum wage job of $7 an hour, seven hours a day, five days a week is only $245.

The question has to be asked. Is Atlantic Canada only good enough for minimum wage jobs? The answer to that is no. Atlantic Canadians have as much right as any other Canadian to expect to get paid a decent wage so they can support their families.

Two generations of Atlantic Canadians have been caught in the EI trap. Witnesses testified that young adults were leaving the fishing communities. The average age of food processing plants in Atlantic Canada is 44 years. It is unlikely that these individuals will be writing software in the high tech businesses in the near future. With the way the high tech businesses are going in today's economy, those jobs might not be there anyway. Atlantic Canada has a burgeoning offshore resource economy. It is vital that the government provide the necessary education and training to assist this region in diversifying its economy.

I sometimes get into trouble in my caucus when I say this, but there is a parallel between Atlantic Canadian fishermen and Canadian farmers in the prairies. While fishermen suffer from a lack of supply, farmers suffer from a lack of demand. However, in both instances these are traditional occupations in the midst of dramatic transformation. The government must work with stakeholders to reinvent these industries for the 21st century. The government has an obligation to make sure that people who rely on those industries move forward in the economies of the 21st century.

For people who are in situations that do not offer them opportunities, government has an obligation to think outside of the box. The government has to look for alternatives for people who are working in a seasonal industry area. One of the most important things the government has to show some support for and put many resources into is education.

Young people in communities who traditionally rely on seasonal employment must be provided with other alternatives. Education will afford them choices that they may not have now. Individuals must be provided with job skills for the workplace in the 21st century. We have to move forward in what we offer for education.

We have to provide training so that people who are stuck in a seasonal industry can move into another industry that becomes available, which hopefully the government will help to develop. We must provide people who are presently in a seasonal workforce with job training and job skills for the workplace in the 21st century.

Another thing we heard was the way the apprenticeship program operated and that sometimes it discouraged young people from looking at it, or even older people, because of the delay in receiving benefits or the two week disallowance for benefits. We feel that anybody who is in job training or in educational programs should be covered for those two weeks. We do not think there should be downtime for people who are trying to advance their skills so they can move on in the workforce. It is important that the government address this in order to encourage more young people to continue or enter apprenticeship programs.

One of the things the government has to address in thinking outside the box is that there has to be a long term commitment to infrastructure programs in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and all across this country, because only long term infrastructure programs will open up those economies to diversification. It is only by building bigger and better roads that material can be moved to and from industries and that will open up those areas.

There is a reason why the Halifax port did not become the super port. It lacked the infrastructure necessary for it to get the product to the marketplace. It lacked the infrastructure necessary to be considered a super port.

The government has to make a commitment to those areas where there are seasonal jobs. The government has to commit to opening up those areas, to putting infrastructure money into those areas and to putting money into job training and skills training so those economies can diversify and move forward in the 21st century.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak at third reading on Bill C-2. The bill was introduced by the government to live up to some of the election promises it made before the last election.

The minor amendments included in Bill C-2 are, at best, tinkering. It is quite obvious after listening to many witnesses that the EI act has become so convoluted and confusing that a new act is required to treat all employees and employers fairly and to clearly define the role and limits of employment insurance in Canada.

The Liberals' misuse of EI has betrayed workers in traditionally seasonal employment. That was made abundantly clear by the witnesses we heard from. The current EI rules discourage education and skills acquisition. It is incumbent upon the government to develop a strategy for workers in traditionally seasonal employment which, to a large extent, is a rural Canadian issue. It is incumbent upon the government to address that issue.

However, there are many who felt that EI legislation was not the vehicle for the government to do that. The 1996 amendments to the EI legislation were to do three things: one, to make unemployment benefits more active, for example, to rely less on income support and more on labour market adjustment; two, to enhance employment stability; and three, to lower program costs.

When the government introduced Bill C-2, it said that these objectives had not been met, that in fact the adjustments had failed to reduce frequent EI use. The government bases its position on a study that examined the impact of intensity rules during the first year of application. While the professors who did the study justified an examination of only one year, another professor testifying at the very same time said that one year was not sufficient to study a change in behaviour. Therefore, there is some contention as to whether the information the government has used in Bill C-2 to rescind changes made in previous legislation in 1996 is questionable.

I want to examine some of the aspects of this legislation which we are dealing with at third reading.

I want to deal specifically at this time with the intensity rule.

The minister stated that the intensity rule has had the unintended consequence of being punitive. Some industries at the committee told us that they had seen their entire workforce, subject to the maximum reduction of benefits, going from 55% of their salary down to 50%. In some industries, like the fishery industry, the workers pointed out that they were not seasonal workers, they just worked in an industry that was seasonal. The government designates the period of time when these fishermen can work. The government determines when the fishing season is open, thus limiting the time when work is available.

However, the seasonal use of EI has permitted more companies and individuals to remain in an industry than is economically viable. We cannot escape the fact that by definition the regular use of the EI program makes it a wage subsidization program and not an insurance program.

I would like to move on to the benefit repayment provision which is known to most Canadians as the clawback.

The minister stated that the clawback was being modified because it was not properly targeted. The clawback was introduced to discourage individuals with higher incomes from repeatedly collecting benefits.

The minister stated in her appearance before the committee that some affected groups under the clawback provision from 1996 were not clearly dependent on employment insurance. That may be, but by exempting individuals who have collected less than one week of EI in the previous 10 years from the clawback, it is clear that the main point of the clause in Bill C-2 is to eliminate the graduated schedule of high repayment rates for frequent claimants that was introduced in 1996.

With Bill C-2, an individual who collected two weeks of EI benefits in the past 10 years would be subject to the same 30% clawback as an individual who collected 200 weeks of EI over the past 10 years. That is taking someone who only collected two weeks and treating that person in the very same way as someone who collected over 200 weeks. It is quite clear that the attempt is to eliminate the graduated schedule of repayment for frequent claimers.

I think every Canadian understands and appreciates that there has to be a limit set and that there has to be a set amount of income where an individual no longer qualifies. I do not believe any Canadian would like to see NHL players collecting EI in an off season. I think Canadians accept the fact that there has to be a limit set. The big question is where should that line be set? What is the limit that should be set?

The average yearly earning in Canada is currently $31,700. This means that the clawbacks affect only those individuals who currently make significantly more than the average Canadian. The elimination of the graduated schedule of increased clawbacks for high income earners who are frequent EI collectors means that low income contributors to the EI fund who never claim employment insurance are in effect subsidizing those high income earners who frequently claim employment insurance.

The one issue we all agree with is that there was widespread support, or opposition to depending on how we look at the issue, from both the employers and the union. While they had different objectives with the rates, both groups strongly opposed the way government was using surplus EI premiums in general revenue. Both the employers and unions objected to the cabinet taking over the control of setting employment insurance rates. Clause 9 has been snuck into the middle of a bill.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, for unanimous consent to have clause 9 struck from the bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded divisions on Bill C-2 at report stage.

Call in the members. Before the taking of the vote :

Budget Implementation Act, 1997

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am doing precisely that. This is an indication that the parliamentary secretary does not even know what is in his own bill. I am talking about the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which is precisely what clause 6 of the bill refers to. No wonder the government makes legislative mistakes when the parliamentary secretary responsible for managing the debate on the bill does not even know what is in it. We see this time and again.

The parliamentary secretary wants to know what the relevance is. If he would listen maybe he would learn something.

With regard to Bill C-2, members of the official opposition raised grievous concerns about the $120 billion in equity, which belonged to Canadian taxpayers, that was taken from them through the CPP payroll tax. The amount will reach $120 billion in about the year 2015.

We raised grievous concerns about the potential for this or future governments to reach their politically motivated hands into that $120 billion pot of taxpayer money and to abuse the fund either by appointing patronage appointees to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board or by directing its investment strategy by stripping cash out of it.

The government at the time said that we should not worry, that we should not be alarmist because there will be safeguards in place, that the bill will be exempted from the Financial Administration Act, and that the finance minister will not be able to muddy himself in the business of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Well, lo and behold, what happens? The parliamentary secretary tries to just skate over the issue very briefly hoping that no one would notice. When it comes to complex and technical legislation we often do not have the time or expertise to understand it, but the parliamentary secretary said that clause 6 in the bill would exempt the CPP Investment Board from part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, “to ensure retroactively that it always operates as it was intended.”

What does that mean? It means that there was a drafting error or a legislative mistake. I do not know if it was a mistake or if it was deliberate, but today the CPP Investment Board is covered under of part 10, subclause 85(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which means that the finance minister could today, through a ministerial order, strip cash out of the Canada pension plan fund. He could hire or fire officers who are employees of the CPP Investment Board. He could change their compensation. He could reject their business plan. The minister has all sorts of financial powers to intervene in the operation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is precisely what we were concerned about when we debated Bill C-2.

That is the state of things today. The Liberals now say that it was a mistake. It has taken them four years to figure it out and finally correct it. That is four years too long.

The opposition will support the amendments. However we will bring forward one of our own that is similar to an amendment that we introduced at report stage of Bill C-2. The amendment would ensure that the operations of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board are subject to scrutiny by the auditor general. My colleague, the chair of the public accounts committee and our treasury board critic, will be bringing an amendment forward to that effect.

This is another example of the government committing to spend money without proper parliamentary authorization. It is doing this without a budget at a time when spending is growing far too quickly and when we are headed into choppy economic waters. That is grounds enough upon which to oppose the bill. The government is also seizing the parliamentary agenda to correct serious mistakes which it has made.

It would be refreshing if the parliamentary secretary or his minister would stand in this place and take some responsibility for the mistakes which they and the department have made in allowing the minister to monkey around with the business of the CPP investment board, and in allowing bureaucrats and the defence department to borrow money without proper parliamentary authority.

The government is undermining the long and important tradition of ministerial accountability and responsibility. It feels that it can make these kinds of serious mistakes with impunity. The Canadian Alliance feels that it should be held accountable for these kinds of errors. There should be some sort of accountability when time after time it seizes the parliamentary calendar to correct serious mistakes of this nature.

I will make one additional very amusing point regarding clause 6 of the bill. The parliamentary secretary said that the clause would retroactively ensure that the bill always operates as intended. Is that not kind of Orwellian? The government made a retroactive amendment in the bill. George Orwell's 1984 talks about the ability of totalitarian governments to change history and facts that have already occurred.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The House leader calls them legislative improvements. Sometimes they are euphemistically referred to as housekeeping amendments. It just sounds so pleasant.

The real ugly face of it is legislative incompetence on the part of the government. The House leader is the first, whenever the opposition drags out debate on a bill as we occasionally do, to raise the alarm about the cost to parliament and the value of debating time in this place.

We spend hours, days and weeks in every session debating bills such as this one, which are, in substance, corrections to legislative errors that the government made in the first place. If the government got these things right in the first place, we would not be spending scarce parliamentary time debating legislative errors such as those contained in Bill C-17.

Sometimes these errors are not just of a minor, technical or dilatory nature. Sometimes they are very serious and grave mistakes. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is a good example. In the immediate past parliament, the government introduced Bill C-2 in order to make some major changes to the Canada pension plan and to authorize and introduce the single largest tax increase in Canadian history. My colleagues will recall that massive tax grab that will cost tens of billions of dollars. They brought—

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize why the hon. member is speaking today. There was no room for him in the national assembly. They shipped him to Ottawa. This is why we are talking about federal transfers.

Federal transfers are sent to the province in an effort to improve the situation of Quebecers. When they ask for an independent fund, we think about the $840 million that the Quebec government has left untouched in a building on the main street of Toronto.

There is something truly deplorable about this independent fund. Perhaps the money will be used for tax reductions, health and education. The one really important thing is the retroactive nature of the bill, which will help the unemployed.

Let me get back to Loto-Quebec. They are talking about an independent fund. Let us compare Loto-Quebec and Canada's employment insurance fund. Loto-Quebec is a $3.5 billion business. Indeed, if we take its annual profits of $3.5 billion and multiply them by 10, we get $35 billion. This is what they get in Quebec over a 10 year period with a phantom account. To be sure, the example comes from somewhere. They claim that it is not the same thing. It is the taxpayers' money.

It is true that the federal government does not contribute to the employment insurance fund. It is our workers who do so. The decisions are made by a commission and they involve employers and employees.

There are things that need to be improved. We will improve them together, along with the opposition members who are here.

Again I come back to the comparison between Loto-Québec and the $35 billion fund that is self-sustaining and at arm's length. They say that is where the surplus should be put. Multiplying the $10 million a day that Loto-Quebec makes by the number of days in a year gives $3.5 billion a year. Over 10 years, it gives $35 billion.

In any case, the people opposite have been criticizing me for a while already. The Bloc members in front of me seem to be having fun. They are smiling. The five of them are shouting like ten.

What is really important is trying to find solutions together for the unemployed. It is not easy. Looking at people who are dealing with the unemployed in my area, such as Laurier Gilbert from Val-d'Or, or Vital Gilbert from Rouyn-Noranda, they too are trying to find solutions.

They settle cases at the unemployment arbitration board. They came to Ottawa. They criticized the government. They were right on many points. It is thanks to them that we changed the rules last year. It is because the unemployed were able to shake up the government. They will vote on that. However, it is together that we will try to improve the lot of the unemployed.

We do not want them to be unemployed. What is important is that these people keep their job. That is what is important. Looking at all the programs that we have here available for the unemployed, I feel it is thanks to the money flowing from legislation like Bill C-2.

It has been a pleasure to speak during this debate. I would like Loto-Québec to give its $10 million a day to Quebec taxpayers.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member must realize that he switched parties but he did not change parliaments. We are not in Quebec City, we are in Ottawa. I want to know if he is still talking about Bill C-2 or if his remarks are in response to Mrs. Marois' budget speech?

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

Mr. Speaker, in connection with Bill C-2, the bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act, we know that coalitions of the unemployed in Abitibi, Témiscamingue, Val-d'Or and all over Quebec have raised the awareness of the political parties, both the Bloc Quebecois and the opposition. Thanks to these groups, the government has backed down, and that is what is important.

I have heard what my colleagues have been saying about eliminating the rule of intensity and certain other changes relating to the reimbursement of benefits and parental return to the work force. Several Bloc Quebecois members have said that the government had a fund of $35 billion.

However, we need to look at what the Department of Human Resources Development is doing with that money. I have a listing here of some of the programs we need to take into consideration, including the millions that go to the province of Quebec in transfer payments each year. This department has been administering our programs for some years.

As well, we need to look at what is being done in the communities, whether in the resource regions or in the major centres. There are partnerships in social development, community action partnerships, a fund to support the official language minority communities.

What Quebec is currently doing with the money from the fund also needs to be considered. It is providing targeted wage subsidies, help to self-employed workers, contributing to skills development, providing assistance to employment, research and innovation.

We must also look at programs that are provided to assist persons with disabilities, the fund for integrating persons with disabilities. Programs such as youth international, youth service Canada and student summer job action are also provided to help young people and young trainees in Canada. Thus, several billions of dollars from the fund are invested in Canada.

There are also federal transfers. We know that several federal transfers were established recently. I heard Mrs. Marois speech last Thursday. Mr. Landry said there was a $35 million surplus, but we realize that it is ultimately a $2.5 billion surplus, thanks to the nice cheque of about $2.3 billion he just received from our finance minister, a cheque that was transferred to Quebec and whose money came from the fund.

I heard the Bloc Quebecois members' speeches concerning the fund. They said “There is $35 billion, and they are spending it”. If we spend this $35 billion, it will be for reducing taxes, for investing it in health and education. One thing Bloc members often talk about is the $35 billion.

They say this money must be transferred but strangely enough they do not talk about Loto-Québec, which makes $10 million a day, not a month. Loto-Québec is now raking in $10 million a day from 15,138 video poker machines in Quebec. Loto-Québec does not have an agreement because it is not asking the government of Quebec to leave the money there and then distribute it to Quebecers. What is Loto-Quebec doing? We are talking about $10 million a day. This is $3 billion a year that Quebec taxpayers do not see.

We could also mention Hydro-Quebec, which has just made a profit of $1.3 billion. This money should go back to those who pay for electricity in order to help with monthly heating bills but no, into the fund it goes.

The SAQ is raking in billions right now and Bloc Quebecois members are talking about creating an independent fund. There is no independent fund in Quebec. The only independent funds that are allowed to exist are those for non-profit corporations. The Landry government's non-profit corporations, of which there were seven, made $730 million just two weeks before Quebec's finance minister, Bernard Landry, tabled his budget.

This money was made during the night because the national assembly was closed. They made it during the night and said “We are going to hand out $730 million”. This went to their friends, to presidents and vice-presidents and all the directors of these seven non-profit organizations. It is even better this year. They have done better and taken $950 million and handed it over to the Caisse de dépôt et placement but nothing is spelled out.

The odd thing is that the $950 million has not been invested. It is not known what they are going to do with it. I hope they will invest it in resource regions because certain points raised by Bloc Quebecois members with reference to the independent fund—

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I am very pleased to resume today on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and Regulations.

I would first like to congratulate the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, whose great determination resulted in the passage of a motion on the employment insurance bill.

As I said in my last speech on February 13, the bill is a disgrace. This debate began in January 1997 as part of EI reform. The reform was supposed to meet the needs of the public and the realities of the workplace. The opposite effect was felt and observed, and this could have been predicted.

Through this reform, the unemployment insurance plan, which actually needed to be reviewed but not transformed nor diminished, has in fact become a plan whereby the government gets richer but the poor get poorer.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has concluded its hearings. The proposed amendments were almost all rejected, with one exception, because it was not directly related to Bill C-2. This is why the Bloc Quebecois felt it better not to move any amendments at committee stage.

However, as I said earlier, a motion moved by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques was passed, which will commit the government to consider other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act as a whole. The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

With the passage of this motion, the Bloc Quebecois, as the party responsible, intends to put all its long sought amendments back on the table in June 2001 when the committee tables its report.

After long refusing to abolish the intensity rule, the government has conceded that we were right. I hope that it will take the time to reflect on the other amendments which the Bloc Quebecois will be submitting with the report and admit that we are right about them as well.

In addition to deleting clause 9, on the setting of the premium rates, we are going to propose the following amendments: eliminating the qualifying period; establishing an independent employment insurance fund; increasing coverage from 55% to 60%—we have long been asking that benefits be increased to 60% of a person's income, as was the case before the reform—; extending the base period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks; allowing self-employed workers to be insured through voluntary contributions; bringing back to 300 hours the eligibility criterion for special benefits; increasing the period of benefits; setting income increases at 25% for all claimants before employment benefits are cut; indexing the insurable annual income at $41,500; changing the process under which the premium rate is set, so as to give all the powers to the commission; setting the threshold for the refund of premiums at $5,000, instead of $2,000; increasing from three to five years eligibility for active employment measures; eliminating the arm's length relationship clause—this applies primarily to seasonal workers—eliminating the divisor rule; providing special benefits for older workers; investing 0.8% of the total payroll in active employment measures.

As members can see, our position on Bill C-2 at report stage is that we are opposed to it if clause 9 is not deleted. The federal government must listen to the message that was sent to it time and again by the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Conseil du patronat du Québec and the central labour bodies, and it must delete this clause, which takes from the commission the right to set the premium rate under the employment insurance plan and gives it to the federal government. Removing the commission from the rate setting process means that these rates could be adjusted on the basis of the government's needs and deficit, instead of being based on the needs of the unemployed, and on the premiums received, as recommended by the chief actuary.

If clause 9 is passed, it will legalize the theft of the employment insurance fund by the government, which will have full ownership of it. The auditor general has criticized the government for its lack of transparency when it comes to rate setting, saying that despite the shortcomings and the lack of clarity of section 66 to some extent, in his opinion, it is nevertheless clearer than the system we would have under the new clause 9.

The people who gave evidence during the committee hearings were unanimous: clause 9 of Bill C-2 must be rejected. The Canadian public is expecting more than mere campaign promises. It is looking for important and concrete corrective measures.

The government is not interested in the plight of the unemployed, who will be negatively affected by this employment insurance reform. The measures proposed in this bill are not enough to correct the problems caused by the system, notably to seasonal workers, and particularly those in the regions, to young people, to women and to workers, particularly older workers.

In conclusion, I would like to remind this House that during the last six years, employment insurance has been the most important factor of poverty in Canada. If the government wants to protect children against poverty, it will first have to protect parents who are poor. If the government had not made such drastic cuts to employment insurance, there would be fewer children starving.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I know I must address the Chair, but I also want to address unemployed Canadians, particularly those from Quebec who are listening and especially the 60% of them who could not benefit from the EI plan. They were excluded for many reasons. That is why many amendments to the bill were requested by the opposition parties.

When a government amends an act as important as the Employment Insurance Act, there are always questions to be asked. First, why is it amending it? Because there are pressing demands, which often come from the opposition parties.

Let us remember that in 1996 the Liberal government made major changes to the Employment Insurance Act, which included the infamous intensity rule. With that rule, seasonal workers were virtually excluded from the plan, to the point where today only 42% of workers who could use benefits are eligible for benefits.

This was a change made in 1996 by the Liberal government. It directly contributed to the increase in the EI fund surplus. Since the 1996 changes, a surplus of $5 billion was added to the fund each and every year. At the present time, this surplus is close to $32 billion.

Once more, in 2001, the Liberal government is proposing a legislative amendment. We should always ask ourselves why the government would change this legislation. The answer should be that it is for the good of the unemployed in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

We know, of course, that the intensity rule, the purpose of which was to make sure that almost no seasonal unemployed worker could get employment benefits, will be abolished. In ridings such as Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, where 65% of the economy is based on agriculture, forestry and tourism, more workers will be made eligible for employment benefits.

It must be said that this is something the opposition parties have been requesting since 1996. The opposition parties have been asking the government for this for five years.

Finally, it is not the workers of Quebec and Canada who are seasonal, it the jobs that are seasonal. It is not the workers' fault they do not have access to an EI plan.

It must be understood that I am talking about an EI plan. On many occasions I have heard members of the government describe the employment insurance plan as a social safety net. The employment insurance plan has never been a social safety net. It is an insurance paid for entirely, half and half, by the workers and their employers. Since this plan belongs to the employers and the employees in Quebec and Canada, the $31.4 billion surplus belongs to them also.

We would have expected that the amendments to Bill C-2 would include, on top of the elimination of the intensity rule for seasonal workers we wanted, important changes to the plan because it belongs to the employers and the employees in Quebec and Canada.

I will repeat, for the sake of workers and especially the unemployed in Quebec and in Canada who are watching this debate, that the bill does not improve the plan and does nothing to correct the decades old inequities under the Employment Insurance Act.

We still have a waiting period, the infamous two week penalty for workers. They do not get any benefits for these two weeks. They just have to wait.

I find this most unfortunate because it does a lot of damage, in view of the fact that an increasing number of businesses in Quebec, among others, are hit with damage or fires, as a result of which there are temporary closures for many reasons other than the going out of business.

Once again, workers who find themselves without a job overnight because of a fire or other disaster are subject to the qualifying period, the famous two week penalty. They lose the first two weeks and do not receive any compensation in spite of the fact that they bought insurance that they have been paying 50:50 with their employer, an insurance policy called the EI fund. There is still a waiting period.

This is the terminology the Liberal government found to try to convince them to accept this two week penalty. Notwithstanding the fact that they have an insurance, they still have a two week penalty. These two weeks inevitably contribute to increase the fund. This surplus, this revenue from the EI fund, now totals more than $31 billion.

Once again, the bill tabled did not contain any of the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. This particular amendment was rejected. We still find in the bill the two week waiting period, the penalty the workers are facing for losing their job. Even if the business does not shut down, even after a disaster, they are still subjected to this two week loss, which is used, among other things, to increase the EI surplus. So, there are no major changes.

Let us talk about the $31.4 billion surplus. Why has the government introduced this bill? As members may have guessed, it is because the Liberal Party, the government, covets the $31.4 billion that belongs to workers of Quebec and Canada.

Clause 9 of the bill would allow the government to get its hands on the surplus of the employment insurance fund. The government wants to do that for its own ends, that is to spend the money in any other program it deems appropriate but which will not necessarily serve the interests of workers in Quebec and Canada.

Why does the bill not provide for an independent fund, which would belong, since half of it is paid for by workers in Quebec, to workers as well as employers and which would be administered by workers and employers, who could then choose the appropriate way to use the fund?

Since I only have a minute left, I will use my time to try to promote awareness among members on the other side, who too often take the employment insurance fund, which actually is an insurance fund, for a social security fund. This is where the problem lies.

They want to turn employment insurance into a social security fund, which the government wants to get its hands on and use in a totally different area, which government members call social security, while in fact employment insurance is an insurance fund that belongs to workers and should only be used for them. We should have an independent fund administered by workers, in their own interests.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, may I say that you look very comfortable and proper in that chair. You are doing a good job in recognizing those of us in the opposition parties who would like to add to the debate.

I will begin my remarks by registering a grievance of sorts. In the short period of time that I have been a member of parliament more often than not when I get up to speak it is during a time allocation situation. I am not saying that all bills which go through the House of Commons end up with some form of closure or time allocation but, by some bizarre freak of nature, every time I want to speak it is under the circumstances that there has been time allocation imposed. Frankly, it is starting to jade my world view of the House.

I want to register as a grievance to the federal government that my experience in the House is being warped by its abuse of the system and by its stamping all over the democratic process by once again implementing time allocation.

Speaking, with what time I have, to Bill C-2, let me point out that I and the NDP caucus believe that Bill C-2 is fundamentally flawed, not because of what is in the bill, because there are elements we support within the bill, but because of what the bill fails to do.

Bill C-2 fails to recognize the real problem with the EI system, which is that nobody qualifies any more. It is not an employment insurance program if unemployed people do not get any insurance benefits out of it. The very name has become a misnomer. Those who need the benefits that the EI system is supposed to provide do not get them.

We are starting from a very dangerous premise here. We have this revenue generating cash cow for the federal government that is failing to meet the needs of unemployed workers. We then have the government ramming this through before substantial changes can be made to address the real flaws and errors within the program.

What really bothers me is that even the amendments do not find their origins in any real desire on the part of the federal government to meet the needs of unemployed workers. Most of what we see in Bill C-2 and in any EI reform in the past 10 years seems to find its origins in this underlying position that there are lazy people who would rather sit on EI than take part in the workforce. The government has decided therefore to use some kind of a tough love policy against these people to kickstart them into the workforce no matter what their circumstances. The whole thing finds its origins in the attitude that people would rather be unemployed and on EI than taking part in the workforce.

I remember the hysteria and fear in the mid-seventies, when UIC was available, about the UIC ski team of teenagers in Banff cheating UIC. During that period of time the government made a nationwide survey on the issue of UIC fraud and abuse. It found that there were actually more federal government Tory cabinet ministers guilty of fraud on a ratio and proportion basis than there were UIC recipients guilty of fraud.

Every year approximately 200 EI recipients are called to task for some kind of abuse of the system. During the Mulroney years approximately 30% of federal Tory cabinet ministers were guilty of fraud compared to an infinitesimal, an amount almost too small to count, of EI recipients who were called to task on fraud. The attitude that there is widespread abuse of the system bothers me when I know, because I deal with people who use the EI system frequently, that simply is not true.

I began my speech today by saying that Bill C-2 is flawed because of what it fails to do. It fails to deal with the eligibility issue. The fact that less than 40% of unemployed people qualify for unemployment insurance should strike people as somehow being wrong? It actually gets worse when we deal with unemployed women. There is a real gender issue here. Less than 25% of unemployed women qualify for any benefit whatsoever. Less than 15% of unemployed youth under the age of 25 qualify for any benefit whatsoever. How can we even call this an insurance system when virtually nobody qualifies?

Eligibility is the first issue. The rules should state that when we are unemployed and need income maintenance, the benefits will be there. When we are forced to pay premiums it is only fair that we have a reasonable expectation of collecting the benefit.

The second fundamental flaw is the way the government arrives at what our benefits will be. Even if we are lucky enough to be one of those 40% of unemployed Canadians who qualify for benefits, the way that the government calculates the benefit is so wrong that we end up collecting far less per week than we used to under the old rules.

To get any benefits whatsoever is a Herculean task. Once we do qualify for benefits, the way that the government calculates our benefits we end up getting far less money. There are fewer people collecting and those who are collecting, collect less money. It is no wonder there is a surplus.

The surplus is the third thing I would like to address. I have said this in the House before and I need to keep saying it over and over again until it sinks in with the Canadian people just how badly the program is being abused and milked by the Liberal government and being used as some kind of cash cow. The surplus is $750 million per month. There is more money going into the program than is being paid out in benefits. That is $7 billion to $8 billion per year.

Now we find ourselves in a budgetary surplus situation. Let us look at the sources of the revenue that the government now calls its surplus: $35 billion to $43 billion surplus accumulated out of the EI system alone; $35 billion cut out of programs through the health and social transfer; and a further $30 billion surplus that everybody seems to have forgotten about, the public service pension plan by legislation, by act of parliament, was taken away from those workers last year.

It is no coincidence that when we add those three up, $35 billion, $35 billion and $30 billion, all on the backs of the unemployed, working people and those who need social programs, it adds up to $100 billion, which is exactly what the Minister of Finance gave in tax cuts to the wealthy and to corporations. I do not think it is any coincidence that those figures are identical. I just wanted to point that out.

The last few minutes that I have, I want to point out another shortcoming in Bill C-2 that is very close to my own personal experience. The apprenticeship system has suffered terribly under the changes to EI and, in Bill C-2, the government has chosen not to correct it. This is something for which there is almost unanimous support. Virtually every industry, academic and economist we have spoken to has agreed that this is wrong, yet it has not been addressed in Bill C-2. The two week waiting period that unemployed workers must wait before getting their first benefits is applied to apprentices when they are going through the trade school component of the apprenticeship.

In other words, they are being treated as if they are unemployed when they are not. They are apprentices. They are employed and have an attachment to the workforce. They are simply going through the annually scheduled eight week training period in community college and yet are being penalized with the two week waiting period at the front end.

This is a new change that was made in 1995-96. It has had the effect of driving people away from apprenticeship programs. A lot of young people simply cannot afford to be without income for that period of time and are choosing not to attend the eight week scheduled apprenticeship training in community college. Gradually a four year apprenticeship turns into a seven year apprenticeship and many simply are dropping out.

It is having a dilatory effect on the apprenticeship system and on industry because of what I believe is a miserly point of view on behalf of the Liberal government, using the EI system as a revenue generating cash cow instead of providing income maintenance to unemployed workers, and in this case, providing trade school apprenticeship training to people in the skilled trades.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, Bill C-2 should be viewed with some pride and a great deal of satisfaction by all parties in the House. The bill is evidence of an effective governance and effective law-making.

In 1996 the government set out to put in place a much improved plan to assist Canada's unemployed, to help get them back to work and keep them working. That plan had goals that are as vital today just as they were then: a fairer system that treats all workers more equitably; a system that encourages work and reduces dependence on benefits; a system that provides assistance to those most in need, namely people from low income families with children during periods of unemployment; and a system designed to help people get back to work and help keep them at work.

A very important part of that system included a provision to continuously monitor and assess the system to see if it was in fact living up to its design goals. As a result, the EI system has been adjusted to ensure it continues to serve the purposes for which it was introduced. Bill C-2 is another step in this evolutionary process and warrants the support of all members of the House.

This is how effective programs are designed and implemented. No regime should be fixed in amber, unresponsive to changing economic and social conditions. I sense that, in general, members opposite also welcome the changes proposed in the bill.

However it seems that much of the discussion on Bill C-2 has focused on the rate setting process for EI premiums. The government has been charged by members across that premiums are too high and benefits are inadequate. Surely we must acknowledge that rates have been consistently reduced in recent years.

The employee premium rate for 2001 has already been set at $2.25, down from $2.40 in 2000. This is the seventh straight year premiums have been reduced. At $2.25, employers and employees will save approximately $6.4 billion in 2001 compared to where the premiums were at when we took over as the government in 1994, which was $3.07. That is a total reduction in premiums of 82 cents. If that is taken as a percentage of the present rate of $2.25, that is a 32% reduction in rates. That is a very fundamental reduction.

The argument that a surplus in the EI account is evidence and that the premium rates are too high does not hold water. The EI account must be allowed to accumulate a surplus during periods of improving economic conditions to ensure that premiums do not have to be raised if the economy is in a downturn which would inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment and higher demands on the EI account.

Surely we do not want to raise premium rates in an already depressed economy which would put a further damper on economic growth and job creation. We should bear in mind that during the last recession a $2 billion surplus in the EI account at the end of 1990 became a $6 billion deficit by the end of 1993, in spite of the rise in premiums. As to the adequacy of benefits, that is precisely what Bill C-2 would propose to improve.

The intensity rule would be removed. The so-called clawback provision would be adjusted to ensure that first time users and those on special benefits would be exempt from paying back the benefits. The re-entrant rules would be adjusted so that re-entrant parents would qualify for EI regular benefits with the same number of hours as other claimants when they returned to the labour force following an extended absence to care for young children.

The opposition has also criticized the provisions in Bill C-2 concerning rate setting, claiming that the process should be placed at arm's length from the government. However these criticisms are clearly beside the point. Even the auditor general questioned whether an arm's length treatment would improve the process. Arm's length or not, the question is what is the rate setting method that would best serve Canadian workers, employers and taxpayers?

The Standing Committee on Finance recommended the EI premium rate setting procedure be reviewed. The government is addressing this question and prior to Bill C-2 made a commitment to review the rate setting process over a two year period.

The auditor general stated that the review could result in a better methodology and that he welcome anything that would clarify the rate setting procedure. However, until such a review can be completed, the government has provided a means to ensure predictability and stability in the EI premiums.

The governor in council will set the premium rates for the year 2002-03 allowing time for review and allowing the government to adjust the changing economic conditions. Researching and deciding on a sound rate setting mechanism will require taking into consideration interests of workers, employers and taxpayers. This is not something we could hope to achieve through Bill C-2.

The Department of Finance, along with Human Resources Development Canada, will carry out a review during which all stakeholders will be consulted, including the EI commissioners representing workers and employers. Surely that is a better method. I would say that it is the only rational method for devising a rate setting structure that best meets the interests of all parties in the longer term. I believe that the hon. members should reserve their views and feelings on the rate setting method and permit the review to take its rational course.

The passage of Bill C-2 will present no obstacle to the successful completion of that review. That is why the House should give speedy passage to the bill and permit Canadians to begin benefiting from its improvements to the EI program.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, at report stage. Some of the proposed amendment are good, of course.

However, there is a major item we strongly dislike and that is the fact that the government wants to get its hands on the employment insurance fund surplus. The government clearly did not take this opportunity to make much more substantial changes to the situation related to the whole employment insurance fund, and to adopt measures that could have benefited many people who have been penalized for several years, in fact since 1993 when the Liberals came to power, because of the way they restructured the employment insurance system in order to shamelessly grab the surpluses year after year.

It is most unfortunate that after having created very high expectations, after having made campaign commitments and after having the Prime Minister admit he had probably made some mistakes, the government is now coming up with the same legislation it had introduced before the election. In many regions, in Quebec as well as in other provinces, this has provoked much discontent.

I would first like to draw a small picture of the coverage rate of the employment insurance system. In 1993, 65% of those losing their jobs were covered by the system. The cutting trend had started in the early 1990s, as in 1990, 83% of workers losing their jobs were still covered. In 1993 it was down to 65%. I am not blaming the present government, as a major restructuring was started by its predecessor.

In the last six years, this percentage has fallen to 43%. This is unbelievable. Cuts were more drastic than when there was an economic crisis, with a dreadful deficit. When the economic situation improved, the government started to generate a surplus but reduced the level of coverage. This means that now only four out of ten Canadians who lose their jobs are eligible for benefits. I am not even talking about the level of benefits, but only about the number of unemployed eligible for benefits.

Those most affected by this are women and young people. For those between 20 and 24 years of age, one out of four persons who lose their jobs will be covered by the EI system. As for women, the percentage is approximately 38%. So this is below average. They are the ones who have been most affected by the successive EI reforms.

It has been said many times by many people, but does not appear to move the government. Once again, what it wants is to shove some amendments through, rapidly and expeditiously, to send a message to the public, saying “Look, see the changes we have made”. A word of warning to all those with high expectations: better lower them, for in another year or year and a half they will see that the reform did not amount to much after all.

Some people may still believe that the government contributes to employment insurance. The fund has no government contribution. The only contributors are the employees and employers; the government does not contribute one red cent. It is the one that makes the decisions, the one that directs it, and now it is going to give itself more powers than ever, by limiting the commission's ability to set contribution rates, to define the size of the surplus to be generated.

Without having to contribute one cent, it is going to direct and define and also to pocket the surplus funds. This means, clearly, that every year—I am referring here just to the amount of the surplus in the fund—the government is going to get $6 billion from it to add to the general public funds.

The people who pay their contributions into the fund, the workers and the employers, are funding all manner of things other than an employment insurance plan. I repeat, this is supposed to be an insurance program.

Mr. Speaker, imagine if you or other members of this House were paying house or car insurance premiums and the company announced to you “Well, we collected the premiums for that but we have decided to apply them to something else. Instead of compensating people making claims, we are going to invest the money right and left, spend it on other things”. That would make no sense. An insurance plan should serve those who pay into it.

This is not what is happening with the $6 billion; the government may well say that it is putting it into health and other noble causes, but let them have the courage to call it a payroll tax or an employment tax. That is what employment insurance has turned into.

Let us look at the figures. For the year 2000, the contributions, and therefore the revenues, collected by the government from the employment insurance fund reached $17.2 billion. The plan itself cost $12.3 billion; therefore, there was a surplus of $5.6 billion for the year. This means that $5,600 million was taken from the employment insurance fund.

What would the situation be today if the fund had really been independent, with a separate bank account? There would now be $31.4 billion in that bank account. This shows the extent of the surplus accumulated, mainly over the last six years.

It is true the plan experienced deficits at times, for example in the early 1990s, during the recession, but the surpluses have largely covered those past deficits and have grown to an accumulated surplus of $31.4 billion.

There is no point going looking for that money, it will not be found. It was added to the consolidated fund and spent on all sorts of programs. Good or bad, those were not what that money was meant for. Such a practice is totally unacceptable and inadmissible. To collect taxes and use them for something else but their intended purpose is a bad management principle, which borders on immorality, if not outright illegality.

This situation will not improve because, with the measures being proposed now, next year's surplus will be similar. Some might say that we were keeping a reserve in case of another recession. Let us not kid ourselves.

If there were a recession tomorrow, the fund would be pretty much balanced. It is structured in such a way that it will not take a beating, because eligibility has been restricted, the number of hours needed to qualify increased and the duration of benefits decreased. The spending that is going to skyrocket if there is a recession is the spending on social assistance, which is funded by the provinces. This spending will go up dramatically and there will be no safety net, while the EI fund will pretty much balance or show a slight deficit.

Yes, the government could keep a cushion, a reserve, but not on the order of $30 billion. Thirty billion dollars could cover benefits for the next three years without a single additional cent in premiums being received.

If there were a separate account, everyone could be told “For the next three years they would not have to pay premiums because they would be drawn from the accumulated reserve”. Does this not give an idea of the size of the obscene surplus which has built up but disappeared because was been misappropriated?

In conclusion, there are a number of things we could do. The Bloc Quebecois has proposed a series of amendments and we would like to see the bill improved. For instance, the government could have abolished the waiting period, created a separate fund, increased the coverage rate from 55% to 60%, reduced to 300 the number of hours required to qualify for special benefits and increased the duration of benefits and indexed the annual ceiling. All sorts of measures could have been passed. I have a series of proposals which we have discussed in committee and have been discussing for a long time.

None of this is irresponsible because it can all be done without any threat to the fund. Even if all these suggestions and others were implemented, the fund would still have a surplus and a slight cushion for contingencies. The government is turning a deaf ear. The Minister of Finance prefers to rake in a surplus and do all sorts of things with it. That is why we will be voting against the bill at report stage and at third reading.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Given the motion that has just passed and the unanimous consent, I would like to clarify the business of the House because it has been changed. In any case, there have been consultations about future business which I would like to share it with the House.

After completing the debate on Bill C-2 at report stage, the House will return to third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institutions bill. After this we will call Bill C-18, the equalization bill; Bill C-17, the innovation foundation; and Bill C-22, the income tax bill, in that order.

Tomorrow shall be an allotted day, as already announced.

Wednesday shall be the day allocated for third reading of Bill C-2. I understand there will be some co-operation to ensure that all parties have a spokesperson on Wednesday. I intend to do my part on this side of the House in that regard.

On Thursday we shall resume the list from today, adding at the end Bill C-9, the elections bill. We shall continue the list on Friday, adding Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you would seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for the conclusion of report stage of Bill C-2 later this day, one hour from now, be deferred until the conclusion of government orders later this day.

Employment Insurance Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(2) has been reached with regard to the allocation of time for Bill C-2. Therefore I move:

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 hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for the report stage and at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allocated for the third 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 the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put and disposed of forthwith and successively without further debate, amendment or adjournment.

Once the motion is passed, assuming it is, I would return to the House and I think there would be consent that the vote be deferred until this evening, to be taken at the same time as other votes.

Perhaps we should do it in steps. I will move the motion and then I will be back to Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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 disposal of proceedings at the said stages.

That being said, negotiations are still under way. There is at least the possibility of an agreement to a format. It is just that it was difficult to achieve it by the end of the day today. I do not want the House to think that negotiations are not continuing. They are, and even though I am now giving this notice I hope the negotiations will come to fruition at least as is possible.

Such being the case, I would not be moving the motion on Monday. Instead, I would be moving the motion that there has been a majority party agreement, which is still possible at least in theory. I wanted to notify members of that as well.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. We will then return to the second reading of Bill C-18, the equalization bill. That will be followed by Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider third reading of Bill C-8, the financial institution, and if necessary we will return to Bill C-18.

On Monday, we will return to Bill C-2. If it is completed at report stage, we will return to Bill C-18, C-17 or C-22 on the Income Tax Act, depending on which of these bills requires further consideration.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day, and I believe it is the Canadian Alliance's turn. On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-2. We will also try to complete third reading of Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments, and Bill C-9, the elections bill. If we have the time, I will also suggest completing Bill C-4, respecting the Sustainable Development Foundation, before adjourning for Easter.

Employment Insurance Act

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to Bill C-2.

My colleagues presented many aspects of the legislation that show that the government has no respect for employees as well as employers by not addressing their problems.

This legislation is hurting workers by refusing to address urgent situations and to correct the deficiencies of the current act.

What the Bloc Quebecois is asking for is clear. The measures the Bloc Quebecois is asking for are meant to correct flaws in the plan by taking into account the day to day condition of workers and a labour market that keeps changing, with students who have to combine a job and studying and an increasing number of independent workers. These two groups are not taken into account in the bill, but they will have to be soon.

It is the duty of the federal government to address the issue right away so that these two groups of workers are included just like other workers already covered by the plan.

The Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to respond to the hopes of workers, to further improve the EI plan and to eliminate discrimination in EI requirements.

We have to abolish the definition of labour force, because it penalizes directly the young and women in that they have to work a total of 910 hours in 52 weeks to qualify.

A women who re-enters the labour market after two years is considered a new entrant and not a member of the labour market. What a shame.

The same is true of young people who are also considered new entrants, because they are in their first job. This same definition allows certain workers to be eligible for the same plan with no more than 420 hours accumulated.

The self-employed have been completely forgotten. It might even be said that this segment does not exist at all, or worse, is not worth the bother to the government. Self-employed workers represented 12% of the total workforce in 1976. They represented 18% in 1999. The government cannot deny this segment of the population which now represents one worker in five. The figure is huge.

We must absolutely not forget that this sector of workers is growing. The federal government must, right now, include these workers fully in the employment insurance plan.

Another group penalized by this bill is that of young people. It creates a dichotomy in that students must go to school as well as work in order to survive and in the hopes of finding well paid work. However the standards in this bill give them no help at all.

The latest census in 1996 reported over 2.8 million full time students. According to the monitoring and assessment report one million individuals earned less than $2,000 and were therefore entitled to a refund.

However, only 40% of these people applied for a refund and 42% of them were under 25 years of age. In short, 2.6 million students are being taxed to study. Young people—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope it is not my fiery comments that triggered the alarm. Anyway my mother would be very pleased with my speech.

To pick up where I left off, I was saying that the debate we are having today is somewhat preposterous because the flaws and the adverse impact of the EI reform have now been experienced for more than five years throughout Quebec and Canada. It has penalized farm workers, as I mentioned with regard to my riding, self-employed workers who are excluded and young families.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville talked about this at length a while ago, but it is important for me to mention it again, as my riding of Joliette includes suburbs such as Le Gardeur and L'Assomption where many young families are finding it extremely difficult to get their lives organized, to combine work and family, and who should have access to sensible parental leave.

As a matter of fact, as I was winding up my speech when the alarm sounded I was saying that in Quebec we were imaginative enough to include self-employed workers in the parental leave program introduced by the minister of the day. Therefore, if the federal government had any imagination, we could solve all the problems that have been identified in the EI reform.

It is obvious that Bill C-2, just like its predecessor Bill C-44, solves none of the basic problems which have been identified by everybody. I am happy that the committee unanimously adopted the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, asking that it report back on all these aspects by June 1.

I will concentrate on a particular aspect of Bill C-2 that we on this side consider fundamental, that is clause 9 in which the government claims the right to set the rate of EI premiums currently set by the Employment Insurance Commission with the approval of the governor in council and under the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

I know that the Minister of Finance has repeatedly ignored the commission's recommendations over the last few years, but there is at least a debate held regularly on the rate required to finance the measures provided for in the employment insurance program.

With clause 9 of Bill C-2 the government is trying to legalize what it is doing already, that is to legalize the misappropriation of funds we are witnessing with the creation of a surplus completely unrelated to the needs of the EI fund, a $35 billion surplus accumulated since 1995. This is totally unacceptable.

The premiums are paid by the workers and by the employers. We believe that it should be up to them, and only them, to set the rates needed for funding the measures provided for in the employment insurance plan.

The federal government accomplished quite a feat, and it is not the first time, when it achieved a consensus in Quebec among all partners in the labour market against clause 9, indeed against Bill C-2. When we see that the FTQ and the Conseil du patronat both denounce clause 9 by which the government is giving itself the right to establish contribution rates, I think there is a problem and the government should do something right now to convince us not to vote against Bill C-2. Obviously the Bloc finds the bill totally unacceptable because of clause 9.

However we must go further. How can the government justify giving itself the right to set premium rates under clause 9? I believe the government does not see the full impact of that provision because there are relatively few social consensus building fora in Canada. We know that labour relations have been rather stormy in the past and still are today.

Our unionization rate is not as high as I would like it to be but it is still one of the highest in the western world. In Quebec, for example, it is about 40% while in Canada it is around 34%. A government must have a social relation vision in order to be able to make labour market partners accountable on a number of issues.

With workers and employers each having a representative the EI commission was a consensus building forum. It encouraged social dialogue. By eliminating that forum through clause 9 the government is directly depriving labour market partners of their responsibilities and giving itself the right to decide the contribution rate of a plan to which it is not giving a cent. By taking that responsibility away from partners on the labour market it contributes to creating, I would even say generating, a vision of confrontation in terms of labour relations. In that regard I think the federal government is not acting responsibly.

Instead of doing what everyone is trying to do now in the western world, that is creating forums for social dialogue, it is eliminating one by giving itself the right to set the premium rates. I think that the approach taken in clause 9 goes beyond, and far beyond, the issue of employment insurance, even though that is already unacceptable. It goes to show that the government has no vision as far as the development of social relations within our society is concerned.

In that regard I urge the government to accept the amendment we brought in to delete clause 9 so that we can vote for Bill C-2, although we are aware that the legislation does not resolve the problems I have pointed out concerning admissibility. I hope this can be addressed after the committee tables its report in early June.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak today in the House to Bill C-2 and, in particular, to the amendment.

I would first like to pay tribute to the incredible amount of work that has taken place to bring the bill to where it is today, limited as it is.

I along with many of my colleagues were elected in 1997. From day one of being elected to parliament, members of the New Democratic Party took up the issue of the discrimination and unfairness in the Employment Insurance Act which was brought in 1996. In particular, our spokesperson on unemployment insurance, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has taken this issue up with an absolute passion and is an advocate for the unemployed men and women in this country. It is the work of that member and of other members in the opposition that has forced this issue on to the political agenda. It is quite ironic to see the amount of effort that was needed to force the government to bring forward even the very limited changes that are before us today in Bill C-2.

In looking over the bill and the amendments, there is no question that if the bill is approved in its present form it would still act as a discriminatory piece of legislation and hurt those members of society who need the most protection and support.

A glaring contradiction to the bill are the statements the government side has made in the House professing to be concerned about the increase in child poverty. I remember the unanimous resolution that was approved by the House in 1989, moved by the then leader of the NDP, Mr. Ed Broadbent, calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. It was a noble goal. Not only have we not reached that goal, we have fallen further behind. We now have more children living in poverty as a result of public policies. One of those public policies is what has taken place with employment insurance.

My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spoke very eloquently on how the bill historically, and even today, would have a very negative impact on women. When we look at the provisions of the bill we realize that even though women pay into employment insurance they will not qualify.

On the one hand, with great respect, we have come to this point only because of the absolute determination of members in our party and other parties to bring this forward. On the other hand, it is with a note of frustration and anxiety when I see that the bill still does not fundamentally address the inequities that exist within the system.

As the member for Winnipeg North Centre noted earlier, if the bill had come forward with a gender based analysis, as the government side said that it would, we would not be debating the bill in its current form today.

I am concerned that the provisions before us today will not help part time workers. They will not help women and they will not help all new parents. One of the positive things about the bill is that it does provide new provisions for new parents, but not all new parents will qualify.

I can tell members, and I am sure it is true for other members of the House, about the phone calls I am getting in my constituency office in Vancouver East from people who are desperate for support for their families.

My constituents hear about the debate in the House of Commons. They look with a sense of hope that some changes could be coming to provide them with some relief to pay the rent, to put food on the table, and to have bus fare to go to school and to go to various activities in the community. Constituents phone and ask whether the bill would help them, whether they would qualify for employment insurance.

Reading the fine print we find that there are still huge numbers of people, particularly women, part time workers and seasonal workers, who will be left behind.

The New Democratic Party is concerned that Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill, further entrenches growing inequality. Members have an opportunity to recognize that the moneys that flow into the fund come from the workers of Canada. We have a financial, social and political responsibility to make sure that unemployed workers, parents who are seeking re-entry into the workforce and members of our society are protected.

We have a responsibility to ensure that they are treated with fairness and that they are not penalized by clawback measures which still exist in the current bill. Unfortunately that is not the case. The changes in the bill are so limited that the number of people who would be affected is very small.

The New Democratic Party and I know we are joined by other members who understand that the political process is determined and resolved in its efforts to make sure the issue stays at the top of the political agenda. It is about fairness and equality. It is about recognizing how women have been discriminated against.

We believe in the charter of rights and in equality. We believe that when workers pay into a fund they have a right to income security when they are either unemployed, laid off or seasonal workers. New parents should have access to parental leave. They have a right to a certain level of comfort and security.

We will continue to work very hard to make sure that the amendments before us today that deal with some of the worst aspects of the bill and try to improve it are passed. There is no question that a much more indepth analysis is required on the whole question of employment insurance.

I urge all members of the House to support the amendments before us today that deal with some of the problems in the bill. It must not stop there. It is only one small step. We must be committed to ensuring there are further changes to the system to end discrimination against unemployed people and women. We must accept a very basic premise that unemployed people in Canada have a right to access their own insurance funds.

One of the worst scandals is how the fund has been raided over the years by the Government of Canada. Thirty-five billion dollars has been taken in tax cuts to balance the books. That does not help poor people. In any other instance this would be a completely intolerable situation, yet it has been allowed to happen here.

It is so shameful that we see people desperately trying to keep a roof over their heads, to pay bills every month, and to have their kids go to school. Yet these billions of dollars have been accumulated in the surplus fund and the money will not go to the people who most desperately need it. There is no other example that is as outrageous, as discriminatory and as unfair as this one.

We on this side of the House and in this party will continue to fight what appears to be the agenda of the government, to ensure that unemployed people do not get what they deserve. We want to make sure they have full access to income security and are treated with fairness and without discrimination.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak during report stage of Bill C-2 and in particular to address my remarks to the amendments the House is now dealing with.

The perspective I bring to the Chamber this afternoon is one of equality for women and parents. In my view if one addressed and analyzed the bill from the point of view of gender fairness and non-discrimination it would fail the test.

I have, as do I think many others in the House, a question for the government. Was a gender analysis done for the bill? Were the concerns of Canadians about the discriminatory features of the existing Employment Insurance Act addressed in preparation for Bill C-2?

It would seem that on every count and in every instance the government has failed to address those concerns and has perpetuated the enormous inequalities and discriminatory features of the act and of the legislation before us.

We have raised before in the House our concerns about the changes introduced by the government in 1997. We have raised the concern that the government has taken important revenue away from workers and unemployed Canadians to deal with its preoccupation of balancing the budget and addressing the debt and deficit.

We had hoped, in this time of surplus and given the intentions of the government to redress its previous mistakes, that the bill would be a step forward. Unfortunately that is not the case.

It is a particularly sad day for us to be here addressing the bill when at this very moment and as we speak a charter challenge is being heard in the courts. It is a charter challenge that could have been avoided had the government put its money where its mouth was. If it had adhered to and respected its own rhetoric the challenge would not be before the courts today.

The witnesses and testimonies for the charter challenge were heard on February 19. It is expected that we will soon hear the results of the challenge. All expectations are that it will be successful and that the government will need to deal with the situation. It will need to deal with its neglect in terms of equality for women, part time workers and parents.

I acknowledge the work and contribution to the country by the Community Unemployed Help Centre of Winnipeg, which has taken up the challenge and supported a woman by the name of Kelly Lesiuk in her charter challenge.

Following the 1997 changes, the Community Unemployed Help Centre of Winnipeg surveyed organizations and individuals to determine how the act might be improved. It heard very clearly from participants that the present act was having a profound effect on workers with the most tenuous attachment to the labour force, including part time workers, new entrants and re-entrants.

The people who responded to the survey felt that unless the government addressed those concerns a charter challenge was perfectly in order and that there was incredible merit for such a case.

Kelly Lesiuk, a part time nurse from Winnipeg, came forward with her situation. I will describe her case briefly so members can see how the act and the bill before us fail to address a fundamental right and freedom in our society.

Kelly Lesiuk worked part time for five years while also raising a child. When Kelly's husband found alternate employment in Winnipeg the family moved from Brandon, Manitoba and were faced with a difficult situation. Kelly was five months pregnant with her second child. She applied for employment insurance in Winnipeg. It was her justifiable expectation to obtain regular EI benefits while seeking employment. She expected that when she was no longer able to work she could switch her claim to maternity and then to parental benefit.

Needless to say, the Lesiuks were shocked to find that Kelly failed to qualify for benefits because she had fallen 33 hours short of the 700 hours required at the time of her application. As Kelly said in an interview in the spring of 1999:

To make it through, we've had to deplete our savings, RRSPs, max out our credit cards and borrow money. I have had to return to work just six weeks after having my baby boy by cesarean section. The safety net that we felt was there for us was not.

Kelly is not alone in the situation she experienced. Hundreds of other women, part time workers and parents are in similar situations. Some 60 other cases based on similar circumstances are waiting to be heard pending the final word on the charter challenge.

It is a shame that women like Kelly must go through such a lengthy legal process. It is a shame that when the government had an opportunity to act so many other women are left waiting to hear how things will unfold.

We are dealing with a failure on the part of the government to address a systemic problem. The government and society must recognize that today women represent 70% of part time workers. That means they bear a disproportionate negative impact under the government's approach to employment insurance. They are the hardest hit by the Liberals' rules on employment insurance.

To drive home the point, let us remember that seven out of ten unemployed women have no access to benefits. Let us also remind ourselves that only 15% of young women now qualify for employment insurance. Finally, let us recognize that only half of women who give birth receive maternity benefits under existing EI rules. This is because so many women are in part time, temporary or on call contracts that the government cannot meet the requirements.

It would have been very important for the government at this opportune moment to address those concerns and bring forward appropriate amendments to ensure there is no discriminatory impact on women in our society today. For goodness' sake, we are in the year 2001.

For some 30 years women and women's movements across Canada have been fighting for legislation that has no gender bias. They have been fighting for pay equity, recognition under employment insurance rules and fair treatment with respect to pensions.

Women have asked the government over and over again to ensure that every law is looked at from the point of view of its impact on women and that every proposal before the House comes with a gender based analysis. There could not have been a gender based analysis with respect to this bill, or we would not be here today talking about its impact on women. It is a matter of acting on the facts.

In conclusion, the government has talked a lot about equality and about redressing the problems it created through its changes to the Employment Insurance Act in 1997. This is the moment and the opportune time to make those changes.

We have a bill before us that could correct both problems and ensure that women, particularly women who work part time and women who continue to have the primary responsibility for the raising of children, are not discriminated against by actions of the government. That is the fair, the just and the right thing to do.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the bill before us today.

Let me begin by saying that in my opinion the employment insurance issue has evolved somewhat, but in a negative way. Let me explain.

There was a time when the federal government contributed to the employment insurance fund, then called the unemployment insurance fund, to the tune of about 25%. Of course the rest of the money came from employers and workers. All of a sudden in the 1980s, the government said “We will no longer contribute to the employment insurance fund. We will no longer put in our 25%. From now on all the money will come from employers and workers”.

A number of economic and financial studies have shown that our businesses have since lost a degree of competitivity, because they must make greater contributions to the employment insurance fund.

That decision has been a costly one. At the same time that the government was withdrawing from the plan in the 1980s a number of bills were introduced to make it harder for people to qualify for benefits. Before these changes seven or eight people in ten who would lose their jobs would qualify for EI benefits, compared to only four now.

The federal government is putting less money into the fund. In fact, it is not putting any and it is tightening eligibility rules and a whole set of other rules, which my colleague described very well. These will, if I understand correctly, be raised before the House on June 1, 2001, when the standing committee tables a report.

The rules were tightened and made stricter. The government withdrew and contributed less money while at the same time wanting more control. Hon. members will tell me there is nothing new about that. That is more or less what the federal government has been doing for several years. It wants to contribute less and less but to centralize more and more.

This has had repercussions. In my riding of Saint-Jean a PSAC survey has shown clearly that Saint-Jean was losing $21 million yearly because of all the restrictions relating to employment insurance: restrictions on eligibility, on the number of weeks, on what the federal government contributes. Saint-Jean has received $21 million less than it did under the generous, previous plan.

Saint-Jean is not alone. In all ridings of Quebec and all ridings of Canada similar things have been happening. As a result, people losing their jobs have found themselves dependent on provincial welfare once they were no longer eligible for employment insurance.

I hardly need point out that Ottawa has also reduced the amounts earmarked for transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and social assistance. Thus the provinces are hit with exorbitantly heavy costs.

Why are we against this bill at the moment? It is because of clause 9. If the government agreed to delete clause 9 there would be no problem. Under the current legislation the premium rate is set by the Employment Insurance Commission on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

The bill before us goes further. The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance will make their recommendations directly to the government. They will no longer have to go through the commission. As I was saying earlier, the government no longer contributes to the EI fund. This means that from now on there is a great risk that the decisions made by the department, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development in terms of setting the premium rate will be based on government needs.

A lot of people question the legitimacy of a fund like the one we now have, with a $6 to $7 billion a year surplus for a cumulative total of about $25 billion over the last few years, when that money is used for purposes other than the one for which it was intended, namely helping people who lose their jobs.

There is a major problem with clause 9 and we cannot agree to it. Many people have criticized this clause. In Quebec businesses and employers have spoken out against this because they have realized that they are now paying more without getting anything out of it, practically. They know that by paying more surpluses are building up in Ottawa and that part of what they are paying is used by the government to meet its own needs, which is not what the EI fund was designed to do.

Employees who pay premiums every week have come to the same conclusion. They are saying that it does not only provide a safety net for those who lose their jobs. They understand that with what the government is taking out of the fund it can pay back its debts or inject money in its daily operations.

There is a big problem. If the government could come to terms with this issue and say that it will forget about clause 9 and leave it up the commission to set the rate, then it could have the support of the Bloc Quebecois. Until it change its mind, it will have to do without our support.

I also want to commend our colleague for making a list of very specific items that are not in the bill but that will eventually have be considered. Let me review some of them. There is the elimination of the waiting period, which is very important to us. During the 1998 ice storm in my riding of Saint-Jean people who had paid EI premiums all their lives and were laid off when their employers had to close shop because they were out of power were told “You have to wait two weeks”. I thought that was too much. These people had been paying in all their lives and needed these benefits, but the federal government had found a way to turn them down.

The way I see it, it is not an employee's fault when there are no longer any jobs. Employment insurance is a safety net. The only purpose I can see for the government in a waiting period is to ensure a supply of additional funds or fewer expenditures.

It is the same with the creation of older workers' benefits. Since the government wrapped up the POWA program, which was designed to help older workers, we have had terrible problems in our ridings. People regularly come to my office telling me “Listen, I am 55 or 58, and I swear to you that when I apply for work people look at me in an odd way and I never get an interview”. This is only normal. Employers are going to select from a much younger pool. They feel that even though older workers have accumulated a lot of experience, they will not be with the company as long. They do not tell them “We are not going to hire you”. They say “We are sorry, but we have selected someone else. We are not able to hire you, but we will keep your name on file”.

Be that as it may, these people are unable to find another job, and this causes a problem. This is one of the things that must be looked at a little later on, I imagine, when the standing committee submits its report on June 1. For now, there are a whole series of issues that have not been resolved. One of these is the benefit rate. It is now 55% instead of the 60% it used to be.

This is part of what I was saying earlier, that the government has tightened and tightened in order to go on increasing its surpluses for its own needs. This is something that is difficult to accept.

I appeal to the government's sense of reason. If it wants the support of the Bloc Quebecois, all it has to do is delete clause 9 and arrange things so that the commission, which sets premium rates on the recommendation of the two ministers, is maintained, so that it at least avoids the appearance of the government wanting to help itself to the fund.

If the government withdraws clause 9 the Bloc Quebecois would be pleased to support Bill C-2.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak about Bill C-2 and the whole employment insurance saga.

We know that the reforms in the employment insurance program have made victims and that some people cannot collect insurance benefits any more when they loose their job.

Today we are asking for real action. We are asking for a real reform that will give more people access to employment insurance. Six people in ten are currently excluded. Such an insurance should allow any worker who loses his or her job to collect employment insurance benefits, but it is not the case any more since the 1996 reform of the employment insurance program.

Some changes were introduced through various bills, including Bill C-44 which only brought minor improvements. I cannot understand how the government could not respond to people's expectations. Our committee had several meetings to look at a real indepth reform of the employment insurance bill. We have heard groups that were very representative of the population.

The Bloc Quebecois went on a few fact finding tours to try and understand what was happening in the various areas, what impact this unfair and unwarranted reform was having. It has already hurt many, people who could not find work in time to go back to work within a reasonable time frame. We were talking about the spring gap. Many seasonal workers do not qualify for EI because their insurable period has been shortened.

Before the elections they were talking about true employment insurance reform, but now they are back with Bill C-2. It does not go far enough. It will hurt the unemployed without really overhauling the system.

Our critic on human resources development, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, has really worked hard in committee. He is very familiar with this issue. After listening to the concerns of the various witnesses, he came back with amendments to the overall Employment Insurance Act and asked the government to consider them.

About 60 organizations appeared before the committee to talk about the reality faced by the unemployed, by all those who lose their jobs and can no longer qualify. The legislation limits access to EI benefits. The Bloc Quebecois is bringing forward all the changes he has been asking for. The Bloc's concern is not new. This has been an issue for the Bloc ever since 1993, because we are very much aware of the hardship faced by the people who were discriminated against because they cannot qualify.

We can also talk about eliminating the waiting period, something that was set to target workers who were claiming UI benefits too often. They were not doing so out of malice but because they were unable to find work.

We know that the 1996 reform, which was unprecedented in this government, made it even harder for workers to qualify. Those who used EI too often were penalized and saw their benefit rate reduced by as much as 5%.

During those five years recipients could no longer get benefits at a rate of 55% of insurable earnings since they could lose up to 50% of their benefit rate.

Why are we calling for the establishment of a separate employment insurance fund? It is because what is happening right now is unacceptable. The government is dipping into the EI fund. It is doing it to eliminate the deficit, which makes it look like a government that has a lot of money to hand out in grants to friends of the party or in grants with no particular objective in terms of helping the unemployed.

We know there is $36 billion in the EI fund today. We could have a separate fund administered by those who contribute to it, namely workers and employers. That fund must be managed separately.

We are calling for an increase in insurable earnings from 55% to 60% to respond to the rising cost of living. Right now the rate is 55%. This increase is totally justified to give the unemployed slightly higher benefits to help them make ends meet while they look for a job.

We are requesting a change in the definition of the rate calculation period from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. At present, those who qualify are few and they have fewer weeks of insurable employment.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord keeps saying that we should be fair with the regions. Often workers in some areas depend on seasonal or unstable jobs. Twenty-six weeks is clearly not enough in a context where there may not be any jobs available.

Another serious change we would like to see is the insurability of independent workers through a voluntary plan. Had the reform of employment insurance been tailored to the needs of the labour market, an assessment of the impact on independent workers would have been made.

I also know, because I was told about it, that the cultural industry should have been taken into consideration Human resources people in the cultural industry have formed a coalition, asking for a pilot project for cultural workers. These are very often independent workers, with incomes at or below the poverty level. That is another aspect of the labour market which has not been taken into account.

We wanted to bring down to 300 hours the eligibility requirement for special benefits. In some areas those who want to take a maternal or parental leave with special benefits, or those who are sick, have to work more hours. They need 600 hours before they qualify for EI benefits.

We would like to bring that figure down to 300 hours. In some areas workers need 420 hours to be eligible. It is unacceptable that people who experience very special conditions cannot be treated just like other workers.

Concerning the increase in the duration of benefits I believe that if we do not take into account what is really going on in the field, some people will find themselves without any EI benefits and that their duration is too insignificant to meet their needs.

Harmonizing to 25% the earnings of all claimants before EI benefits are cut, this is a main theme of the Bloc Quebecois. Members can be assured that all the reforms asked for by the Bloc are shared by all the people who testified before the committee on human resources development and the status of people with disabilities.

Insurable yearly earnings must be indexed and raised to $41,500.

I think the government has a lot of work to do to correct this inequity going back to the 1996 reform, which resulted in several poverty level people having to apply for welfare. Finally, the provincial governments had to step in and take over the federal government's responsibility.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-2 which really hurts seasonal workers.

During the election campaign the Prime Minister claimed loud and clear throughout Quebec that as soon as he was back in office in Ottawa his government would undertake an indepth reform of the EI plan.

In some regions Canadian voters believed him and in others they did not. In the Gaspé peninsula people believed that the Prime Minister, having finally wiped out the deficit, was promising in his red book to completely overhaul the EI plan.

The citizens of the Gaspé and the islands were fooled again. They were wrong in voting Liberal, even if the Liberal member made a heartfelt appeal to the Prime Minister during the campaign, asking him to finally listen and keep the election promises he had personally made.

The Prime Minister will not be easily moved by the heartfelt cry from my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. The Prime Minister has been in politics for 35 years. He has seen and done all kinds of things. He made promises and even acknowledged that he was mistaken when he had seasonal workers, women and students pitch in to help wipe out the deficit by cutting their EI benefits from 55% to 50%. This had a double effect.

The Prime Minister thought these cuts in their benefits would encourage them to improve their skills and work longer.

Several members mentioned that in several areas of Quebec such as Charlevoix and the North Shore there were a lot of seasonal jobs. Workers would like to have permanent jobs. Employers would like to be able to give them permanent jobs. As we know, if employers cannot guarantee a high enough number of hours of work to allow workers to qualify for employment insurance benefits, they tend to leave. It is very expensive for employers to have to constantly train new workers for these seasonal jobs.

Bill C-44 was on the table before the election campaign. The Prime Minister promised an indepth reform when parliament reconvened. He introduced Bill C-2. Bill C-2 is a photocopy of Bill C-44. If Bill C-44 was not acceptable, Bill C-2 is even less so because again it does not meet the commitments made by the government during the election campaign. The government was re-elected on these promises.

It would take some major changes right away. There was no need for Bill C-2 to go through all the stages: introduction and first reading, second reading, committee review to hear witnesses, back to the House for third reading and finally royal assent. I am convinced the Prime Minister would have had the unanimous consent of the House, of both government and opposition members, to split Bill C-2 into two separate parts.

We would have unanimously agreed to it if only the government had promised to immediately and retroactively give back all the money it took from the unemployed through the intensity rule, to bring in an increase from 50% to 55% to eliminate the clawback effect, and to bring in an increase from $28,000 to $38,000 to allow, mothers to stay on maternity leave instead of being unemployed for two or four years. We would have agreed unanimously to split the bill.

The government would have also made the commitment to proceed to a true reform of the employment insurance plan. The Prime Minister knows what a true reform of the EI plan is, and so do the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance since there was such a reform in 1996, the Axworthy reform, when drastic cuts were made to the plan.

In 1996, when the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the then Minister of Human Resources Development decided to reform the EI plan, their goal was to take in as much as possible and give out as little as possible. With eligibility requirements set at 910 hours, six persons out of ten who paid EI contributions were not eligible for benefits.

The need is in our ridings but the money is in Ottawa. The unemployed need the money but the Minister of Finance has it in his pockets. Of course the intensity rule made no sense at all. The Prime Minister recognized that fact following a question from the Bloc Quebecois and undertook to review the rule and change it. However we are asking for a lot more than that.

At least 60 to 70 witnesses came to say unanimously to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that Bill C-2 did not go far enough. The two week waiting period should also be abolished. We know that employment insurance is an insurance that employees and employers pay into in case there is a job loss or termination. It is part of the social benefits.

It is not because people apply for EI benefits that they must be penalized with a two week waiting period. Why keep the 910 hour requirement for seasonal workers? Whether they are temporary or part time employees, these people pay premiums and never receive benefits.

A seasonal worker status should be recognized. This would prevent regions from quarrelling among themselves. This would also somewhat prevent businesses, employers and employees from being in a difficult situation compared to others.

On the ferry, the boat belonging to the Société des traversiers du Québec which sails between Baie Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac in my riding, I have seen Tadoussac and Baie Sainte-Catherine residents who did not have the same EI coverage. This is illogical because they have the same employer.

Also, when a seasonal employee was lucky enough to get some work in the last two or three years, he needed 420 hours to qualify for 32 insurable weeks. The minister wants to come back with her project in 2003-04. However this is done increasingly. In 2000-01, today, 420 hours are required to qualify for 32 weeks. In 2001-02 someone will have to work 420 hours to qualify for 28 weeks. Already next year four weeks will be cut. In 2002-03 it will be 455 hours for 24 weeks and in 2003-04 525 hours for 21 weeks.

At this time of year, at the end of March, we will be reading in the papers or hearing on the TV that according to Statistics Canada the unemployment rate has dropped in Quebec and Canada. Why has the unemployment rate dropped? It is because people are no longer covered by employment insurance. The government is not paying money out any more. It is paying out a lot less. Statistics Canada says the unemployment rate has dropped. It is not because people have entered the labour market. It is because they no longer get employment insurance cheques. At this point it is something like the principle of communicating vessels.

If people do not get EI cheques social assistance goes up. Who pays for social assistance? The workers do, through their taxes. The workers of Quebec pay for this assistance which provides some income security.

Thirty-six billion dollars have been in the government coffers since the 1996 reform. Six people in ten are not entitled to EI. The needs are in ridings and the money is in Ottawa. The unemployed need money, and the money is in the Minister of Finance's pockets.

There have been multiple demonstrations, at least 10,000 signatures on petitions—I have tabled some 10—and meetings with native communities, unions, Charlevoix—Côte-Nord coalitions in an effort to appeal to the minister. We almost had to wring her arm to get a meeting.

She promised a bill, training and programs, but unfortunately the transitional measures were empty because there is no money in the program.

In closing, we want a thorough reform by the government as soon as possible, because the unemployed have been penalized enough by Liberal government reforms.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always very interested in talking about the employment insurance bill.

I have to say that I opposed the bill. I opposed it and I still oppose it, but a little less today because now I have hope.

I will first explain why the Bloc Quebecois and I oppose this bill as currently defined. First off, clause 9 of the bill gives the government the power to set the premium rates for 2002 and 2003, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

Under the existing act the premium rates are set by the commission, with the approval of the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance.

The nuance is significant since with the ousting of the commission for the rate setting process the rates could be adjusted according to the needs of the government and its deficit, rather than according to the needs of the unemployed and the amount of contributions received, as the chief actuary recommends.

If passed, clause 9 would legalize theft and the government's having full possession of the fund.

This morning people talked about a real employment insurance fund. However, with clause 9, we are making it legal for the government to draw from the fund surplus as it wishes. I therefore appeal to this government to have this clause repealed. If it were, I would vote in favour. The Bloc Quebecois would vote for the bill. Why?

If members read over my last speech concerning Bill C-2, they will find that I was very critical of that bill, which had nothing to do with the reality of the area I represent where seasonal work is a fact of life.

Why am I less critical today? It is because I have hope. Nevertheless, I remain concerned. I have hope, given the fact that a motion was adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which was put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and which said:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons other recommendations related to the Employment Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

Hearings were held and people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean gave testimony before the committee. We were very happy about that. Several witnesses said that the actual reform was nonsense since it does not answer the needs of our fellow citizens.

I am still concerned today, but I see a glimmer of hope. What will be the content of the report tabled on June 1? I do not know. However my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has all my confidence, because he is a man full of compassion and understanding toward Quebec workers. There are many things I would like to see in this report, and I hope it can generate major changes in the present plan.

The Employment Insurance Act as it stands now has a negative impact on my region and that of the hon. member for Charlevoix, because we both experienced the same kind of situation on July 1. This is not a problem affecting all our colleagues.

The act provides for a review of EI zones every five years. The number of hours and the number of weeks of benefits vary between an area with high unemployment and an area with a strong economy.

When the zoning is sensibly done it reflects the reality of regions. A new zone was established on July 1 last year without any real consultation. There were token consultations. I wrote to the minister to tell her I disagreed with this new EI zone. In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean her officials told her to keep the status quo. In spite of it all, the chief actuary established the new zone. Actually I do not know whether the actuary or the minister was involved, but that is not relevant. Still, a major change was made in that instead of having to work 420 hours to qualify workers from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region will now need 525 hours to get a maximum of 22 weeks of benefits, instead of 31.

This may be of little significance to us, in the comfort of our seats. This morning, I listened to the passionate speech made by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst on the realities experienced by the families and workers who will not qualify, or who will qualify but will only receive benefits until February. How will these people survive? From February to May when the tourist season starts and seasonal economic activities resume, these people will have to rely on income security, on welfare.

Do hon. members think this is what these people want? Absolutely not, particularly since they often have a house or a car, which is perfectly normal and something I wish on everyone. Because of that they cannot qualify for provincial income security. These people then find themselves without any income, and governments wonder why people turn to the underground economy. There comes a point where people have to get into survival mode. When the government comes up with measures like this one, with measures that do not reflect the workers' reality, some turn to the underground economy because they need to put bread and butter on the table.

That is why the minister, faced with an outcry from workers in our regions before the election was called, agreed to change the rules to propose transitional measures so that workers would have the time, the minister put it, to get used to the new EI rules which restrict eligibility and decrease the number of benefit weeks.

People do not get used to poverty. Even if we wanted to extend the tourism season, and we are working on it, the weather must be factored in. When the ground is frozen it is frozen, with the result that there are certain activities which are impossible during the winter season. Seasonal work is a reality in this country and must be taken into consideration.

I mentioned earlier that I hoped the committee would submit a report and that it would lead to amendments so that the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions would see a return to measures reflecting the economic reality of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. The result would be that seasonal workers could make both ends meet and that they would not find themselves facing poverty. This does not mean that they do not want to work. Far from it.

Once again, I listened to the speech by the member for Acadie—Bathurst who had heard in the House that some people are lazy and want to live off income security. There may be a percentage who do, but it is not true of most workers. Far from it. What people want are working conditions, work and decent pay, to which everyone is entitled.

If the existing rules are not amended the impact on the economy of my region and on businesses will be disastrous.

I mentioned workers who will face a gap in benefits in the spring. Businesses will be affected as well.

Unfortunately that is all the time I have.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to reiterate the points made by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party about the inadequacies of the legislation being proposed, specifically the short list of the amendments and changes that would be made, depending upon the outcome of the vote. Many more issues need to be addressed and I will draw them to the attention of the House at this time.

One issue that has been of particular import to my riding in the last few months is the change concerning the 85% rule that is required in one of the regulations under the act. It establishes that if an employee does not return to work in a strike lockout situation, the reason must be because of lack of work and not because of lack of work or production generated as a result of the strike lockout.

The rule is wide open to abuse on the part of employers if after the strike lockout they wish to be vindictive. The offensive part of the regulation is that the employer is the one who is sought out and asked for information on whether the 85% rule is being met.

I wish to make a side point here. The 85% rule is not only with regard to 85% of the employees being called back to work but also 85% of production being restored. It is a double opportunity for the employer to have the final decision on whether individual employees will qualify. We had two recent situations in Windsor where this specific situation arose.

The interesting part is that as a result of work done by the CAW union and my office, the department reversed the original decision disqualifying all those workers. Literally hundreds of them were disqualified. I still have not had a response from the minister in terms of the interpretation placed on the rule, but there seems to be some policy where during certain periods of time the rule is not enforced. Our party's position is that the rule should be done away with completely. The general application of the act and the regulations should flow once a strike lockout situation has terminated.

Another concern I have, and one that I run across in my riding repeatedly, is with one of the penalties under the legislation. It is in regard to individuals who know that they will be unemployed and they make arrangements in all good faith to seek retraining.

The government is actively pressing individuals who are unemployed to upgrade themselves. It constantly publishes figures about the need for people to recognize that in the course of their working career they will be repeatedly required to return to some educational or retraining program in order to maintain full employment.

In spite of the figures that we have all seen, and the position that the government is taking, individuals who wish to return to work by way of upgrading their skills and knowing that they will need to do that in order to get favourable employment situations, are in effect penalized by being required to go without employment benefits for a full two week period. They leave the workforce, usually not voluntarily, and then they are without any form of income for a full two weeks while in an educational program.

It is particularly offensive to single parent families with children who rely on that income to have a waiting period of two weeks. It has a very negative effect, particularly for women in the workforce, as it forces them to go on social service benefits rather than get the retraining that they really require. Retraining would be much better for them as it would enhance the overall economy and it would be good of society. That is another change that is required and we see no signs of the government moving on it.

My final point deals with the inaction on the part of the government to deal with the taking of the money that has been paid for by both employees and employers to the tune of $35 billion. It has also refused to even acknowledge a responsibility to replace those funds.

If the government returned those funds, there is no question that the amount the employer or employee would have to contribute would be significantly reduced. We need those funds available in case of a significant economic downturn, which we may be confronting at this period of time.

We need action on the part the government on each one of those items. As Bill C-2 and the proposed amendments show, we are not getting it at this time.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the comments of my colleagues. Before commenting on what my colleagues said about Bill C-2, I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As several members across the way have said, thanks to our spirit of co-operation almost all members of the committee recognized the importance of this bill. They also recognized that it was important to pass this bill as quickly as possible in this House and also in the other place.

Having acknowledged this spirit of co-operation in committee, I would also like to clarify certain comments made by my colleagues, especially regarding the motions on Bill C-2 brought forward in the House.

First, Motion No. 4, by my the Bloc Quebecois colleague, proposes to include sickness benefits in the retroactivity period for parents who are going back to work. The government designed this provision after concerns were expressed about the possibility of parents staying at home with their children and going back on the labour market later on.

At present, people are eligible for 15 weeks of sickness benefits. As far as the retroactivity period is concerned, we had promised to introduce Bill C-2 in September. Therefore, a retroactivity cheque will be sent to those eligible as soon as this bill is enacted.

The government is aware of the needs and concerns of Canadians, especially those who are too sick to work. This is why the government has improved access to sickness benefits by reducing from 700 to 600 the number of hours people have to work to be eligible.

Like any member of a government that gives thought to what it does, I, as well as the government and the minister, would like to proceed carefully and understand all aspects of the issue, which is an extremely complex one.

For instance, this system is designed to provide assistance to workers during temporary absences from the labour market. I believe that a decision about the level of support we should offer Canadians who are out of the labour market for an extended period is one which requires a much deeper and comprehensive analysis, one which will probably take in more than the EI system. For instance, assistance is available from the Canada pension plan.

Benefits from workers compensation programs, as well as the taxation system, also play a role. We should therefore approach this problem comprehensively and this is the direction in which the government is headed.

The second motion, which was deemed debatable here in the House, has to do with the clawback provision, which would not apply to fraudulent claims for benefit weeks. The member who moved this amendment in the House is suggesting that we should be more tolerant of those who defraud the EI system. His proposal would mean that Canadians who made honest claims for benefits would be required to give back a portion of their benefits, while those who made fraudulent claims would be exempt from having to do so.

In effect, the member is suggesting that we introduce an incentive for people to defraud the EI system. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the member who moved this amendment, but it is the potential impact of the amendment if ever it were passed. It is obvious that the government cannot go along with such an amendment to Bill C-2, and we therefore reject it.

Third, I would like to dwell on the famous clause 9 discussed earnestly by several members opposite. The purpose is to delete clause 9 of the bill that would change the way the premium rate is set in relation with the role of the EI commission.

Let us look at the facts. What is the bill saying? It is saying that the government wishes to suspend the commission's role in the determination of the premium rate, but contrary to what my hon. colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, it is not a suspension forever. It is a suspension for a period limited to two years in order to allow the government to review the way the rate is set.

Why are we asking for that? It is because we too happen to follow the advice of the auditor general who, as my hon. colleague said, is well accepted and recognized in this House. We are following the advice of the auditor general who indicated that the premium rate determination process was not clear enough. The Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons has also indicated that the mechanism should be reviewed.

It is in the perspective of a review aimed at making the rates fairer that we want to suspend the role of the commission. I repeat that the suspension would be extremely limited and would not exceed a two year period.

The review will deal with rates and premium rate determination. We believe, on the government side, that it is not appropriate to have the commission keep on setting the rates under those conditions. We want to review the system.

Finally, Motion No. 10, which was proposed by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and also addresses clause 9, would fundamentally change the purpose of clause 9. I would like to remind hon. members that clause 9 relates to the role of the commission in fixing the premium rate.

In fact, as I have just said in French, we are suspending the EI commission's role in rate setting for two years to allow time for the government to review how the rate is set.

Once again I will say in answer to my colleague from the Progressive Conservative that it is the auditor general who suggested that rate setting is not clear enough and hon. members on the other side of the House have said it before. The finance committee has also said that it needs to be revised. I remind all members that the finance committee of the House of Commons is made up of all parties present in the House.

These issues need to be addressed in the review. It is not appropriate to ask the commission to continue to set rates in these circumstances. Therefore, we are suspending their rate setting role while we conduct the review.

Finally, I would like to address an extremely important point that was raised by several members of this House, particularly members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, about the fact that Bill C-2 does not respond to the needs of the people of Canada.

The government has already made the commitment at the standing committee of this House to start examining suggestions made to us by witnesses who appeared before the committee and to make some recommendations to the minister.

However, I would like to quote once again the auditor general, who said to us on February 22, while appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:

—in the next two years—work will be done on how this should be done in the future. So I think the bill buys some time to come up with a better way of calculating the rates paid by the workers and their employers.

We thus have the support of the auditor general.

Before concluding, I have two other quotations. The first is from Mr. Robert Blakely, director of Canadian affairs, building and construction trades department, AFL-CIO, who said “In general, we support the reforms proposed under Bill C-2”.

Another quotation—

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-2.

First I want to tell members how deeply moving I found the 60 statements or so that we heard during the committee's hearings. They disturbed me because they were a cold and profound reflection of the needs of the Canadian and Quebec societies.

To briefly resume the situation, we now have before us Bill C-2, the former Bill C-40 introduced in 1996. This bill does not bring about the radical changes requested by Canadians as a whole, unions, women's groups, young people, boards of trade, employers and all the representatives of the Canadian and Quebec populations.

I would like to quote parts of some briefs tabled by people who appeared before the committee. I think it is important to read them into the record and to remember what those people had to say.

As the House knows, and I would like to congratulate my Bloc colleague who introduced this motion, in committee we succeeded, with the assistance of the government, in asking for a report from the committee which will be able to examine all the briefs and report back to the House before June 1.

We hope that it will advance the cause of unemployed workers and not just ease the government's conscience. This report has to lead to something concrete, to major changes in the EI plan.

I want to come back to certain labour unions, including the CSN, which represents a good 250,000 workers in Quebec. The following is a short passage from its brief:

As for the amendments in Bill C-2, the CSN feels that these are half measures which will not result in access for those workers who have lost their job because of changes in the work place.

I will now read a few lines from the FTQ brief.

FTQ members would have hoped for much more from EI reform. We feel that the legislator does not go far enough to right the wrongs of past reforms.

That was what the FTQ had to say. Another labour confederation in Quebec, the CSD, put it this way:

A decent reform would not give the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance the authority to set premium rates, when it was the employment insurance commission that used to have this authority.

This is an unacceptable ploy that will give the government unfettered access to surpluses in the EI fund, because premium rates will no longer hinge on self-funding but on the government's financial needs.

We are not the ones saying so; the CSD is.

My last quotations will be from the auditor general, in whom we have the utmost confidence.

Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, and Chapter 34 of the December 2000 Report, lack clarity on the basis used in setting employment insurance rates.

A little later on in his statement the auditor general adds:

The introduction of Bill C-2 has not alleviated our concern. There is no requirement for the interim rate-setting process to be more transparent.

Furthermore, unlike the introduction of Bill C-44, there is no information on, or commitment to review, the rate-setting process while section 66 is suspended. In other words, the scope and nature of the review, if any, are unclear.

When the committee met with the various witnesses our awareness of a number of areas was greatly improved. Perhaps I do not have enough time in my 10 minutes to give them all, but I shall try to touch on them briefly.

There was discussion of the seasonal industries, for the truth is that it is the work that is seasonal and not the workers. I can speak with authority on this because my riding depends on tourism, which is a seasonal industry.

When the snow is gone, so are the jobs. People have to wait until the summer tourist season comes along to work in golf clubs and the like.

Between those two seasons, however, they have no work. They go off to apply for employment insurance. They are faced with a two week penalty because every time a person applies he or she has to wait two weeks before drawing maybe a month of benefits. These people return to the labour market for the summer, and with the arrival of fall they are again penalized for two weeks because they apply for employment insurance for three or four weeks while looking for work for the winter.

Is this what these people want? Do we think they go out of their way to get half their salary twice a year for two months? They lose a month's salary, a month of income in their budget. They have to live with that. They have to plan their lives around it. These people depend on this industry. Why are they penalized? This is totally unacceptable.

Do we think that the women working in seasonal industry are happy at losing their spots in day care? Not at all. They have to continue sending their children to day care while they are not working to make sure they do not lose their place. They pay for that.

It is not true that people are encouraged to go on employment insurance. It is totally false. If these people could do without it, they would do a lot better.

There is also the whole issue of self-employed workers. In Quebec there are a lot of small businesses. Elsewhere in Canada too, but primarily in Quebec, a lot of small and medium size businesses have been established.

Self-employed workers have become a fact of life. There were perhaps fewer of them in the past than there are now, but it is a fact of life in Quebec and Canada.

These people often work very hard for long hours and they are not protected by any system. They represent perhaps 18% of the population. That is a lot of people. They would like to be included in the employment insurance plan if possible or in something like it. They want to be part of a plan that would allow them to have employment insurance. They are prepared to pay the money necessary for the protection. They need it just as much as the person working for a business.

This will increasingly be the case in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. These people cannot be excluded. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the bill for them.

Another very important issue for me is the case of young workers. It almost makes no sense to require young workers to work 910 hours. It is absurd. They are penalized because they are part of the labour market. Does the government realize the result of this? It leads some employers to abuse, to tell a young person “You better work and do your job, otherwise you will not get employment insurance benefits”.

I could have elaborated on other issues such as the case of pregnant women. Why are pregnant women penalized when a newborn child should be the most wonderful thing that can happen to a family? Pregnant women are being penalized. From now on, women may decide to have children or not based on whether they qualify for employment insurance benefits. Otherwise they will not be able to afford it. This does not make sense.

There is $35 billion in a fund that belongs to people who have contributed to it throughout their lives but who will not qualify. This is totally absurd.

I would like to end with clause 9. We asked that this clause be deleted. It is the most important one in the bill. It reads:

Notwithstanding section 66, the premium rate for each of the years 2002 and 2003 is the rate set for the year by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.

We want that clause deleted. We do not want it. We do not want these people to set the premium rate and to decide who will be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating report stage of Bill C-2, the minor reforms to the existing EI legislation that the government brought forward.

We saw a large number of witnesses in committee, all of whom contributed their time and input to give us a better understanding of the potential impact of the legislation. We heard from business and labour, from fishermen from both coasts, from restaurateurs, and from a host of others. Not one of them could bring themselves to support the bill in its entirety.

My colleague and chief critic from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and I, together with the witnesses, agree that the bill is tinkering at its best. It addresses what the government considers flaws in the 1996 EI reforms, but it fails even at that small task.

Rather than continue what it began in 1996, that is to discourage repeat users of the EI as a wage supplement program, the bill actually takes a step backward. During the testimony in committee most of the witnesses were looking for a more indepth review of the entire employment insurance system. We concur that the bill is not broad enough to cover their concerns.

At report stage we deal with amendments. My colleague has moved an amendment calling for the deletion of clause 9 of the bill and our colleagues from the Bloc have essentially moved the same amendment as well. I hope all hon. members support the amendment. The clause as written would give EI premium rate setting powers to the governor in council for the next two years. Clause 9 is a blatant hijacking of the rights of the employment insurance commission.

The government indicates that it is only giving rate setting powers to the cabinet for two years. If hon. members believe that the cabinet would give the powers back after those two years, I have some land in Shawinigan that they may want to have a look at.

I will explain what the clause means. It is an issue that has widespread opposition from both employers and unions. They may have different objectives with the rates, but they all have problems with the way the government uses EI premiums in general revenue. Employers and unions objected that cabinet was taking control of the EI rate setting process since the Liberal government balanced the EI books on the backs of employers and employees.

The government wants complete control over the billions in the EI surplus. It is one more unhealthy, undemocratic example of the government consolidating control in cabinet. The Canadian business community is in almost unanimous opposition to the bill. It is not that it feels that people in seasonal industries do not need assistance. It feels it should not come from the EI fund to which it provides 60% of the funding.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce thinks Bill C-2 is inconsistent with the development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit and that it does not advance competitiveness. Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say about the legislation:

After several years of making some steps in the right direction on EI policy, this is a U-turn that hearkens back to the 1970s—a big spending government promoting dependency on programs, instead of solid economic growth. We thought they had learned something from the mistakes of the past.

We have a flawed bill which seeks only to roll back earlier reforms and enhance the power of cabinet. What are the alternatives?

First and foremost, we must state that seasonal industries are just that, seasonal. Seasonal industries are very important and those involved in them must be supported. Those who are rendered unemployed for other reasons must also be supported.

There needs to be an acknowledgement that the two are not the same. The solution to the seasonal work dilemma must lie in the direction of education and training. Young people in communities which traditionally rely on seasonal employment must be properly equipped with the job skills for the workplace of the 21st century. We must provide training for those currently involved in traditionally seasonal employment as an alternative to EI.

In conclusion, as the first bill introduced in this parliament it is quite a disappointment. Bill C-2 attempts to address flaws in the EI system but succeeds at only minor tweaking. The government was moving in the right direction before but has taken an about-face with the legislation. I encourage all hon. colleagues to join with us in opposition to the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-2 today.

Unfortunately my Motion No. 5 on increasing from four to five years the authorized period of absence was rejected. This is unfortunate because the purpose of the motion was to harmonize our system with what the government grants its own employees who are authorized a period of absence of five years.

One thing that can be said about the bill on employment insurance is that the more than 60 witnesses we heard at the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development did not talk about what was in Bill C-2 but mostly about what Bill C-2 was not providing for Canadians and workers.

For example, on the issue of the divisor rule there is the period during which the unemployed receive employment insurance benefits. The amount they receive; is now equal to 50% of their wages or salary, but even 55% would not be enough.

We must keep in mind that 55% of $7 is only $3.75. This is less than welfare; it is less than social assistance. That is our employment insurance plan in Canada, a plan which is funded by Canadian workers. The federal government grabbed the cash in the fund to pay its own debt and balance the budget, at the expense of people who had lost their jobs.

That is crystal clear. During the committee hearings all Canadians who came to Ottawa to testify and express their views on behalf of the Prince Edward Island chamber of commerce, labour federations or municipalities with many seasonal workers described how workers were hurt by employment insurance changes.

Today the government brings us Bill C-2, a clone of Bill C-44. This is mere cloning, a procedure which should not be legal in Canada. The government did not make a single change in Bill C-2 which is before the House. During the election campaign the Liberals themselves promised some changes.

I remember my colleague for Madawaska—Restigouche stating that he would run as a Liberal because he wanted to be elected as a member for the governing party. He felt Bill C-44 did not go far enough and he wanted to make changes to the employment insurance plan. What kind of changes did we get? None, if we compare Bill C-2 with Bill C-44.

The hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok boasted about wanting to be on the government's side to make changes to the employment insurance because the changes brought in by the Liberals were hurting workers in the Gaspé. I remember the first meeting with the minister when he said “I make a heartfelt appeal to the minister”. This was broadcast in all news programs: he wanted to change the EI plan. Precious little has changed.

The result is a measly 5% for the poor and the clawback rule for full time workers. This is what we got, but this is not what we need. The problem lies in the fact that some families are without any income from February to May. When families are suffering there is a problem.

The two members who ran as Liberal candidates, as did the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, said “I want to be on the government side like my father, so as to be able to bring about changes”. However we have yet to hear from him since his election. We have never heard him. We have never heard from him state his position.

Today I am pleased that the committee, regardless of the party to which his members belong, approved a motion from the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, whose objective is that a report be submitted to parliament by June 1. We hope that the members who made promises in their ridings will have enough backbone to make the Liberals change their mind, including the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister who know that they are hurting Canadians.

Let us not forget that when there is a father or mother whose EI benefits run out and is without any income in February there are children involved. If we want to eliminate poverty in Canada, we should begin at that level.

I am ashamed when I think that there are 800,000 people who cannot qualify for employment insurance and that government investigators harass workers, call them into their offices and tell them behind closed doors “You realize that if you do not tell me the truth you could end up in jail”, something which the police itself cannot do with criminals on the street. That is shameful.

I am ashamed of the way the Departement of Human Resources Development is run. A thorough clean-up is in order in that department because this plan belongs to the workers and businesses that contribute to it. Seasonal work in Canada is a fact of life.

We do not want our loggers, our factory workers and our tourism industry workers to be forced to rely on social assistance. The same goes for people working in peat bogs.

Is it the only solution that the government can propose to us? I do not accept that. I do not agree with the way the Liberals are handling the employment insurance issue. Their robbery is the biggest ever covered in Canada by an insurance company. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.

I hope that the cry from the heart of the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok will touch the heart of the Prime Minister once and for all and will cause him to change his position and do something. We know that the Liberals are under dictatorship. Before retiring after 38 years of service to the House of Commons the Prime Minister could do a good thing for Canadians for once by taking care of the most disadvantaged in our society.

When people who worked all their life as loggers, in fish plants and in peat bogs see their electrical service cut off because they cannot even pay their bills from February to May, we must realize that action is needed.

I have said it often, almost every day, in committee that one cannot catch lobster on Yonge Street in Toronto or cod on St. Catherine Street in Montreal. One has to go to Chaleur Bay or to the Pacific. These jobs are seasonal jobs.

For those who do not know, Chaleur Bay freezes over in winter. One cannot catch cod as if it were sportfishing, by making a hole in the ice. This is not the way it works. One needs boats plying the waters of Chaleur Bay to catch this fish. People like to have this fish on their table.

We are happy to have products from the farm, but it is quite difficult to grow carrots under snow.

We will have to acknowledge the fact that there are seasonal jobs in Canada. There is not a single seasonal worker in our country but there are seasonal jobs. Workers are not the ones who decide. There is nothing they can do if a week before their employer tells them that there is no more work for them because he has reached his lumber quota and can no longer cut down trees.

Workers are not responsible if their employer tells them, after August 15, which is the feast of the Acadians and when there are no tourists left, that he now has to lay them off for winter. The employee is not the one who decides. He is not seasonal, but jobs are.

I know that some members across believe what I say. It is not a coincidence if sometimes when we leave the House some Liberals shake our hands and say “Continue the fight, go on. We must make the government aware of the issue”.

I would like to draw the government's attention to the fact that that money is not its own to spend. I have full confidence in Canadians. I can say very confidently that there are no lazybones in Canada.

I said once that if my predecessor, Doug Young, had been paid $5.50 an hour, he too would have been lazy and unwilling to work. If we had good jobs for people they would be happy to get up in the morning, go to work and get their paycheque at the end of the week in order to pay their bills and take part in activities with their families.

Members across the way went so far as to call the unemployed lazybones unwilling to work, something I never accepted. I said I would never accept such statements as long as I represented the people of Acadie—Bathurst in the House. I know that my time has expired, but I could talk for hours about the injustices committed by the Liberals.

I will now conclude by saying that today I am asking the Liberals to listen to what I have said in the name of workers across Canada, those of Quebec as well as all the others, to change their mind about employment insurance by the end of June and to ensure that we have a bill that is good for workers.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a few issues based on the amendments that have been placed before the House at report stage.

The Canadian Alliance is very much in support of an employment insurance program. We feel the government is justified in providing support to the unemployed to help them in times of stress.

We have heard many of the witnesses who have appeared before the committee over the last four or five weeks. We have heard many witnesses talking about the government's approach to making some minor amendments to the Employment Insurance Act through Bill C-2. In looking at the motions that have been allowed, with all due respect to the Chair, I have some concern with the process of limiting members on how they would present amendments on legislation, whether it would be through a more public process in the House or a more limited public exposure process in committee. I do want to point out that I have a concern with that.

However, I would like to make a few comments on a number of the motions that have been allowed to amend Bill C-2 at report stage. In my understanding, Motion No. 4 adds an exemption for a person who is considered to be a return claimant or a new entrant. We recognize that there are some exemptions such as maternity and paternal reasons. There is an omission that we agree needs to be addressed, and that is the omission of benefits for claimants by reason of illness, injury or quarantine. We have no problem in rectifying that omission in the amendments to the legislation. We feel it is justified.

Just flipping through the pages of those amendments that have not been allowed, we come to an amendment that is trying to address what is considered to be an unfairness. The feeling seems to be that someone who has fraudulently misrepresented the facts should not be penalized and should be treated the same as any other claimant under the EI program. We have difficulty with that, because one of the changes the government has put in is that those who have made a claim for employment benefits of more than a week in the last 10 years fall into the category of having 30% clawed back if they make more than $48,000.

If somebody who collected two weeks of insurable earnings 10 years ago is put under this 30% clawback for any income over $48,000, it is hard to justify not penalizing someone who has misrepresented the facts and who perhaps fraudulently claimed earnings he or she did not make. It is hard to imagine that people would not be penalized for doing so.

We will not be supporting that amendment. We find it very difficult to justify supporting somebody who deliberately scams the system while penalizing people who may have collected employment insurance 10 years ago for a couple of weeks. We are not prepared to support this.

However, I want to give most of my attention to clause 9 in this legislation, which causes us great concern. Clause 9 just supports the trend of the Liberal government, ever since I came to the House seven and a half years ago, of removing responsibility from the House of Commons, from parliament, and putting it into the hands of the cabinet, into the executive branch of government.

This has been a consistent trend in legislation. Through regulations, through using orders in council or through legislation itself, the Liberal government is transferring the responsibilities of the House of Commons, of parliament or of an independent commission to the hands of a handful of people in cabinet.

We heard from almost every witness that this is not acceptable. They had great difficulty with cabinet setting the rates of the employment insurance fund. They saw it as an intrusion of government into something that government should be removing itself from. They saw it as a grab for the wealth that has been created through surpluses in the EI fund. They felt it was a means for the government to try to control where the surplus goes. They felt that the surplus would not go where it is intended to go and where legislation says it must go, which is to the workers and the employers who contribute to that fund.

I believe the fund has a $35 billion surplus to date. There is concern that the government wants to get its hands on that surplus and take it out of the EI account. There is concern that the government wants to control rate setting so it can control this unwarranted increase in surplus in the EI fund. The chief actuary for the employment insurance fund has said that the surplus is unnecessary, that $35 billion is far too much and $15 billion would sustain the employment insurance program even at a time of recession, and that lowering rates to $1.75 for the employee would still sustain the employment insurance fund at a level during a recessionary period.

All the evidence is there that this $35 billion surplus is not necessary. Yet we have a cabinet that wants to take control of rate setting so it can maintain that surplus fund to use for purposes outside the Employment Insurance Act.

We very much oppose this clause and support the amendment put forward by both the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance to delete that clause from the legislation.

I noted with interest an amendment that was put forward by the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, we in our party only got it this morning and did not have time to deal with it. We noted with interest that the Conservatives have proposed an amendment to that clause which details how we would treat rate setting and how we would re-establish the commission's authority. However, although we like the concept, there is no evidence to support the numbers that have been proposed. Nothing suggests they are the right numbers, so we would not at this time be prepared to support that amendment. We feel that more time is needed and we feel that more evidence is needed to support the numbers brought before us for consideration today.

My remarks have been a brief summary of where the Canadian Alliance stands on the amendments being proposed at report stage. I want to reiterate my concern that the Chair is going to take away from members of parliament their discretion in regard to when they want amendments to be dealt with, whether that is in less public circumstances like committees or a more public situation such as the House of Commons during report stage. I want it to be noted that I have a problem with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak to Bill C-2 at report stage, not so much for the amendments that are included therein, apart from the one on clause 9, but rather because the debate in committee clearly demonstrated that Bill C-2 did not meet the needs of those who appeared before the committee.

Instead of putting forward an indepth reform of the employment insurance plan, Bill C-2 proposes no more than a few amendments that have been called for for a long time, particularly the suppression of the intensity rule. Since 1997 this rule penalizes all seasonal workers. We are telling them that if we take away 1% of their benefits every 20 weeks, they should be more encouraged to work.

The government always assumed that seasonal workers preferred to collect EI instead of working. After denouncing that for many years, a statistical study finally proved that there was no correlation between the two.

Workers in seasonal industries want to work but unfortunately their jobs do not last the entire year, and the fact of penalizing these people by taking away up to 5% of their benefits after three years would not in any way make them work any harder as there were no more jobs for these people.

These people often work in natural resources such as forestry, fisheries, tourism or in areas where they cannot be readily trained for work in other sectors.

Bill C-2 did not really meet the requirements set out by over 60 groups that systematically came to tell us it was vital to reform the system much more thoroughly. Fortunately the committee unanimously adopted a motion I proposed, which provides:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities report to the House of Commons all other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and that this report be tabled to the House no later than June 1, 2001.

The committee will do the work the government refused to do during the period between the election and the reconvening of parliament. The government could have avoided this delay of several months and introduced a Bill C-2 that really reformed the employment insurance system. It did not do so, but all members of the committee assumed their responsibilities, listened to the evidence presented and clearly said they wanted to recommend other changes to the employment insurance system.

Obviously the current bill must be improved as much as possible, and this is what we are doing with the amendments proposed. There is one that is much more important, and we will discuss it later. It concerns the elimination of clause 9, the one that would, if the bill were passed as it stands, make it legal to misappropriate funds from the employment insurance fund.

We know that it has now grown to between $34 billion and $35 billion. With the provision in the bill that would allow the government to set the premium rate instead of letting the EI commission do it, the government could evade the application of the act and not have to put the money back in the EI fund.

When we get to the discussion on this clause, people will see that all the opposition parties have a common position in this regard, a position set out by the Bloc Quebecois but also supported by the auditor general who stated in committee that he preferred section 66 of the current act, in spite of its weaknesses, to this clause, which would allow the government to determine the premium rate.

We are at report stage on a bill we have to improve as much as possible, a bill we were unable to amend substantively to really reform the employment insurance system because this is impossible at the parliamentary level. Once Bill C-2 was introduced we could only amend its clauses as they stood.

For instance, we are not allowed to deal with important issues such as eliminating the waiting period. Those who have been on employment insurance know what we are talking about. It is the first two weeks after one has stopped working, when one has no income. That is an archaic rule dating back to the time when people qualified only after a number of weeks of benefits. Now they start paying premiums from their first hour of work. We have a system that is generating a huge surplus, so why could we not deal with this issue and eliminate the waiting period?

There is also, the fundamental issue of the creation of an independent EI fund. I think this will give rise to a major debate that should be held in committee for its June 1 recommendations.

There is the increase in coverage from 55% to 60%. We know we now have an employment insurance system where about $18 billion in premiums is collected year after year and about $12 billion is put back into the system. There is a surplus of about $6 billion, which is used to cover the government's general expenditures. This is being done by collecting premiums from people earning wages or a salary of less than $39,000. This means that people earning more, or those who do not pay into the system, do not contribute their share toward this portion of the government's general expenditures.

The government, considers the EI system as a payroll tax. This is a very regressive tax, because not everyone pays into the system. Even though he had been a member of parliament for about 20 years, it is here in the House that the Prime Minister found out that he pay, EI premiums. Such people are not paying their share. There should be a substantive debate on this issue to ensure that since the surplus is so high premiums are lowered or the conditions that apply in the system are improved.

There is a basic condition that could be amended: benefits could be raised from 55% to 60% of average earnings.

All discrimination against youth, women and people re-entering the workforce must be eliminated.

Bill C-2 does not change anything in the requirement to work 910 hours to qualify. The government's logic is the same here as with the intensity rule. It is saying to young people “If the requirement is 910 hours, you will have to work harder to qualify”. Under the intensity rule it said “If benefits are reduced, people will be more anxious to work”.

Statistics show this was not the case with the intensity rule. We know from experience that it is not true for young people and that today they are the victims of intolerable discrimination.

It is important that we revisit this issue before long because we have no right to discriminate against our young people. We have no right to treat them like second class citizens, particularly as we are experiencing a period of economic growth. They must be able to reap the benefits of the effort that has been made to fight the deficit. We must not continue to take their money from them since they contribute right from the first hour of work without qualifying. Only some 25% of our young people qualify for benefits.

As far as all the conditions are concerned, these are examples of issues that should have been dealt with in Bill C-2 but were not. That shows the extent to which a thorough reform of EI is needed to make it more adequate.

Many amendments were proposed but they were rejected. I give the example of the retroactivity of the intensity rule. According to our proposal, the retroactive period would have gone back to January 1, 1997, instead of to October 1, 2000.

In other words, since it has been clearly established that rule was inefficient and that its only result was to penalize seasonal workers and frequent claimants, why not give these workers their money back? It is becoming obvious that they have been penalized without reason and that they should have received that money.

We introduced an amendment to make the payment retroactive to January 1, 1997, but the government rejected it because it would cost $250 million, which is not even 1% of the $35 billion surplus. If that is so much money for the government, think what this represents for seasonal workers, for people who contributed to the financing of the government due to an infamous and unacceptable rule.

That is the reason Bill C-2 must be amended. Everybody must realize that in the next few months the Standing Committee on Human Resources will be making a special effort to make recommendations for a thorough reform of EI to the government, one that will go a lot further than this half-baked Bill C-2.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-2, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 20 on page 4 with the following:

“9. Section 66 of the Act is replaced by the following:

1. (1) The Commission shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance, set the premium rate for each year at a rate that the Commission considers will, to the extent possible, a ) ensure that there will be enough revenue over a business cycle to pay the amounts authorized to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account; and b ) maintain relatively stable rate levels throughout the business cycle.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the premium rate shall not exceed $2.20 for the year 2002 and $2.10 for the year 2003.

(3) When setting the premium rate for a year in accordance with subsection (1), the Commission shall provide a written explanation as to why the premium rate is set at that level for the year.

(4) The Commission's explanation under subsection (3) shall be referred for review to the standing committee designated by Parliament for that purpose.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-2, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 3 with the following:

“in paragraph 12(3)(a), (b) or (c) in the period of”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-2, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 11 on page 4 with the following:

“(3) For greater certainty, weeks of benefits that are repaid as a result of an act or omission mentioned in subsection (1) are not deemed to be weeks of benefits paid”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

[The Speaker]

Ten motions in amendment are listed in the notice paper at the report stage of Bill C-2.

Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 cannot be proposed to the House because they are not accompanied by a recommendation from Her Excellency the Governor General. Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before the beginning of report stage consideration of a bill.

Since the Standing Committee on Human Resources and the Status of Persons with Disabilities considered this bill at clause by clause stage on March 21, the same day as my statement outlining the guidelines for the selection of motions at report stage, the Chair will exercise discretion and select motions which could have been proposed in committee but were not.

I would ask all hon. members to note that this is the last report stage ruling where the Chair will be taking into account the timing of clause by clause study in committee, relative to my March 21 statement on the guidelines for the selection of motions at report stage.

Consequently, in connection with the report stage of future bills, I have asked my representatives to examine each motion in amendment submitted at report stage to see whether it could have been presented at committee stage, and if so not to select it.

That said, the Chair must acknowledge that one or two motions in amendment are sometimes indispensable to a debate on a bill, and hon. members could argue that they deserve to be examined in the House, even if there has already been an examination of them in committee. I will agree to hear such arguments and I encourage hon. members to examine this type of motion with my representatives as soon as the bill is returned to the House.

As we are all aware, there is often a very tight timeframe for the report stage, which may be a hindrance to debate. I am relying on the cooperation of hon. members to ensure that the Chair is kept fully informed, via its representatives, of their opinions when it examines each preliminary decision at report stage. I will do my utmost to be fair and impartial in the choice of amendments and I am convinced that hon. members will acknowledge and respect the principles set out in my decision of March 21 in order to assist me in this.

To repeat some of those words:

I...strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work that the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.

Motion No. 4 and Motions Nos. 8 through 10 will be grouped for debate. The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not only was it not a point of order. It was completely inaccurate. Our platform included a policy for a single rate of tax.

I will make clear what I was saying. People are confused by competing claims about whether taxes have been cut. They can be the arbiters. They have very simple documentary evidence to adjudicate the test. It is called their paystub.

I invite everyone listening to or watching the debate to look at their paystubs and compare them to the paystubs for the same week or month last year. They will see that the supposed Liberal tax cut for this year was actually a tax increase. It is bogus.

When we combine the impact of Bill C-2 regarding Canada pension plan payroll taxes, which was passed during this fiscal year by the previous parliament and is the largest tax increase in Canadian history, with the myriad of other tax increases imposed by the government and the snail's pace at which its modest tax cuts will apply, Canadians at most income levels will find they are paying more than they did the year before.

If they are not, it is because of the foresight of provincial governments. Provincial taxes in Ontario and Alberta have gone down, thanks to the leadership of people like Mike Harris and Ralph Klein, but federal taxes have stayed the same or gone up.

The finance minister and his parliamentary secretary claim the bill includes $100 billion of tax relief. A nice round figure like that is like pricing something at $9.99 in a department store. The finance minister was told by campaign officials to get the number up because he needed a nice, big round number to talk about in the election. They decided it would be $100 billion. It is nothing of the sort.

The government claims $100.5 billion of gross tax relief in the bill and $3.2 billion of that is an increase in spending. The government has taken the Canada child tax benefit, which is an entitlement program and a spending program, and booked it as a tax cut. Once again the paragons of clean accounting in the government opposite are misleading Canadians.

Then there is the $29.5 billion by which the government increased the Canada pension plan payroll tax. The government, after enormous pressure from this party, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and from the Canadian people, finally decided to stop the insidious back door tax grab on inflation known as deindexation. Under deindexation people were bumped into higher tax brackets and paid more taxes. They did so because they were getting cost of living adjustments and not because of any real increase in income.

The Canadian Alliance objected to deindexation. Finally the government responded to our objection and stole our policy by agreeing to reindex the tax system, but not retroactively to 1986 when the Mulroney government deindexed the system.

Let me say parenthetically that the Liberal Party in the 1988 and 1993 elections ran against the Tory Party, and rightfully so, for having deindexed the tax system in 1986. However when it finally came to setting things right, did the Liberals give back the money that had been stripped out of people's wallets by taxes and inflation since 1986? No, sir. They reindexed. They did not give back the some $9 billion that people had lost to deindexation.

The Liberals say they will adjust tax brackets, exemptions and credits upward to account for the consumer price index so that they no longer impose a tax on inflation. That is good. However they count that as a tax cut. In other words, the government counts a non-increase as a cut. They tell Canadians they will not tax them on inflation and that Canadians should be grateful it will be counted as a tax cut. There are accountants in this place who would find that pretty specious. The government has declared $21 billion worth of specious, non-existent tax cuts which are merely non-increases.

When we add all that up, the real total net tax cut in the government's bill is $47 billion over five years. That is about half the tax relief proposed by the Canadian Alliance over five years based on comparable accounting. It is a fraction of the tax relief proposed by U.S. President Bush of $1.6 trillion to $2.3 trillion, depending on how we count it, over 10 years for a country with taxes that are already lower.

That would not be such a problem if Canada had its tax burden under control. However it does not. Revenues to the federal government last year were at their highest level in history. The government is bigger in terms of the money it hoovers out of people's wallets, purses and small business tills than any government in the history of the dominion. Personal income taxes in Canada consume a higher percentage of gross domestic product than in any other nation in the G-8. At 17.6% of GDP we have the highest personal income taxes.

According to a recent study by Price Waterhouse that was published in The Economist , Canada has the highest corporate income tax rates in the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the 23 principal industrialized countries in the world. Of those 23 countries, yes, we are number one when it comes to business tax rates.

When we look down the line, we see that none of this will change under the bill. When the tax cuts here have been fully implemented, and after the Bush tax changes have been implemented in the U.S., Canada will still have income taxes far higher than those of the United States and our other principal competitors. That is having an impact on our competitiveness and our standard of living. We know that.

We know that Canadians are working harder now than they ever have and are falling behind. We know we have an increase in the brain drain: the loss of talent and human capital to the United States and other jurisdictions, in large part because of the tax burden.

We know that Canada has fallen from second to 16th place in the OECD in terms of our standard of living over the past 15 years. We went from the second highest per capita GDP to the 16th, to the middle of the pack. Over the past 10 years, by comparison, Ireland leapfrogged over Canada in terms of its growth in per capita GDP, which is the best measure of increases in the standard of living, in large part because it provided huge tax incentives.

A member opposite said that it was because of something other than tax relief. My brother moved a company with 30 very well paying jobs to Dublin because of the tax cuts offered in Ireland and the huge advantage it offers over Canada.

This is not an agenda that would restore the competitiveness of the nation. It would continue to impose on Canadians an enormous burden of taxation into the future.

The bill would do a number of other things to which we object. First, there are a couple of elements which do step in the right direction. Reducing the inclusion rate on capital gains to 15% is something that should have happened a long time ago. We would like to see that inclusion rate go down to 33 1/3% so that we stop penalizing people who invest their whole lives in a business or in a property. This is a form of a death tax. We work hard our entire life, we invest in a business or property and we look forward to passing that on to the next generation. We, as individuals, may not take any benefit from it, but guess what? The moment we die, the Government of Canada comes in with deemed capital gains, which is really a form of estate tax or death tax, and grabs one-third of our lifetime earnings that were in that investment. That is wrong. We should not penalize people's lifetime investments. We should not diminish their abilities to pass on to the next generation their life's savings as we do through deemed capital gains.

There are a number of technical changes in the bill. One of the technical changes with which we have a great deal of trouble is the fact that the bill would continue the unfairness with which single income families with children are treated under the tax code.

The House will recall that this was a very hot issue at one point in the last parliament. The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, in response to a question I put to him about why the government discriminated against single income families with kids and why there was as much as an 80% tax penalty for those families versus their dual income counterparts, stood in his place and said that the government discriminated against single income families because they did not work as hard or have as many expenses as the double income families. That was pitting one kind of family against another.

As we said then and I say now, let me inform the secretary of state that moms and dads who stay home to raise small kids, to care for the elderly and the infirm, and to build families and homes, work just as hard, if not harder, as those of us in the paid workforce. They deserve and demand our respect and fairness in the tax code.

The current tax code's discrimination against those families must be eliminated and fairness must be brought in. The Canadian Alliance has proposed, among other things, equalizing the spousal or equivalent to spouse basic exemption with the basic personal exemption.

Under the bill we would have two classes of citizens: those who are primary income earners and their spouses. They have equal worth and that worth should be reflected in the tax code by a spousal exemption equal to the basic personal exemption. That would not done here. We would continue to penalize the stay at home parents.

We would raise that exemption from $8,000, which it will eventually get to pursuant to this bill after several years, to $10,000. That would lift hundreds of thousands of working families off the tax rolls so that instead of giving money to be misspent by the government they could invest it in their own priorities, their own children and their own homes.

We would bring in a child tax deduction. We would provide a deduction of $3,000 per child so that families with children would be able to keep more of what they earn to reflect the costs of raising kids.

What does the government do? Absolutely nothing of the sort. To the contrary, the bill before us raises the so-called child care expense deduction from $7,000 to $10,000. This is another piece of discrimination because only certain families would get to claim the child care expense deduction. Only those dual income families with receipted child care expenses could make use of it. Only 17% of tax filers could claim this deduction, and even a smaller fraction could claim it to the full amount.

If a mother with three children is the main income earner and the father decides to stay home until the kids are in school, the tax code says that the dad's work at home cannot be deducted. The tax code says that it has no value to society and therefore will not be recognized. However, if a parent decides instead to earn a second income and drops the kids off at a day care on the way to the second job, the federal government will give recognition for the third party costs of child care. The at home costs, the opportunity costs, the forgone income and the real financial costs of raising children at home are recognized nowhere.

It is intolerable that we should be increasing discrimination against single income parents. We will oppose the bill on that ground alone.

The bill includes an element which further erodes parliament's recognition of the unique and important role and status of the institution of marriage in our society and culture. It does so by bringing forward further amendments to change any reference from spouse to common law partner.

This is a change which was begun in a bill amending the Income Tax Act in the previous parliament, but in one of the many drafting errors to which I referred earlier the officials neglected to amend certain sections of the bill, saying that in various sections reference to spouse as part of the institution of marriage has been abolished for all intents and purposes from the Income Tax Act. It is an institution which in this and every other society I know of has been given certain privileges because it is the basis of the family, the basic institution of society.

We have said from time immemorial that the institution of marriage should be given certain preferences and privileges to protect the family. The bill would further erode the distinctiveness of that institution by saying common law partners, not spouses.

We as a parliament or as a country should not be ashamed of declaring that the spousal commitment in the covenant of marriage is a fundamental contractual relationship in the development of strong and healthy families and that they are necessary to having a strong and healthy society.

That is another reason we oppose the bill. It further undermines and weakens marriage as an institution.

There are a number of other provisions in the bill which the Alliance finds objectionable. It does include certain technical changes to which we do not object. Here is an interesting one: the foreign actors' tax credit. Most people may ask what that is all about. It turns out that we currently withhold 15% of the income of Hollywood actors who come to Canada to act in Hollywood movies. We then reserve the right to force them to file a tax return and tax them even more.

The Hollywood movie actors have been shedding crocodile tears about this unfair tax treatment by Canada. The same government which cannot find the fiscal room to help out single income families, has decided to give millionaire Hollywood movie actors a tax break in the bill. Lo and behold, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis will be at the front of the line when it comes to tax relief from the government. Single income moms and dads can stay at home without fairness.

The government would do this by raising the withholding tax from 15% to 23%, a very modest increase, but then it says that the actors would not have to file returns beyond that. These are people making millions of dollars at the highest possible marginal rates.

My office staff called the movie producers, the Hollywood actors, the actors' guilds and so on to hear what they thought of this move by the government. They were in favour of this because it would be a big tax cut for the millionaire Hollywood movie stars. They said that if we did not make this change, they might not keep coming back to work in Canada. I find it very odd when I look at the priorities that the government has for tax relief.

We in the Alliance have talked about raising the basic exemption for individuals and spouses, or equivalent to spouses, to $10,000. We talked about introducing a $3,000 deduction per child. Let us just figure out what that means. If we had a Canadian Alliance government, it would mean that a family with two parents and three kids would pay no taxes on their first $29,000 of income. It would mean that a single mom could give her first child the equivalent to spouse deduction of $10,000, so that a single mom with two kids would have $23,000 tax free.

These measures would lift 1.4 million low income Canadians off the tax roles altogether, giving them a hand up so they could get ahead. It would stop penalizing them for earning that small incremental income to try to get ahead economically. The government does nothing in the bill to lift Canadians off the tax roles.

When our party came out with its bold and powerful proposal to eventually get to a 17% single income tax rate and lift 1.4 million low income people off the tax roles and to restore and create family tax fairness, the government said that it looked popular. It said that it was testing well in the polls so it had better try to outflank the opposition. What did it do? It came up with a new basic rate of 16% in the bill and thought that Canadians would be fooled by that because, after all, 16% is lower than 17%.

Yes, it is. However, for the people, for whom it matters, those at the lowest income levels, there are no increases in the basic exemptions and deductions. Those are far more generous. What the Liberals want is for a single mom working as a waitress to pay 16% of her paltry income. Our plan would say that a low income individual would pay no taxes at all because we want that individual to get ahead through higher deductions and exemptions at the bottom end of the tax system.

In closing, I encourage the government to think about the enormous complexity of the Income Tax Act and the destructive effect it has on our economy and our society. It should think of the tens of thousands of bright, young Canadians, whose educations we subsidize, who leave the country every year to pursue their economic opportunities elsewhere in large part because of diminished opportunities and our tax system.

I want them to think about the low income working families, the single moms and the seniors on fixed incomes who are forced to pay taxes today. I want them to join us in dreaming about creating a tax system which is simple, fair and low, which rewards risk taking, investment and productivity and which rewards the virtues upon which a prosperous society is built.

I want to invite them to join us in the opposition in proposing a tax system that lifts the low income people off the tax rolls, that puts the family first and restores fairness to the tax system and that stops the beggar thy neighbour, class warfare politics of envy approach, which informs the so-called progressive tax system that penalizes people who succeed, work hard and get ahead.

I invite them to do all of those things by opposing Bill C-22, a bill that once more adds yet another destructive layer on to the tax act which was first passed in this place in 1917. I hope they will join us in doing that and working together to create an economic environment of opportunity which rewards risk taking, saving, investment and hard work. That is what Canadians are asking for and that is what we are fighting for by opposing the bill.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, with one amendment.

I thank members of the committee from both sides of the House for their hard work on this piece of legislation. We received over 60 witnesses from all parts of the country. Members had to work very long hours, often very late. I greatly appreciate their work on the bill.

Employment Insurance

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the standing committee for its work on Bill C-2. I understand it heard from over 60 witnesses so I can see why it would want to provide a compilation of that information to the government. I look forward to receiving it.

I would remind the hon. member that as a part of Bill C-2, we commit as a government to continue to monitor and assess the impact of the employment insurance provisions on Canadians. It is what we have been doing in the past number of years and what we will continue to do. Certainly the work of the committee will inform that ongoing review.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister can choose the quote she likes. He also said he would like the clause withdrawn.

Also, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which is very critical of Bill C-2, has unanimously agreed to report other amendments to the employment insurance system to the House of Commons by June 1 in order to permit real reform of the system.

Is the minister prepared to act on the committee's recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 amending the Employment Insurance Act is under fire.

The day before yesterday, the auditor general said that the government should withdraw clause 9 of the bill, which would allow the government to set the premium rate, thus making it legal for the government to misappropriate billions of dollars of surplus from the employment insurance fund.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development act on this request by the auditor general, an impartial player who condemns the subterfuge that would legalize the misappropriation of the $30 billion dollar surplus in the fund? Will she withdraw this disgusting clause?

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make the weekly business statement and to indicate to the House that I intend to do my utmost to have order paper questions answered as rapidly as possible.

This afternoon we will resume debate on Bill C-12 respecting compensation for judges. We will then continue with Bill C-18, the equalization bill, which we started this morning. That will be followed, if there is time, with Bill C-17 respecting the innovation foundation.

On Friday we will consider report stage of Bill C-4 respecting the sustainable development foundation, and any time left will be used on second reading of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill.

In an effort to complete consideration of the youth justice bill, we will continue discussing that bill on Monday next.

Next Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-8 respecting the financial institutions legislation. Should that be completed, we would then continue with Bill C-22, the income tax amendment. As previously announced and as adopted by the House, in the evening there will be a special take note debate on the summit of the Americas.

Next Wednesday, March 28, we will debate Bill C-2, the employment insurance amendments, at report stage and hopefully have third reading on next Thursday, March 29.

That is the agenda of the House for next week.

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has a lot of experience in the House of Commons, because he has been here for many years.

Let me give an example. This evening, I attended a meeting of the parliamentary committee on employment insurance dealing with Bill C-2. Parliamentarians, those whom we call backbenchers, even on the government side, would have had an opportunity to express themselves democratically, to propose changes and amendments to the employment insurance program.

It is as if these people had been told by the minister “No, there must not be any amendment from the opposition. That is unacceptable”. We have a supposedly democratic process. Yet, in committee, it is so obvious that all opposition members vote one way, while all government members vote the other way. It is as if there was no justice.

This is where I find there is no democracy. There is no democracy at all in committee or in the House. I see Liberal backbenchers complain and moan because they never have an opportunity to express their views. But when they do, sometimes they do not seize it. Has this been going on only since 1993 or for a longer time?

Judges Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence.

The bill amends the Judges Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations made by the 1999 judicial compensation and benefits commission. Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of 11.2% for 1,013 federally appointed judges. The bill is purely administrative in nature, but that is the problem.

This is the fourth time the Liberal government has sought to amend the act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 and during the 36th parliament, Bill C-37, all of which were minor pieces of legislation or of little significance to Canadians.

While we all recognize the need for housekeeping bills, there have been no significant initiatives by the current Liberal government to address the serious concerns of many Canadians with our judiciary. It appears more and more that the issues parliament may address when it comes to the judiciary are merely administrative in nature.

Under the guise of the charter the courts have appropriated for themselves the right to deal with substantive policy matters. The courts have in addition appropriated for themselves the right to effectively control the ability to set their salaries, a matter which the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically left to parliament.

The decision of the courts purported to find a new constitutional obligation to require the legislatures to set up a commission to establish the salaries for provincially appointed judges. The supreme court, which was called upon to confirm this process, not only did so but included a newfound constitutional obligation requiring parliament to follow a similar process when it came to setting salaries for federally appointed judges.

Although the fiction is that parliament can exercise its own judgment in respect to the salaries recommended by the committees, in reality the judges simply overturn those legislated decisions where they disagree with them. One need look no further than the Alberta legislature for a very practical demonstration of the court's powers.

This is simply a case of judges discovering new constitutional principles that benefit themselves financially without political accountability or, as one of my constituents observed in describing the case, “the judges paying the judge's case”.

This newfound constitutional process that the judges discovered further decreased parliamentary responsibility for the expenditure of public funds and moves toward the creation of an economically independent judiciary with its own political agenda.

A recent letter to Maclean's magazine by a Mr. W. J. Jack of Innisfil, Ontario, noted:

It seems to me that members of Parliament no longer want to or can't make laws that work, so they let appointed judges do that job. If the Supreme Court is going to legislate, we won't need elections, except to vote for one person who would then appoint the members of the court. This would save taxpayers a lot of money, and we'd still have the one-man-rule system that we have today.

Coupled with the self-granting powers under the charter and an executive appointed judiciary as we now have, I would argue the courts can be and often are used to advance the political agenda of a government in a particular direction without consultation with the members of parliament who are accountable to the people of Canada and who represent their interests.

Judicial activism is all too common in our courts. Many if not most Canadians would agree that it must remain the responsibility of parliament to debate and ultimately resolve the political, economic and social issues that govern all our lives.

However over the past two decades judges supreme court justices in particular have to varying degrees engaged in a frenzy of constitutional experimentation that resulted in the judiciary substituting its legal and social preferences for those of the elected representatives of the people in parliament and the legislatures.

A leader in this judicial activism was the former Chief Justice of Canada, Antonio Lamer. Although he is now retired, the decisions he wrote or participated in will continue to impact on the principles and institutions of our democracy. Unfortunately that impact has been at an alarming cost to our democracy and to the public safety and security of our citizens.

Another member of the court has recently added his concern to the direction of the supreme court and the judicial activism of the former chief justice. Mr. Justice Bastarache has warned the nation of the dangers of the judicial government favoured by the former chief justice. In contrast to the former chief justice, Justice Bastarache has committed himself to an interpretation of the charter of rights and freedoms that pays respect to democratic principles and institutions.

The House and the people of Canada should commend Mr. Justice Bastarache and other jurists who recognize the dangers of the legal and constitutional anarchy reflected in the judgments of the former chief justice. Our democratic principles and institutions are too important to be hijacked by a non-elected political judiciary.

Let us consider for a moment a recent high profile supreme court decision that typifies the issue. In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court in effect removed the justice minister's parliamentary prerogative of choosing whether or not to seek assurances before extraditing alleged criminals facing the death penalty in another country, the United States or otherwise.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of capital punishment, the court has attempted to deprive parliament of debating the issue further. The court has overridden Canada's law as written by parliament and has chosen to push its political agenda to the forefront by opening Canada's borders to violent criminals.

That is not just my characterization. The day after the Rafay and Burns decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada the lawyers for the Minister of Justice, in another related case, stood before the court and said that the impact of the decisions was to create safe havens for criminals.

According to the precedent set in previous supreme court rulings, the minister had only been required to seek guarantees when the possibility of the death penalty would shock the conscience or otherwise outrage standards of decency.

In this decision, the supreme court has attempted to reconcile its new position with its 1991 precedent. However, in actual fact it has rewritten the law. The recent ruling stipulated that the Minister of Justice was required to seek guarantees prior to the extradition of Rafay and Burns and in the future on all accused of such crimes.

Our extradition treaty with the United States has also been effectively rewritten. One might think that the practical effect of extraditing these individuals, if they are convicted in the state of Washington, is that they would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That is only technically true. If they are convicted and all appeals are exhausted, they become automatically eligible for the prisoner exchange program. They then come back to Canada where the maximum sentence is 25 years before eligibility for parole and, with the faint hope clause, they can apply for parole after 15 years.

Taking into account that these individuals have already been held for six or seven years, if they were successful under the faint hope clause they would be on the streets after eight years. If in fact they are the people who brutally killed three American citizens for insurance money, the practical consequence of their crime would be eight years.

This is not an issue about the death penalty. This is the circumvention of parliament by refusing to allow parliament to have a say in the laws that govern crime in Canada. This is an abdication of our responsibility. Our responsibility has been taken away by the Supreme Court of Canada which has its own political agenda when it comes to criminal law.

In Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay the supreme court has prevented any legislative attempt to reintroduce capital punishment in Canada. This is regardless of where one stands on the issue. Our party does not have a position on capital punishment. The court's decision effectively says that the elected people of Canada can never make the decision because it is constitutionally prohibited. The political reason given was that the practice is unjust and should be stopped. That is not a legal judgment. That is a political decision.

Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is a decision for parliament and its elected representatives to make. Regardless of the convictions of the court, amending Canada's laws and treaties for policy reasons should be the responsibility of parliament and not the courts.

Former Chief Justice Lamer's judicial activism is not in harmony with the democratic principles of Canada, regardless of whether we oppose or defend the cause that the court may support. People might say that it is a good decision regardless of it being a political one.

The decisions of the court on political matters short-circuit the process, undermine the authority of parliament and bring the institution of parliament into disrepute. It is not that it insults parliamentarians, it insults the people who elected parliamentarians to make these decisions on their behalf.

While this issue is a major concern, it is far from being the only problem in our judicial system that requires the attention of parliament. Another such issue is related to the appointment process.

It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges Act, Bill C-37 from the 36th parliament, created the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal government with yet another opportunity to make patronage appointments. The commission consists of three members appointed by the governor in council and it should be noted who nominates these three: One is nominated by the judiciary; one is nominated by the Minister of Justice; and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by the first two persons nominated.

The failure of the bill to introduce any changes in the appointment process means that important and high paying positions in our court system will remain essentially part of the patronage system.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage appointment process overhauled to make it more transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to strike a committee that would review and interview candidates whose names would be put forward to the Prime Minister. The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in these matters.

Another concern I have with the bill is that the increase in pay for federally appointed judges is higher than the federal government is prepared to grant the much lower paid civil service. It lately has been the practice of the government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, senior bureaucrats and now judges while dragging its feet on a general salary increase for staff.

While we do not dispute that salaries for appointed judges and others should generally be in line with the private sector, it is apparent that the foot soldiers of our justice system are being ignored.

What we propose is an independent and publicly accountable judiciary that would act as a safeguard to protect Canadians from the arbitrary power of the state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament, not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives inherent in public policy development.

This bill, like its predecessors, deals solely with the administrative aspects of the courts and does not address the multitude of concerns that many Canadians have with the judicial system. Therefore, my colleagues and I strongly oppose the bill.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, shortly after the federal election, I was going through an Ottawa Citizen article which mentioned that Canadian judges would be receiving a $19 million pay raise that would boost their income 11.2% on average to more than $205,000.

The 11.2% awarded on December 13, 2000, was according to that news article quoting a justice department lawyer a compromise between the 26.3% that the judges were asking for and the demands of taxpayers to keep costs down. Government justice lawyer Judith Bellis had taken the view that the 11.2% was in the range of reasonable.

Bill C-12, the subject of today's debate, enacts that 11.2% pay raise, thereby raising the salaries of approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges who sit on provincial superior courts and courts of appeal, as well as the tax courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The increase, retroactive to April 1, 2000, will raise the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries for the chief justices in those courts will rise to $217,000 from $196,500. The same rates will also apply to federal court judges.

The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada will remain the highest paid. The eight regular judges will see an increase to $235,700 from $213,000, while Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's salary will jump to $254,000 from $230,200.

It is important to note that while the government considers this raise reasonable, the official opposition views it as extremely generous considering senior public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%. As well, the pay of public servants is not indexed, while the pay and salaries of judges are. We on this side of the House, therefore, are opposed to Bill C-12.

For the information of other new members of the House, I would like to point out this is not the first time the Liberal government has tried to amend the Judges Act. In fact, this is the fourth time the Liberals have come forward and made changes to the act.

Originally in 1996, Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, both if I may paraphrase a former member of the House, were described as being nebulous, inconsequential pieces of legislation with little significance to Canadians who were genuinely concerned about their safety, as opposed to the simple administrative matters that these bills brought forward.

In April 1998 Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the judicial compensation and benefits commission. The compensation commission was set up as an independent advisory body after the supreme court ruled that judges' salaries were constitutionally protected and the previous system of setting pay was inadequate.

Bill C-37, increasing judges' salaries retroactively, provided them with an 8.3% pay increase over those two years. Translated into dollars, this meant an average $13,000 pay increase for federal judges with salaries increasing from $159,000 to over $172,000.

I do not know of any other federal public servant, or any hard-working Canadian citizen, who received a $13,000 pay increase in 1998. While the Liberal government and the Tories were voting in favour of the huge pay increase, Canadians' incomes were on a steady decline.

Members on this side of the House, with the exception of the Progressive Conservative Party, opposed the bill. Members on the other side of the House wrongfully insisted that our opposition to the bill was “the ravings of ill-informed and ill-prepared men of parliament who contributed to the ill-repute of the justice system”. The truth is that my party holds the judiciary in high esteem. We were opposed to Bill C-37 and we are opposed to Bill C-12, based on the fact that other senior public servants, lower level public employees and other Canadian workers had not and will not be awarded such generous increases.

In the same year that federal judges were being awarded these huge salary increases, comparatively Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, who had had their salaries and wages frozen for five years, were granted an increase of 2% in March 1998, retroactive to January. A second pay increase was given to them in April 1998 and toward the end of that year they received another three-quarter per cent increase. Over the five years that they had been frozen, and in the next year of 1998, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police saw an increase of three and three-quarter per cent. They are on the front lines putting their lives in jeopardy. The average three year constable received less than $2,000 over those years.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that the former member of Crowfoot put forward an amendment to Bill C-37 that was supported and passed in the House during report stage. That amendment ensured that every four years the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had the opportunity to review the report of the commission on judges' salaries and benefits. The task would not be left solely to the Minister of Justice as was originally contemplated by the Liberal government.

It would be negligent of me if I also did not recognize the thorough job the Senate did in reviewing Bill C-37, the pre-emptive bill to Bill C-12, and the substantive amendments that it brought forward at the upper house.

In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of Senator Anne Cools for her diligent efforts in revealing the many inadequacies of Bill C-37. Senator Cools apparently exposed the fact that Bill C-37 would effectively allow judges to set their own wages, salaries and benefits and in so doing would set up the possibility of there being a show down between parliament and the judiciary. It would allow judges to appeal parliament's decision regarding a recommendation of the salary increase put forward in the courts. Essentially the judges would have the final say over whether or not parliamentarians were giving them a sufficient raise.

Although former judicial pay commissioner David Scott said it was unlikely that judges would ever be setting their own salaries, he would not rule out the possibility of the judiciary challenging parliament's response to the commission's recommendations for a pay increase or for reducing pay.

The judiciary would have to prove, however, in a court that the refusal to increase salaries or a decision to lower them was motivated by a wish to diminish the independence of judges. Mr. Scott said that even if the judges won in such a case, the court could only declare parliament's motion on the issue void and that would result in a stalemate. As pointed out by the Liberal senator, this would “deprive Canadians of their undoubted constitutional right to parliament's control over the public purse in respect to the judiciary”.

Clearly, the control of the public purse rests with the elected members of parliament and not with the unelected members of the judiciary.

Section 100 of the 1867, Constitution Act, states in part that the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges shall be fixed and provided by the Parliament of Canada. Clause 6 of Bill C-37 potentially abolished parliament's role in fixing judges' salaries.

Obviously we must question why the Minister of Justice at that time was so willing to bestow such potentially wielding powers on the judiciary through Bill C-37. One can only surmise, and again I use the words of Senator Cools when she said:

The real intent (of Bill C-37) is to remove parliament from the process.... There is a problem in that certain particular judges seem to crave a closeness to certain individuals in the Department of Justice and are trying to cling, closer and closer, to the executive rather than to parliament.

She went on to say to the Senate:

In other words, honourable senators, what is happening here is that 200 years of history are being turned on their head, and we are being told in this judgment that, quite frankly, judges prefer their fate to be in the hands of the executive rather than in the hands of parliament. It is a most curious and interesting subject matter.

It is more than curious and interesting, it is fearful.

Bill C-37, which was also an act to amend the Judges Act as it was originally drafted by the Department of Justice, had another problem. It created a legal right for a judge to have two spouses. The two spouses clause was meant to deal with circumstances in which a married judge, who was separated from his or her wife or husband and was living common law with another person, died. It would have allowed a judge to have both spouses, married and common law, to be eligible for the lucrative pension. In addition, the common law spouse would collect a one time payout of one-sixth of the judge's annual salary at the time of his or her passing.

Former supreme court Justice William Estey said that this particular section of Bill C-37 would “give his former colleagues on the bench the right to a kind of homemade harem. It would effectively create two separate sets of family law, one for the judges and one for everyone else”.

During debate on this legislation it was noted that the situations such as the contemplated one in Bill C-37 were rare. Therefore, questions arose as to why such a clause was put into Bill C-37. Critics suggested that this particular clause was tailor made for Chief Justice LeSage who was separated from his wife and had resided for about a year with Judge Lang. If Chief Justice LeSage were to die, the new amendment would have allowed both Judge Lang and Mrs. LeSage to qualify as his surviving spouse and share his pension.

As pointed out by Senator Cools during the debate, Bill C-37 appeared tailor fit to particular individuals. Senator Cools said “We have a situation in this country where individuals have access to the legislative writing machine”. Senator Cools said that it was very bothersome. Again, that is more than bothersome. That is a huge concern.

I understand that Bill C-37 was not the first time that the government has tailor made legislation to amend the Judges Act. Bill C-42, as mentioned earlier, also amended the Judges Act. It changed the pension scheme and working conditions of the federally appointed judiciary. In particular, it set out the terms on which Canadian judges could participate in international activities.

Although it was never explicitly admitted by the House or by the government, it was no secret that these amendments to the Judges Act arose due to the 1996 appointment of then Madam Justice Louise Arbour to the United Nations as a prosecutor for its special war crimes division.

Apparently opposition members naively agreed in June of that year, just before the House recessed for the summer, without any debate in the House, without any debate at committee, to pass Bill C-42 after being assured by the former justice minister that it was a simple innocuous housekeeping bill. It was not until the amended bill was returned from the Senate and the testimony of witnesses that appeared before the Senate committee were made known that my colleagues realized that Bill C-42, as claimed by legal experts, had “the appearance of transgressing the vital principle of judicial impartiality”, the very principle that our Minister of Justice has just spoken on.

In particular, I refer to the testimony of Professor Morton:

The government is concerned, as well it should be, with the current status of Justice Arbour and the implications of her status for those responsible at justice. The government seems to hope that by passing Bill C-42 as quickly as possible it can retroactively legitimate apparent indiscretions by Justice Arbour and possibly others—

It would appear that Justice Arbour agreed to the appointment before it had been approved by the Minister of Justice (or any other officials), thereby forcing the minister to react to a fait accompli. Furthermore, it then appears that the minister, rather than recommending to Justice Arbour that she postpone her new activities (at the Hague) pending necessary amendments to the Judges Act, sought to temporarily legitimate her actions by an order in council; and then (because the order in council is conceded to be insufficient) sought to retroactively legitimate Justice Arbour's new employment with general amendments to the Judges Act, Bill C-42, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament.

Professor Morton added:

No doubt some will say that this is nit-picking. My response is simple. If the justice minister and appeal court judges cannot be expected to comply with the letter of the law, then who can?...Indeed within the last month the justice minister himself pronounced on the meaning and the importance of the rule of the law. The rule of the law is “a living” principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike, is governed by the same law of the land.

While one section of Bill C-42 at that point in time appeared tailor made for Arbour, another section of that very same bill was apparently designed for the then chief justice of the supreme court in that it offered an unprecedented pension benefit to the chief justice and his wife at the very time when the top court was considering the most politically sensitive case of the decade, perhaps of confederation, whether Quebec had a constitutional right to secede from Canada.

The proposed changes did away with the prohibition on judicial double-dipping. Previously a retired judge received a pension equal to two-thirds of his annual salary; on average, about $104,000. When he died, his spouse collected a survivor's pension worth one-third of his salary or $52,000, provided that she was not a retired judge.

Under the new law retired judge spouses will collect both, thus receiving a total pension equivalent to their salary before retirement. The most obvious beneficiary of the change was Chief Justice Lamer and his wife, Federal Court of Canada Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer.

With regard to this section of Bill C-42, Professor Morton said:

Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved—the timing of this proposed change could not be worse.

Morton also said that sceptics would claim:

It is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit from the minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in judgment of the minister's Quebec reference—the most politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.

In closing, I would assure the House and Canadians in general that the official opposition will closely scrutinize Bill C-12. In particular, we will review the provision of the bill that changes the annuities scheme.

I am not a financial expert. I am not an expert on annuities or the pay schedules that are put forward in the bill. Without the advantage of expert advice at this stage, what appears to happen is that the changes being made to the Judges Act allow a judge who is married for the second time to another judge after the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect both or two survivor benefits upon the death of the second spouse. One could only guess why the government is contemplating such a rare and highly unlikely situation.

As we have already mentioned, four times the Liberal government has come to make amendments to the Judges Act. We have seen time and time again where the government has tailor made legislation to fit certain individuals and certain situations. We will also assure the House and Canadians in general that Bill C-12 is not tailor made to any individuals. If it were, it would definitely compromise the impartiality of our judiciary.

Employment Insurance

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is not fooling anyone. Some $35 billion were grabbed from the EI fund to make the finance minister's surplus look good. One million unemployed Canadians who paid into EI cannot get benefits. Many who do qualify still cannot make ends meet because the benefits are so low. Bill C-2 will not address this issue.

The finance minister is like the princess with the pea. No matter how thick his cushion is he wants more, more, more. The auditor general says this sort of financial mismanagement causes waste and inefficiency. How much more does the finance minister plan to take from the EI fund. If $35 billion is not enough, how much is?

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the opposition House leader, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, on February 13, 2001.

Subsequent to the adoption of a time allocation motion in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and employment insurance regulations, the hon. member rose on a question of privilege to express his concern and dismay about the frequency with which the government had resorted to time allocation to cut off debate prematurely on legislation during the 35th and 36th parliaments, a trend he believes is to continue in the present parliament. The hon. member claimed that the government's use of time allocation was a misuse of its authority and that the time had come “to declare the measures imposed by the government today as excessive and unorthodox”.

The hon. member argued that the Speaker has the authority to refuse to put a time allocation motion if, in his judgment, the government is abusing its powers and the rules of the House by not allowing sufficient amount of time for debate. He concluded his argument by suggesting that the Speaker consider the amount of authority and discretion available to the Chair to decide not to propose to the House a motion of time allocation if there has not been a sufficient period of time for debate.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Roberval, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and the hon. member for St. Albert for their interventions.

The request that is being made of the Chair in this instance is one which places me in a position of some delicacy. It is, of course, true that the Chair uses its discretion on every occasion on which it intervenes. That is not to say, however, that rulings are made simply on the Speaker's personal authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 570, and I quote:

—the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

In a ruling on a similar case, Speaker Fraser said, at Debates , March 31, 1993, page 17860:

—it is not always understood that the Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed. It is not surprising that sometimes some hon. Members, or even members of the public, feel that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important I think that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.

In the case which gave rise to the point which I am addressing, there has been no suggestion that the government in any way deviated from the procedure laid out in the standing orders. I do not feel, under those circumstances, that there are any grounds whatsoever which would lead the Chair to intervene. The Chair wishes to be very clear on this point. The rules and practices established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter. Speaker Fraser said in the case to which I have already referred, at Debates March 31, 1993, page 17861:

I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

In making this ruling, Speaker Fraser was faced with arguments very close to those before us in the present case.

The question of the extent of the Speaker's authority has been raised and reference has been made to the practice in the United Kingdom. The government House leader indicated in his comments on this question that in other jurisdictions greater use is made of the scheduling of work both in the House and in committee. It may be that the House is no longer satisfied with the manner in which the time allocation rule works. If that is so, it is for the House to consider and, ultimately, to determine what procedure will best suit its current circumstances. Planning done on the basis of consensus could be a significant benefit, not only for the business of the House but also in promoting an atmosphere of decorum and respect in which that business is conducted.

Our system has always been one which functions on the basis of rules established by the House itself. However, under our current standing orders, it would be highly inappropriate for the Chair to take unilateral action on issues already provided for in the standing orders. Where the standing orders gives the Speaker some discretion, then it is the Speaker's responsibility to be guided accordingly; where no such guidance is provided, no such action can be taken. It is certainly not up to the Chair to establish a timetable for the business of the House.

It is by its rules and not by the authority of the Speaker that the House protects itself from excesses, both on the government side and on that of the opposition. The Speaker's role is to judge each case as it arises, fairly and objectively, and in so doing, to ensure that those rules are applied as the House intended.

Speaker Lamoureux, when faced with a similar situation stated in Journals July 24, 1969, page 1398:

The Speaker is the servant of the House. Honourable Members may want me to be the master of the House today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion—I am not prepared at this time to take this responsibility on my shoulders. I think it is my duty to rule on such matters in accordance with the rules, regulations and standing orders which honourable Members themselves have turned over to the Speaker to administer.

I would also like to remind the House that the standing order with respect to time allocation has been invoked only once in this, the 37th Parliament. I have indicated clearly that this use of the standing order does not represent a matter of privilege. If further cases arise, the Chair will deal with them individually, on their merits. I remind the House that the Chair will not rule on hypothetical cases or on questions raised only in the abstract.

Once again, I would like to thank hon. Members for their carefully considered arguments on this question. The Chair is conscious of the importance which members on both sides of the House attach to it.

Standing Orders

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to some of the members opposite and I half expect someone in a red or blue cape to come flying through here. They just have all the solutions and all the answers. Frankly, I find it a little bit tiresome and a little bit frustrating.

First, here are a couple of facts. We are sitting here and it is 9.15 p.m. On a normal sitting day the House would have been recessed by approximately 6.30 p.m. We will be here until 11.30 or 12 o'clock tonight at least. Just so people know, the cost to run this place beyond the regular hour is somewhere around $25,000 per hour. The debate this evening will cost the Canadian taxpayer, for whom I assume my friend from the Bloc could not care less, about $125,000. I just wanted to make the cost clear.

Why do we have the motion? Other members have stood up and said to speak to the motion. We have sat in this place through 24 hours of not debating and not talking but simply voting on motions that would make absolutely no difference to the legislation or to the quality of the legislation. They would have no impact on the end product. They do nothing more than delay. To sit here doing that is not just a waste of money, it is an abuse of the democratic system.

If members opposite want to talk about ways to reform this place, why do we not start with this motion? The motion is indeed parliamentary reform. The motion says to my hon. friends opposite that if they want to filibuster and stand in their place and talk with at least a modicum of intelligence about the particular issue involved they can do so. They have that opportunity. In the good old days, filibuster meant talking out the issue, debating.

When I was a member of the Ontario legislature I recall sitting through filibusters that would last a day or two. I may not have liked it or agreed with it but I had to respect the ability of parliamentarians to stand in their place in opposition to the government of the day. Whether we were members of the opposition or members of the government, we had to respect the ability of the individual to stay on topic and talk about the issue that was of concern to their constituents and, in that example, to the people of the entire province, and in this example, all of Canada.

What have we had? We have had a major debate. The one that comes to mind is the Nisga'a treaty. The opposition did not agree with us. It did not like the treaty and did not like what we were doing. I did not have a problem with that. It is totally within its rights and its purview to disagree with us.

However, the opposition submitted hundreds of amendments that were—and I love the word—vexatious, which means annoying. They did not change the treaty one bit and did not change the outcome of the government legislation one iota. They simply required the government to stay here and vote on periods, commas and semicolons.

Now, really, is that what Canadians elected any of us in this place to do? Absolutely not. Canadians may have some respect for a member opposite who could stand up and clause by clause, line by line, word by word, go through that particular bill and explain to the Canadian public why he or she is against a particular bill.

I do not care what bill it is. I have served in opposition and I have served in government. I respect the responsibility and the important role that opposition must play in this kind of democracy.

What bothers me, though, is that when the opposition today does not like what the government is doing it says that it does not like the process. When it says it does not like the process means it lost. Rather than argue the substantive impact of the motion, the bill or the document before parliament, members of the opposition cry foul that somehow the big, bad Prime Minister whipped them. He has chains and runs racks in the back room where they are tortured mercilessly. Their brains are taken and put in jars somewhere when they arrive. They just denigrate the role of MPs.

When I am here in the nation's capital as a member of parliament, like many of my colleagues on all sides of the House I work between 12 and 18 hours a day. Our day starts very early with committee meetings, working in caucuses and working with opposition members. We find quite interestingly that in spite of the theatre which goes on in here, when we get members of parliament from all across Canada sitting in committee talking over issues they can actually be reasonable. I wonder why they are not like that in the House of Commons. Why can we not work together?

Someone from the NDP asked when we would start to work together. I was at the HRDC committee the other day talking about Bill C-2 and changes to the employment insurance bill. At that time I questioned the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the construction trade unions that were before us.

I asked the chamber why, when the country is in a recession, when the government supports all people who lose their jobs and when the EI account is in major deficit, we do not hear from it? Why does it not say that it knows the account is in deficit and it will pay more? We do not hear from the chamber in that instance, because it is the responsibility of the government to be the insurer of last resort.

Is that a question that someone might expect from a government member? I think not, because I think some of the more socialist minded folks might agree. Some of the more right wing people might not agree. They might think I was being hard and harsh on the poor chamber of commerce. I see at committee all the time where we cross on issues.

The member opposite doing most of the chirping served with me on the citizenship and immigration committee for some time. With the odd exception, when that member decided to ignore the rules of parliament and released a document to the media before it was tabled in the House, for which he was properly chastised by the Speaker of the day, I found that he tried to work and to deal with issues of concern around the citizenship bill and around refugees. He tried to put forward from time to time some thoughtful comments in debate.

Why is it that after we have gone through the process of losing whatever is the issue of the day—

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

I will say it again. He said that I am going to have a heart attack. If I have a heart attack because I am working for the people of Acadie—Bathurst, I might as well drop now and I will be proud of it. He should not worry about me. I will take care of myself.

It is important that the government stop playing these games. It must give an opportunity to the other parties to do their job.

It is a disgrace. The Liberals' excuse is that the opposition did not want to pass Bill C-2 on employment insurance. They came up with a measly 5% when people back home are in the gap from February to May. Yet they know we need to get rid of the intensity rule. As for us, in the opposition, we will act responsibly. We will represent our constituents.

The government has no business saying we are abusers. I will never accept that from members opposite. I will never accept this, because I was elected to represent the people of Acadie—Bathurst, and I am going to represent them to the best of my ability. I am not going to be swayed and intimidated by the people across the way, by the Liberals, I guarantee it.

This is a democracy. This is not the United Kingdom; this is Canada. We do not need to follow the example of the United Kingdom. We can build on our own experience and work together. I am sure that if we were to sit down at the same table and try to find solutions to certain problems, we would come up with results.

Maybe if the opposition turns up with a string of amendments, it is because the government's bill does not make any sense. What can the opposition do?

I recall one tactic that was used once: one opposition party refused to enter the House of Commons. They ignored three or four bells. Some will say that this was perhaps not right, but others will say that at least they made their point and that Canadians had a chance to hear it.

The Canadian Alliance introduced 471 amendments to the Nisga'a bill.

I was happy to be able to vote against it 471 times. I thought I had earned my paycheque. I think that, after that, the Canadian Alliance understood that Canadians did not want these amendments.

The thing is that we were able to put our democracy to work in the House of Commons, and we do not need the Liberals to shut us up. That is one thing that we will not stand for.

I appreciate whatever little time I was given by the Chair. Hopefully, the Liberals will change their minds by 11 p.m. this evening, restore democracy to the House of Commons, and stop being a gang of dictators.

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

Madam Speaker, first I could say that I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak to this motion, but, at the same time, it is unfortunate that we are once again taking a step backwards with respect to democracy here in Canada. It is truly a step backwards; we have a lovely House of Commons here so that we can make the laws of the land, introduce bills and motions, and govern the country.

We have the Liberal government across the way, saying “There must be respect for the House of Commons, but we are going to silence the opposition. We are going to take the opposition's privileges away”. It is sad to see a party which, if I recall correctly, around 1988-89, when it was in opposition, was glad to be able to rise in the House of Commons and debate bills. The Liberals were glad to be able to make amendments to bills. Back then they did not like it one bit when the Progressive Conservatives tried to stop them.

We all remember the GST bill. The Liberals turned up with a whole string of amendments. Did the government of the day tell them they were abusing the system, abusing parliament, because they wanted to do their job? It is a disgrace that in 2001, particularly after the 2000 election, the government says it is going to be open to parliamentary reform. It says it will sit down in parliament, and we are going to be able to discuss and look at parliamentary reform together.

This evening, they turn up here with a motion. They want to shut up the opposition again, but I believe we have a role to play in democracy. We too are capable of shouldering our responsibilities. If the government means to say that the opposition is not assuming its responsibilities because there supposedly were 100 or 200 amendments to a bill, is the government assuming its responsibilities when it closes down debate as it has been doing in recent years?

My colleague from Mississauga asks whether we did not want Bill C-2 on employment insurance reform, whether we were not anxious for it to get passed. Yes, I am anxious to see a bill on employment insurance reform passed. I want to see it passed, but as the member representing Acadie—Bathurst, I would like to be able to rise in the House of Commons and explain the problems and loopholes Bill C-2 contains.

That is why I was elected. I was elected to do that job and to assume those responsibilities. I was elected to be able to attend parliamentary committees, assume my responsibilities, and bring up the problems that Bill C-2 brings us. I was elected to be able to introduce motions in the House of Commons, to be able to make amendments to Bill C-2, which does not go far enough. I was elected to do all that in the House of Commons. This seat belongs to Acadie—Bathurst. It does not belong to the member, but to the people of Acadie—Bathurst. Because of that, I ought to be able to stand up and be heard in committee. I ought to be able to make amendments to government bills.

Canada does not belong to the Liberals alone. It belongs to all Canadians. Canadians chose to send members to the House to represent them.

It is unfortunate. When the Bill C-2 was introduced into the House, there was only one day of debate and that was it. It is shameful.

The Liberals have just told us we abuse the system on this side of the House. Yet, in the case of their bill on young offenders, the Liberals had over 100 amendments, and they hold the power. Shall we call them abusers because they drafted a bad bill and realized they had missed the boat?

I do not think it costs the government any more if I am here this evening debating one of its motions. That is why I was elected. I was not elected to go home, but to be here to debate the problems of concern to Canadians and the people of my riding.

I think the government's attitude is unfortunate. It is an insult to watch the member for Waterloo—Wellington rise and try, if I can put it this way, to crucify the entire opposition. They say “You are wicked, you are not acting properly, you are abusers”.

Are we going to call them abusers because we had to call for quorum as the government members were not here? Each time opposition members rise and look for what they are entitled to, they are called abusers. Yet the Liberals did the same thing when they were in opposition; they tried to draw the government's attention to the fact that it was headed in the wrong direction. That is what the opposition wanted to do; it was trying to convince the government that it was not going in the right direction.

With this motion, they are not acting properly. The Liberals will not wait to undertake parliamentary reform together with us, and debate it in committee.

I am the New Democratic Party whip. The whips and House leaders of all the parties thought that parliamentary reform would take place. All of sudden, the government House leader comes up with a motion that basically says “You are a bunch of abusers, we will pass a motion”. Whatever happened to democracy? Were we not supposed to work together?

When you were on this side of the House—

Canada Elections Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Bill C-9, the Liberal government's proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act.

The purpose of Bill C-9 is to amend the Canada Elections Act which became law on September 1, 2000. The Liberals passed the bill only a few months ago, but we are correcting their mistakes.

We are doing the work today that we asked them to do in the 36th parliament. We do not mind helping them again to do their homework, but we are disappointed that Canadians did not choose to send us to Ottawa to do our work, because we would have done our work right the first time.

Bill C-9 will overturn the current law that requires a party to have at least 50 candidates before it can be identified as a political party on the election ballot. The Liberals will now require parties to possess 12 candidates in order to be recognized as political parties and be entitled to certain benefits and privileges.

Only registered parties are eligible to obtain the final list of electors, to obtain free broadcast time for political announcements and to issue tax receipts to donors on behalf of the party. Only registered parties are entitled to such benefits and privileges.

Canada's chief electoral officer confirms the number of candidates. The 12 candidate minimum conforms to the requirement that a party have at least 12 members of parliament to receive official status in the House of Commons, as the fifth party has.

Let me explain how the Liberals arrived at the magic number of 12. The Liberals are trying to make it as hard as possible for any political group to challenge them at the ballot box. In their twisted logic they have figured out that they would be too ashamed and embarrassed to make the required number of seats any higher than the number of seats required by the House for a party to qualify to be recognized as a political party.

I am sure that members will remember that in the last parliament the Liberals originally set the bar high at 50. It is a lot more difficult to field 50 candidates in an election than 12 or so. The Liberals like the number 50. They were crushing a number of parties and preventing them from qualifying for certain privileges and benefits. They have been forced to lower the bar and to allow smaller parties to have a greater level of participation in our democracy.

In the last parliament the Liberals kept the bar high at 50 candidates for what they knew would be the last time. In the most recent election the Liberals could put in a fix by denying parties with less than 50 candidates from being major political parties in Canada.

Before the Liberals passed the previous Canada Elections Act during the last parliament, the official opposition warned the Liberal government that the 50 candidate rule should be dropped. We told them upfront, but who listens on the other side? I spoke to that bill in various debates in the last parliament.

We had the approval of most of Canada's smaller political parties for the proposal, but the Liberals did not listen at that time. It appears perhaps that they are listening now.

Even so, parties with 12 candidates will be allowed to have their party's name on ballots but will still not be able, as will parties with 50 candidates, to provide donors with tax receipts, to access the list of electors or to obtain free broadcasting time on TV.

Those three things are crucial for a political party to be able campaign and to have its message communicated across the country. Those three things are very important, and parties with 12 members will not be entitled to such privileges.

With Bill C-9, the bill we are debating today, the government would create two tiers of political parties with different sets of privileges. On one hand, registered political parties with 50 or more candidates would possess all possible benefits. On the other hand, political parties with less than 50 candidates would possess few benefits other than having their name on the ballot if they have at least 12 candidates.

Bill C-9 continues to discriminate against smaller parties. It is not only undemocratic, it is anti-democratic as well. The Canada Elections Act should be neutral and should treat everyone equally and fairly. Canadian voters, not the government, should decide whether a political party or candidate is worthy of their vote. It should not be up to the government to decide, it should be up to Canadians.

The Liberals are trying to pass the legislation because a court case has necessitated changes to the Canada Elections Act. As the House will recall, in my speech in the last parliament I warned the House of possible legal action. I told the Liberals that they were exposing the Canada Elections Act to a legal tussle, and now here it is. If they had listened at the time this probably would not have happened.

The Ontario Court of Appeal decided the case in August 2000. The court decided that the Canada Elections Act provisions concerning the identification of political parties on election ballots was invalid. The court said that the provisions were invalid and suspended its decision for six months, until February 16, 2001, so that parliament could address the court's decision.

If this had been done right the first time we would not be doing it again. We could be spending the valuable time of the House, as well as of the court, on something more important.

Bill C-9 also clarifies the calculations of the electoral expenses limit. If the revised list of electors differs from the original list, the candidate's expenses will be adjusted accordingly.

The reimbursement of election expenses is also covered in the bill. Under section 435 of Bill C-2, which was a bill in the previous parliament, only registered parties, and not the small parties we must define today, will be reimbursed for election expenses providing they obtain either 2% of the national vote or 5% of the votes in the ridings in which they endorse candidates. Those are two conditions parties must satisfy before they get any reimbursement for election expenses.

Bill C-9 does not amend the reimbursement of election expenses provision that was in Bill C-2 in the last parliament. Therefore this section will be discriminatory against smaller parties.

Again I am standing in the House and warning the government. It should get its act together and correct these mistakes so that the Canada Elections Act is neutral, fair and treats everyone equally.

The Canadian Alliance, and my colleagues on this side, proposed election rebates. We do not believe it is fair that only registered parties, and not the smaller political parties, are eligible for these benefits.

Another important point in the bill is the fundraising activities. If Bill C-9 is not amended, as we are asking, it will be difficult for the smaller parties to engage in fundraising activities.

Bill C-9 does not make amendments to the income tax provisions of Bill C-2 which was debated in the House and passed in the last parliament. The provisions are discriminatory. Receipts can be issued on behalf of registered parties during and in between elections. Whereas, candidates of non-registered political parties, the ones we talked about earlier, can only issue receipts during the writ period. How can they prepare themselves to have their messages conveyed to Canadians when they do not have enough resources? They are not permitted have fundraisers between elections.

During those 36 or 37 days they can receive funds and issue tax receipts to donors. Other than the writ period, they are not entitled to raise any funds or issue tax receipts. When tax receipts are not issued, it is very difficult to get money donated from someone to a political party or a political cause. That is very unfair.

I will move on to another point about asset liquidation. Under clause 394 of the former bill, Bill C-2, with respect to registered parties which failed to run 50 candidates, they become suspended and the assets of a suspended party need not be liquidated if the party applies for re-registration within six months. However, if they do not apply within those six months then they are suspended. Bill C-9 does not amend this very important provision. The Canadian Alliance does not believe that a party should have to liquidate its assets under any circumstances, which is exactly what the Ontario Court of Appeal decided.

The Liberal government may be facing another court challenge over this if this clause is not amended. We are telling the Liberal government what to do about this bill to avoid any potential lawsuits. Whether or not it listens to us is another story.

The voting process is another issue. Among other technical matters, Bill C-9 also stipulates that if the chief electoral officer wishes to examine alternative voting processes, such as electronic voting, the alternative cannot be used without the approval of the House of Commons and Senate committees. Why does the chief electoral officer, who is supposed to monitor elections in Canada, have to get permission for electoral alternative electronic voting, for example, or other alternative methods to make the process efficient and effective?

There are some other changes in the bill but most of them are housekeeping changes. Under the current legislation, only the approval of the House of Commons committee is required. This sounds to me like a way to prevent change, but I will reserve my comments and allow the committee that will hear this bill, and many witnesses over time, to decide what this section really means.

I look forward in seeing how the committee proceeds. I look forward to seeing whether it will give a fair chance to witnesses to come forward and whether or not its recommendations will be taken into consideration. The amendments to the former Bill C-2, which were discussed in the committee, were ignored.

Let me talk about the relationship of Bill C-9 to Canadian Alliance policy. Canadian Alliance policy states:

To improve the representative nature of our electoral system, we will consider electoral reforms, including proportional representation, the single transferable ballot, electronic voting, and fixed election dates, and we will submit such options to voters in a nationwide referendum.

The government House leader is in charge of the bill. He was in charge of the last bill during the last session and did a very bad job. I apologize for making this comment, but all the good amendments which we proposed and those which were discussed in committee were not taken into consideration. Even when the red light was flashing signalling a warning that there might be some court actions, the House leader ignored it. Now, the House leader is heckling me on this.

While the bill does abandon the 50 candidate rule, it does not go far enough to democratize our electoral process. We believe all parties should be treated equally and fairly, not merely those with 50 or more candidates. All political parties should be treated fairly and equally. That is called real democracy.

The Canada Elections Act is a mess. Not only are the Liberals not learning fast enough, I do not know if they are learning at all. They do not have the political will to make a fair and level playing field for all political parties to contest an election.

The level playing field is very important. Equal opportunity for all political parties is very important but it is not there. The Liberals not only have it in the back of their minds but they also have it in the front of their minds to have an elections act that will benefit the governing party, which in this case is the Liberal Party. That is why they did not listen to the Alliance amendments in the last parliament and will try to ignore our amendments once again.

The bill maintains the most objectionable provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Our elections should be democratic, free and fair, offering equal opportunity to all candidates and all political parties. This would be a great way to start a new session of parliament.

The weak, arrogant and corrupt Liberal government that lacks vision is wasting an opportunity to modernize and democratize the patronage ridden Canada Elections Act. It has this opportunity again. Our election act is even worse than the election acts in developing countries and where this government's representatives go to monitor elections. If our own elections act is a mess, is not democratic, how can we send our representatives to developing countries to monitor their elections? I do not know if we are practising what we are preaching at home.

The members of the official opposition have proposed a number of worthwhile amendments to the bill. We will continue to do that. It is our job, not only to criticize the government, but also to propose amendments, suggest new ways and worthwhile change to open Liberals' eyes. As usual we are holding a flashlight for them but they are closing their eyes. They refuse to look when we shine the light into their intellectual darkness.

The Liberals resist change. That is why they do not want parliamentary reform. That is why they do not want to democratize our electoral system. The more I think about it, I am quite convinced that the Liberals' actions are not just undemocratic, they are anti-democratic. The government is the dictatorship of the 21st century. It is nothing short of a dictatorship when it will not accept amendments that would improve the system.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 9, the television program Vr showed that the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for that part of the Employment Insurance Act, was not at all aware of the fact that it discriminates against employees working for their spouse or for a relative, by imposing on them the burden of proving their insurability, and by treating them like cheaters.

Since Bill C-2, which is currently under review, is silent on this discrimination, is the minister prepared to correct the section of the act that equates workers who are related to their employers with cheaters?

Canada Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate and to note that this is an important piece of legislation. It is, in essence, the rules of engagement that apply to those who seek public office.

Although the bill has some rather particular aspects to it that are addressed in the overall scheme of things, I think it is timely, given that we have recently resumed this session of parliament and come through an election, that we look at how elections are conducted.

The bill, as has been noted, would amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is a bill that, as I indicated, deals substantially with two aspects that came out of a court case in the province of Ontario.

I begin my remarks by saying that it is good to see. I say with some sarcasm that the government has not changed the way it deals with legislation such as this in parliament. It is good to see that it has remained consistent and predictable. The government has treated this legislation, like many other pieces of legislation of this type, by not consulting. That is to say that it did not go to the effort of prior consultation with political parties in order to gain consensus, which was always the practice when it came to bills of this nature. It is disappointing and yet, as I indicated, it has become somewhat an expected attitude and approach on the part of the government.

The current Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, served with great distinction on a special committee on electoral reform between 1991 and 1993 when he was a member of the opposition. A committee that was chaired by Mr. Jim Hawkes, the Progressive Conservative member from Calgary at that time, studied many of the same issues that we see before us.

That committee, in coming to its conclusions, stated quite emphatically that it would not report to the Chamber unless the recommendations were endorsed by all three political parties in existence at that time. There was an effort to recognize that consensus on issues such as this are extremely important. My, how times have changed.

However, in regard to this particular piece of legislation, the electoral act, changes have come before the Chamber since 1994 time and again without prior agreement, without consensus as to the content. That very much puts the government and this legislation, sadly, on shaky ground in terms of its legitimacy.

The last legislation of this type that came before parliament, Bill C-2 as it then was, was subjected to time allocation, which is of course again a practice that we have seen far too often in the past number of years. In fact, the trigger-happy government House leader has now used time allocation 69 times. Again, my, how times change. When the government House leader was a member of the opposition, it was so offensive to him and such an affront to democracy, yet a different attitude now prevails.

Turning back to the bill itself, I must admit that the changes now before us are reasonable in their content. They are changes that result from a court case that came out of the Ontario court of appeal. It bears noting that these changes will, I believe, enhance the current legislation, although I was hoping that in this parliament the first encounter we would have on a bill such as this, the first opportunity we would have to address this issue, would be met with perhaps a different attitude so that we would be able to deal with this problem of encountering each other in a different fashion. That does not appear to be the case.

One of the major problems, which was apparent to all Canadians and all parliamentarians, in the last election was the difficulty with the permanent voters list. We have heard a litany of stories of constituents who found that when they went to vote, to exercise their democratic right, a very important right and one that we all encourage in this legislation, their names were absent or there was some anomaly like not being listed at the appropriate polling station.

We all have to be very diligent. I hope this legislation in its final draft will address some of the problems surrounding the application of the permanent voters list. There is a huge frustration, as one can appreciate, whether it be a member of the voting public from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough or from any constituency in the country, when individuals make that important statement of going to cast their ballot and arrive at a polling station only to find that for one reason or another their names are not listed.

I hope that when the bill goes to committee we will have an opportunity to delve into it in greater detail. That is not to say that this is not the proper forum to discuss some of the problems and some of the changes that could occur, but I hope that at that time in particular we will have an opportunity to pose questions to the chief electoral officer and his staff regarding some of these issues that arose during the last campaign.

From these problems and this experience, we might get some idea from Mr. Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, of the cost of creating this permanent electoral list, of the attempts that will of course follow to keep it up to date, and of the safeguards that ensure it is accurate, for this in and of itself has to be the fundamental purpose of having a permanent voters list, a list that reflects the eligible voters of the various constituencies around the country. It appears, in its current form at least, to be flawed. This is an opportunity to change that, to improve upon this permanent voters list and the efforts that were made to put this in place in the first place.

The overall amendments to the current legislation as compared to the last parliament's appear to be fairly straightforward in nature. Bill C-9 responds to the Ontario court of appeal case known as Figueroa. This case dealt with a submission on the part of the Communist Party of Canada, an argument that many of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act in its current form benefited larger political parties and therefore, by virtue of the same method, discriminated against the smaller political groupings.

With regard to the identification of candidates and political parties on the ballot, the court held that provisions of the Canada Elections Act limit identification of candidates' party affiliations on the ballot to candidates that were endorsed by organized political parties which supported 50 or more candidates in a general election.

It was found in the ruling by the majority on the court that this would infringe the charter. By virtue of its decision, the court did, as is often the case, give the Parliament of Canada an opportunity to address the issue, the anomaly, and to fix the problem.

The court felt that there was no justification, as it wrote in the ruling, for bringing the 50 candidates limit in relation to this matter or for having that in place. It discriminated against smaller political groups and was thus, in the court's opinion, not justifiable under the charter. It did not meet what has become known as the Oakes test.

This was a common sense judgment in my view, and the way in which it has been handled is the way that it should have been handled, that is, it is now back in the place where legislation is to be drafted and produced. It is back in our hands for us to do just that job.

The court put in place a time period to rewrite the applicable portion of that legislation. It set no particular guidelines in its findings with respect to the 50 candidates rule. It did not say it was too high but it did not set a bottom number either, so the current legislation produces the number of 15, which may be arbitrary. That is again something that will be examined by the committee. It is interesting to note that the number of 15 is that which was recommended by a royal commission on electoral reforms that was established after the 1988 general election.

The bill before us does in fact recommend that political parties can have their names printed under the name of the supported candidate if the nomination of 12 candidates of that party is confirmed by the chief electoral officer at the close of nominations.

At the committee I or a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party will look forward with great interest to listening to the reasons for picking this number and why it is that the government feels it is the particular number that would be defensible and charter proof in any future challenges. That is something we have to bear in mind when we put this final number in place.

I want to make a brief passing reference to the issue of Bill C-273, which was in my view quite meanspirited and a bit inflammatory in its reference to fringe parties in this Chamber. I think it is disrespectful and trivializing to introduce legislation of this sort and is purely political posturing. However, that said, I think the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, with some humility, might consider withdrawing this particular bill because of its inflammatory nature, and I think that good faith on his part might be forthcoming.

I do look forward to dealing with this particular bill when it gets to the committee and looking at the possibility of fine tuning some of the amendments.

Some of the other particular amendments that come out of this legislation deal with the advertising blackout period, which is important because of the vastness of the country, because of the time change that occurs not only on election night but in the periods before the campaign. This is also an important consideration.

There is the adjustment of expense limits for candidates should there be differences in the total number of voters between the preliminary electoral list and the revised list.

These are important rules of engagement to be governed by the legislation.

In any event, the committee will have an opportunity to look at these matters in greater detail. The committee will have an opportunity to hear from the chief electoral officer. In fact, I am sure the government House leader, who has carriage of this bill, will be an able and apt participant in those discussions.

I see that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is present too, and I am very hopeful that the indication that the government is very forthcoming and forthright about electoral reform also applies to parliamentary reform. I want to refer briefly to an occasion where there was an opportunity to bring about some political reform too. That was to have—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

To begin with, we will be supporting this legislation. We will be doing so because it is consistent with the Figueroa decision handed down in Ontario. It ensures that we conform to the spirit of this decision. I will say, however, that we are not happy to be giving the bill our support, and I will explain why.

First of all, when one looks at the actual bill and reads it, it is clear that it is very brief. It contains only a few clauses. At first blush, it might appear that this is really a relatively minor or superficial bill. It is true that, in terms of content, it is brief. It will not go down in history for its length.

While the bill may seem fairly minor and innocuous, what is troubling to say the least is the government's attitude.

I believe that, by its very nature and by its very content, this bill reflects the arrogant and cynical attitude of this government, which feels that it embodies truth and innate knowledge.

We have before us today a bill which is evidence of all the haste with which the Elections Act reform was carried out during the last parliament. We proceeded precipitously. And why did we? Because the government waited until halfway through its mandate to bring in the amendments it intended to make to the Elections Act. The government was planning, anticipating, a rush election. It wanted to move as quickly as possible to pass new legislation, so that the chief electoral officer would have the time—we are talking six months or so—to implement the provisions of the new legislation before the election was called.

The fact is that, indeed, the provisions of the election legislation rushed through in 1999-2000, if I am not mistaken, took effect at the very beginning of September 2000, so the government was in a position to call a snap election.

Speaking of haste, this bill is an illustration, a proof of the haste with which the government moved during the last parliament in order to get the Elections Act changed, with its bill number 2, Bill C-2.

First, Bill C-9, which is before the House today, contains provisions intended to ensure linguistic concordance, since it appears that the Elections Act, under which the most recent federal elections were held, contained linguistic concordance problems. In other words, some provisions did not say exactly the same thing in English and in French.

Had the government taken the time to properly study Bill C-2 and not rushed it through, perhaps we would have had the time to catch these little language errors and prevent them from having any effect during an election campaign on the interpretation of the law.

Happily—of course the matter is not over yet—it appears that the problems of interpretation in linguistic terms did not cause any catastrophes in the last election.

I will give an example. In the bill before us, clauses 18 and 19 are two provisions intended to bring the French text into line with the original English text with respect to the rules governing the allocation of free broadcasting time and the purchase of air time during the election campaign. The period during which air time is available to the political parties and candidates is defined as the period between the time the election was called and polling day. In French, the text reads “jusqu'à minuit le jour du scrutin”.

On closer examination of the English, we find “At midnight on the day before polling day”. They just forgot to say “À minuit, la veille du jour du scrutin”. That makes a fair difference. It is not a minor error. It is a detail, which could have made all the difference during the latest election campaign, in some ridings, even across Canada.

Here is another example. Clause 4 of Bill C-9 talks of the provisions concerning information to be contained in the register of electors.

It states that it shall contain:

—any other information that is provided under subsections 49(2), 194(7), 195(7), 223(2), 233(2) and 251(3).

It was simply not noticed that, in Bill C-2, the reference was to subsection 195(7) and not, as it was passed in the last parliament, to subsection 195(3). The wrong subsection was amended. The reference is to the wrong subsection. This is another example of haste and sloppy work.

Another example is when the bill refers to generally accepted accounting principles, concepts that the Bloc Quebecois incorporated in Bill C-2, by the way.

As for the generally accepted accounting principles in clause 21, the government simply forgot to include these provisions in subparagraphs 403( b )(i) and (ii). Could this have made a difference? Of course it could have. This is another example of how Bill C-2 was rushed through, without the time being taken to do a proper job.

Why? Simply to satisfy the partisan goals of the government. This is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I was talking about party politics. Is there anything more vital to democracy than an electoral bill? It seems to me that such a bill must be acceptable to most if not all political parties taking part in the process. Everyone must agree with the process if it is to be accepted by civil society in general.

But, as I said earlier, in the reform of the Canada Elections Act during the last parliament, the government's approach was to brazenly put party politics and its political interests ahead of seeking a consensus with opposition parties.

We have seen this in several regards. The government's reform of the Canada Elections Act is essentially cosmetic and superficial. Naturally, it has been amended to be more readable and logical. Of course, some changes were made to comply with previous rulings.

This reminds me of the comment made earlier by the hon. member for Edmonton North, who said that this government is much more reactive than proactive. It is true. We proposed all sorts of ideas during the review of Bill C-2 to amend the Elections Act, so as to make it better for our fellow citizens and so that it would reflect more democratic and modern electoral procedures. But, as I just said, the government decided instead to make only some minor cosmetic changes.

Bill C-2 was not the result of a consensus. It was rammed down our throat by the government. Yet, when he launched the consultation process, the government House leader, the minister responsible for Canada's electoral reform, had said “I want to ensure that we can co-operate with federal political parties—as has traditionally been the case in Canada—so that this bill will reflect a consensus”. Which consensus did this bill reflect? None. The government alone voted in favour of Bill C-2.

I would even go further. The government was so determined to ram this bill through and muzzle the opposition that it went so far as to see that, at third reading, only the government's spokesperson and one representative of the official opposition were allowed to speak to the bill.

Is there anything more despicable than to see the cornerstone of democracy, the elections act of a country, debated at third reading in the House, at the final stage, by only two political parties out of the five represented here in parliament?

The government's behaviour during consideration of Bill C-2 was absolutely outrageous.

The government pushed that bill through so fast that it had to come back to the House and say “Well, there are some minor changes we need to do, typos we need to correct. Would you be kind enough to let us correct these mistakes?”

The government is using the Figueroa ruling, which basically compels us to amend the elections act, to introduce a whole series of tiny minor changes, without of course embarking on an in depth reform of the legislation.

The government is saying “The system has served us well, let it be. We have been re-elected three times under the current election system, with three great majorities, do not change a thing”.

Is this not the party led by the same man who promised, as Leader of the Opposition, that the first thing he would do as Prime Minister would be to include proportional representation into the system?

Well, he was elected and all he had managed to do by the end of his second term was to introduce some slight cosmetic changes to the Canadian election system, because the system has served him well and has worked to his advantage. The government is far from willing to propose any significant amendments to the current election legislation.

Let me briefly go over some of the provisions found in this bill. Among others, the bill amends the Canada Elections Act to give a greater role to the Senate. Previously, if he wanted to carry out a pilot project, for example to test an electronic voting process, the chief electoral officer had to obtain, under Bill C-2, the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that deals with electoral matters.

Believe it or not, under Bill C-9, the one before us today, not only will the approval of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be required, but also the approval of the Senate committee that normally considers electoral matters. It takes some nerve to give to a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians the power to say to the Cyou chief electoral officer, “No, you cannot carry out a study on a new way for people to exercise their right to vote in an election”, or “Yes, you can go ahead, under this or that condition”.

Is it not ironic to call upon a committee made up of unelected parliamentarians to debate the Canada Elections Act, which concerns each and everyone of us as representatives of our constituents? This is somewhat embarrassing.

The main purpose of Bill C-9 is to enable a political party that has at least 12 candidates to have its name listed on the ballots along with the name of its candidates. Members will remember that the number of candidates required used to be 50. This bill would reduce the number to 12.

Obviously the Figueroa decision does not specify the number of candidates that would be acceptable in constitutional terms.

So the government proposed the number 12. The rational argument, the logic behind this government proposal, is this. It takes 12 MPs in the House for a party to become a recognized political party. Let us use the same figure for recognition of a political party on the ballot, even if the number of 50 candidates on a slate is still valid for the party to be able to take advantage of the tax benefits offered by the Government of Canada. That said, from now on, the number of candidates required before the party name would be given on the ballot would be 12.

Hon. members might well ask “Why 12? Why not two, five, or ten?” The government, of course, says “Yes, but a rational argument is required, and the rational argument is the rule whereby it takes 12 members in the House for a party to become a recognized political party”.

During the briefing session, a most interesting point was raised by a colleague from the Canadian Alliance. He asked “And what if Prince Edward Island wanted to try an experiment like the Bloc Quebecois did?” There are only six ridings on P.E.I., so how could one imagine the Bloc P.E.I. on the ballet? It would not be possible with only six ridings.

I imagine that this will give rise to a lot of debate on the matter, but I find it unfortunate that the government did not want to take advantage of the work done on the previous bill, Bill C-2, or of consideration of this one, Bill C-9, in order to make more substantial amendments to the Elections Act.

On Tuesday, we debated the possibility of striking a special all-party committee to examine the merits of various models of proportional representation and other electoral reforms. The government clearly indicated its lack of interest.

Let us not be surprised afterward when the people of Quebec and of Canada show even less interest in federal politics, having seen the lack of interest the government has in bringing in any reform whatsoever. Let us not be surprised that the voter turnout is constantly dropping, constantly waning, election after election, when we have a government with such a closed mind and such arrogance toward the public.

[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.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first speech of this 37th parliament. I have had the opportunity to rise on questions and comments a few times, but this is my first speech and it deals with Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill. It was the second bill to be introduced in the House of Commons since parliament reconvened.

First, I must thank all the voters of Charlevoix, all the workers, all those who are unemployed and all the seasonal workers. We have fought relentlessly since the Axworthy reform—which became the Young reform and which has taken the names of other ministers since then—which was part of the government's electoral platform.

The Prime Minister and the government said that as soon as parliament reconvened they were willing to correct their mistake and to make significant improvements to the bill.

We have before us today Bill C-2, which replaces Bill C-44. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told us that the reason Bill C-44 did not pass third reading in the House of Commons was that the Bloc Quebecois refused to have this bill rammed through the House.

Bill C-44 was not passed at third reading because of a government strategy. The Prime Minister decided to introduce a bill at the very end of the session in June, in order to give parliamentarians time to think about first, second and third readings, and perhaps royal assent, over the summer.

Seeing that the bill did not have the unanimous support of the House, of workers and employers in the regions, of social organizations, women's groups and so forth, the Prime Minister told himself that going into an election campaign with such a bill would be a surefire disaster. He decided that he would withdraw it and not introduce it at third reading.

During the recent election campaign, he promised to introduce a bill, the one we are considering today, but parliamentarians are not being allowed to debate it in depth. The bill was supposed to have been extensively amended. We have to get across to the government, especially the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Prime Minister, people's concerns about this bill which, in our view, is worthless.

In our view, this bill only allows the government to correct part of its mistake. In its reform, it had taken the intensity rules and reduced the rate from 55% to 50%. Hence the penalty to seasonal workers of 1% a year.

The minister admitted that this was a mistake. Many regions believed the government's promises, given the $30 billion surplus in the EI fund alone, and the budgetary surpluses of the government and the Minister of Finance because of cuts in transfer payments for health and education, in a wide variety of areas.

However, Charlevoix was not taken in, because we have seen what happened in Gaspé, where there have been plant closings and unemployment has risen. The government tried to solve the problem in Gaspé or soften its impact, at the expense of the north shore, the Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean and the Lower St. Lawrence, taking from them to give to Gaspé.

This is more or less what the government has done so far. It gives with one hand and takes away with the other. In an attempt to compensate for the funds it would take to increase the number of insurable weeks in Gaspé, it decided to reorganize the economic regions and to combine the north shore and the Lower St. Lawrence, which has forced us into a transitional measure involving an unacceptable proposal for our seasonal workers. We were, for example, proposed a figure of 525 hours worked for 21 insurable weeks.

Already, with the 420 hour requirement, six out of ten contributors to employment insurance are not entitled to it, that is, the seasonal workers in the tourist or forestry industry, in fisheries or some other area where employment is seasonal.

When the minister tells me “Sir, we would like to try extending the seasons in your area”, I would dearly love to put a dome over the peat bogs so that peat can be cut longer, but that is impossible.

We also looked into the possibility of enclosing the hills at the Saint-François river under a refrigerated dome so that there could be skiing on artificial snow until August, but that too is impossible.

We have also tried looking into various ways of carrying out logging operations in winter with 5, 6, 7 or 8 feet of snow, but that too is impossible.

The minister asks us to extend our seasons, and I must mention the tourism industry. People who go camping celebrate Christmas in August, not on December 25, when campgrounds have long been closed. We can promote tourist attractions at various times of the year but, on a campground, Christmas is celebrated in August, not in December.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport criss-crossed our regions during the election campaign to inform us of the transitional measures that they had put in place. They recognized that it would be difficult for those who had qualified with 525 hours for 21 weeks, because there would be a grey area.

We are now in that grey area. On February 15, people will stop getting EI benefits. In my riding, people are no longer getting EI benefits and they will probably not work before June 1. They now find themselves in that so-called grey area. These people have no income at all, yet, there is $30 billion in the employment insurance fund. People need their EI benefits to pay their rent and their food, to put bread and butter on the table. Right now they find themselves in the grey area.

In the coming days, Statistics Canada will probably tell us that the unemployment rate miraculously dropped in Charlevoix. It will be down in February, in March and probably in April. Statistics Canada will come up with these figures. Of course, the government is handing out fewer cheques, since people no longer qualify, since they are no longer entitled to benefits.

When people no longer get EI benefits, the unemployment rate as determined by Statistics Canada drops by osmosis, but income security goes up in Quebec, since a number of these people have no other option than to go on welfare.

When welfare is involved, the bill is footed 100% by Quebecers, but EI premiums are in no way the property of the federal government. In my view, the federal government has the authority to legislate, but not to interfere. It is unfortunate that we are being forced to debate this today in order to get the government to understand that the bill it is preparing to have passed can perhaps put right some of its mistakes.

However, when the government promised to look at the bill in depth, we in the Bloc Quebecois told it that the money belonged to employees and employers. We suggested a parliamentary committee to split the bill in two in order to correct the mistakes that were made when the intensity rule was lowered from 55% to 50%. If we correct this error, we can immediately improve the rule. We would be favourable to raising the intensity rule to 60% instead of 50% or 55%. We suggest that there be uniform eligibility criteria.

Why does a new entrant on the labour market need 910 hours to qualify for employment insurance? Someone who works 32 to 35 hours a week for 10 to 12 weeks and who pays premiums is not entitled to EI. We want this abolished. We want the number of hours to be the same for everyone—300. Things would be much easier then.

We also suggest that the two week waiting period be abolished. Why two weeks? We meet someone who has just lost his job and received his last week's pay, and he tells us that he has to wait two weeks. It takes a month for the person to begin receiving benefits.

The Bloc Quebecois is going to vote against Bill C-2, although we know that it will improve things and correct the mistakes of the government, which dipped into the fund. We know, however, that the bill allows the government to help itself to the surplus in the employment insurance fund. This is unacceptable. We have always been critical of this, as have trade unions and social organizations. For our part, we will continue to speak out against this practice. On behalf of the seasonal workers in Charlevoix, we will be voting against this bill because we think it is unacceptable.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all the parties and I believe you would find consent for the following:

That the recorded divisions scheduled today at the conclusion of government orders take place in the following order:

All necessary questions to dispose of the supply day motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

All questions to dispose of second reading of Bill C-2.

All questions to dispose of second reading of Bill C-8.

The main motion concerning the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I understand there will be another motion, a pro forma motion, once the motion has been adopted.

Employment Insurance Act

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting into the heart of the matter, I would like to take a few seconds to thank the constituents of Laurentides for having once again put their trust in me.

For the third time in a row, the people of my riding have chosen me as their representative in the House of Commons. I am profoundly touched by this great vote of confidence. As I did during my two previous terms of office, I will do everything in my power to serve them as best I can. I promise to take all the necessary steps to represent their interests in this House.

I will start fulfilling that promise right away because, as usual, this government is once again trying to take us for a ride with Bill C-2.

For many years now, the employment insurance issue has been a priority for the Bloc Quebecois. It is normal because the EI program helps people who are in need or who, periodically or for conjunctural reasons, have to rely on it because they have no income. We are talking mostly about self employed workers, seasonal workers, workers in regions, young people and women.

The Bloc Quebecois has been fighting for years against the federal government's plan to grab the surplus in the employment insurance fund, a plan that has now become a reality with Bill C-2. Let us say it as it is: with Bill C-2, the federal government is about to literally establish and legalize the misappropriation of $30 billion in funds. This money does not belong to it. This $30 billion belong to the unemployed, workers and employers, period. This fund was not created to save money and to create a surplus in order to pay off the deficit and now the debt of the country.

With such a surplus in the employment insurance account, the people of Quebec and Canada were expecting major changes to the employment insurance plan. With Bill C-44, the predecessor of Bill C-2, which was introduced just before the election was called last fall, the Bloc quickly realized that such was not the case. History is repeating itself with Bill C-2, which contains only cosmetic changes. Bill C-2 is almost a carbon copy of Bill C-44. There are some minor changes here and there, but almost nothing to answer to the real needs of workers.

The Bloc Quebecois has not been the only party to denounce Bill C-2. Advocacy groups for the workers and the unemployed also denounced this bill. They think that the government is not trying to resolve the real problems and that the changes proposed are far from being enough. The main problem—eligibility for the plan—remains unsolved.

In its arguments, the government is basically saying that Bill C-2 is a major reform of employment insurance, because, based on government estimates, it will cost $200 million this year, $450 million next year and $500 million in 2002-03.

It is plain and simple hypocrisy. It is playing the people of Quebec and Canada for fools, nothing else. Just imagine a situation where I pick $100 directly out of your pockets but, being a very generous person, I give you back $8. That is how generous this government is. That is exactly what it wants to do with this so-called employment insurance reform. Moreover, as I said earlier, it is running away with the employment insurance fund and its $30 billion, and the population and the Bloc Quebecois should say thank you to the government? We say never.

More specifically, it means that, based on a $6 billion a year surplus in the employment insurance fund, the government would only give back 8% of the amount it picks each year from the pockets of the unemployed, and we should be thankful for that?

Employment insurance has become a payroll tax, because the government refuses to give back to the unemployed and the workers what is owed to them and is continuing to accumulate surpluses at their expense.

The government obviously does not feel for the unemployed and those left behind in the employment insurance reform. The measures contained in this bill do not adequately address the problems caused by the plan, particularly as they relate to seasonal and regional workers, young people, women and self employed workers, and here is why.

To begin with, the government has clearly decided to ignore self-employed workers, yet their numbers keep increasing on the labour market. According to Statistics Canada, the percentage of self-employed workers went up from 12% in 1976 to 18% in 1999, so that nearly one worker in five is self employed. The EI plan ignores these workers. It is as if they did not exist, while there are more and more of them in the Canadian economy.

Let us talk about students now, our future, those who will forge our society of tomorrow. Our young people must have access to higher education if they are to satisfy the needs of the new economy. Between the rhetoric of this government, which claims to be very worried by our students' fate, and reality, there is a world of difference. The EI legislation does not help all our students to study, on the contrary.

As we all know, more and more students pay for their studies by working part time, and full time during the summer. They pay premiums without even being able to get any benefits under the plan.

The last census in 1996 revealed that there were more than 2.8 million full time students. The 1999 control and evaluation report states that nearly one million Canadians earned less than $2,000, which entitled them to a refund. However, only 40% of those applied for it, 42% of whom were under 25 years of age. In other words, nearly 2.6 million students had to contribute to the EI system while trying to pay for their studies.

The EI eligibility rules are a real orphan clause. Young newcomers face more restrictions in applying for benefits. Instead of a minimum of 300 hours, that is 15 hours a week for 20 weeks, they need 910 hours, which amounts to 35 hours a week for 26 weeks. It is utterly unacceptable.

On top of that, how can one explain that, with a plan that is supposed to help those who pay premiums, benefits have dropped 28% between 1993 and 1999, and the number of people collecting regular benefits has dropped 52.4%?

How can one explain that, in 2001, having a child is something that should be penalized, according to the federal government?

For the government, having a child is something that should now be penalized. To punish mothers, the federal government and the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is a woman, have decided that, to collect the maternity or parental benefits, 600 hours will soon be required. Whereas a worker in a region with high unemployment will be entitled to benefits after 420 hours of work, a woman in the same area will have to work at least 600 hours to collect maternity benefits. Up to now, 300 hours, or 15 hours a week during 20 weeks, were required. Where is the moral sense of this government?

Being a responsible political party that wants to meet the needs of the unemployed and the workers, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to pass Bill C-2 quickly on one crucial condition, that it be divided into two separate bills.

The first bill, as suggested by the Bloc Quebecois, would meet the urgent needs of the workers not appropriately covered under the current plan. Among other things, the Bloc Quebecois would want the new bill to eliminate discrimination against younger workers and newcomers on the labour market—910 hours to qualify—to increase benefits from 55% to 60% of insurable earnings, to level the playing field for seasonal workers and to eliminate the waiting period.

The second bill would include long term measures to be debated in committee. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of an independent employment insurance fund and coverage for the self employed.

In conclusion, if the bill is not divided, there is no way that the Bloc Quebecois can support such a clear misappropriation of $30 billion from the EI fund and a discriminatory bill that is totally inconsistent with the needs of the unemployed and the workers of Quebec and Canada.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.

It is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-2, particularly because the changes to the employment insurance legislation will make a tremendous difference in the lives of Canadian families.

As chair of the greater Toronto area caucus, I can vouch for the fact that colleagues in our caucus have been enunciating the issue for quite a while and have indicated our support for the changes, particularly with regard to the intensity rule and the clawback.

Overall we know our EI reforms are working well, but we also know that we need to update the system to better meet the needs of working families.

The vast majority of Canada's working families confront a broad range of challenges that they cannot easily solve alone. Today many mothers and fathers work outside the home and discussions about child care are commonplace. There is no doubt that the workforce has changed dramatically over the past few decades and our employment insurance system must change with the changing needs.

When unemployment insurance was created in the 1940s most employees were male. Today women make up nearly half the workforce. In the 1940s most women stayed at home and cared for their children. Today dual income couples make up about 40% of the working population. It is a fact of modern life that both parents working is now the norm and not the exception.

At the same time the struggle to meet both work and family responsibilities is a top concern for Canadian men and women. Forty per cent of Canadian workers report a high level of work and family stress. This is significantly higher than just 10 years ago.

If we listen carefully to Canadians and their concerns about the EI program, it would seem clear that we must find new ways to make our system more responsive to the challenges facing today's families.

The government recognizes that today's parents find it difficult to balance the demands of caring for children and making a living. For children to get the best start in life, parents need the time and the resources to nurture them. This is why on December 31, 2000, we enhanced the EI parental benefits to allow a parent to stay at home with a newborn child for up to one year.

This is also why we proposed to support parents under the bill by eliminating the clawback for Canadians collecting special benefits under EI. Canadians use special benefits when they are too sick to work or when they are at home to care for their newborn or newly adopted children. We realize that the benefit repayment system was unduly limiting the assistance Canadian families could receive at a time when they needed the most help.

The clawback was designed to discourage high income earners from collecting benefits year after year, not to discourage parents from using maternity and parental benefits. We do not want to penalize parents who stay home to spend more time with their young children, or people who are too sick to work. Canadians who collect special benefits will no longer have to repay any of the benefits.

In addition, middle income Canadian workers will have more money to spend on their families because we are moving to one threshold, $48,750 of net income. The repayment will be no more than 30% of their net income in excess of the threshold.

We are proposing to eliminate the intensity rule which reduces a person's EI benefit rate by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of benefits he or she has collected in the previous five years. Depending on the number of weeks of benefits paid in previous years, a person's benefit rate would drop from the usual 55% to 54% to a minimum of 50%.

By eliminating the intensity rule we will help workers who have to rely on EI more often than they would like because job opportunities in their communities may be scarce. These workers will no longer be penalized, which means they will have more money for their families.

The rules will also be adjusted to make it easier for parents to qualify for regular benefits after returning to the workforce following an extended absence to care for young children. In essence, the rules will make it easier for parents to qualify for EI regular benefits if they lose their job during the difficult period of transition into the labour market.

That is why we are extending the look back period for re-entrants. Claimants who have received maternity and parental benefits in the four years prior to the current look back period will require the same number of hours as other clients to be eligible for regular benefits. Combined with extended parental benefits, these further changes are good news for new parents and will give parents the choice of spending more time at home with their children.

Finally, the EI premium rate has been reduced by 15 cents to $2.25, putting more money into the pockets of Canadian families. This change may seem small and insignificant, but it is the seventh consecutive reduction and has translated into billions of dollars in savings for employees and employers.

These amendments enhance a number of important initiatives the government has put in place to help Canadian families.

In earlier EI reform, we introduced the family supplement. With the supplement, claimants from low income families with children can receive up to 80% of their insured earnings. Nearly 200,000 Canadian families benefited from this measure in 1999-2000. Another important initiative is the national child benefit, which makes it possible for families to break away from poverty. Providing more income benefits and services outside the welfare system makes easier for families to support children while remaining part of the workforce.

The bottom line is that easing financial pressures on Canadian families may lead to better environments for their children, more opportunities for parents and a better chance for the family to improve its overall quality of life.

These amendments to the employment insurance program are good news for Canada's hardworking families. They reflect our government's strong commitment to build new opportunities for Canadians that reward work and strengthen families. These changes will let thousands of mothers and fathers help care for their children during the critical first months of life. They will alleviate a major source of economic pressure on working families and they will put the country's policies more in line with the realities facing today's families.

I support these amendments and ask the House to consider them.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your new position. I am sure you will serve the House well, and I hope you enjoy it. I also thank the constituents of York West, my family and staff for their support in the November 27 election. I am glad to be back and very pleased to speak in favour of the bill today.

We on this side of the House know how important the EI system is to Canadians. That is why we feel really good about reintroducing the bill that was presented and debated in the House last fall. I had an opportunity to be a part of that.

Canadians showed us in the last election that they agreed with the direction we are taking. We also know how important it is that we in government monitor EI and make sure that it continues to do what it was meant to do: to help those who are out of work. That is why I support Bill C-2.

The legislation is a result of the government's ongoing monitoring of EI. It recognizes the need for EI to keep up to date with the realities of the Canadian economy. The government recognizes there were needs for changes in the bill.

About four years ago the government introduced major changes to the old unemployment insurance program. At that time we wanted to change a variety of things. We wanted to make the system fairer, reduce dependency, lower program costs, and emphasize active employment measures that would help get Canadians back to work.

The basic objective of that reform was to produce a system of employment insurance that would support Canadians in times when they were without work, but that would also encourage and support them to get back into the workforce as soon and as effectively as possible.

By and large that reform process worked very well. Measures like the new hours based eligibility system opened up access to EI for workers who had not previously qualified, such as multiple job holders who may be working a few hours for several employers. Many women who are employed in those part time jobs now qualify for EI if they need it.

At the same time new partnerships have been formed with other levels of government and with the private sector to help people prepare for and find jobs. The EI system was strengthened and improved by the reform. The economy has also improved since that time. On a national basis we are experiencing very positive economic circumstances. The national unemployment rate is down. More people are working in Canada than ever before.

Generally speaking, Canadians have never been more prosperous and our economic development has never been more robust. However not all Canadians have benefited from this renewed prosperity. Some regions of the country continue to have high unemployment rates. Seasonal workers, in particular, report that they continue to have difficulty finding work in their off season in their community. Many of these seasonal workers are being affected by one of the measures introduced with the EI bill in 1996, the so-called intensity rule.

The intensity rule was originally put in place to reduce dependency on EI and to encourage repeat claimants to find work. Unfortunately the intensity rule reduces the EI benefit rate for repeat claimants. The rate goes down by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of regular benefits collected in the past five years. The impact can reduce benefits paid to repeat claimants from the normal level of 55% to 50%.

The intensity rule was brought in because Canadians were concerned about people becoming too dependent on the employment insurance program. However, it turns out that the intensity rule is achieving little in terms of reducing dependency and increasing work effort. Our research has found that the intensity rule has not curtailed repeated EI use, particularly in areas where there are few job opportunities.

Despite tremendous employment gains in many parts of the country, there is still high unemployment in some regions and seasonal workers find it difficult to find off season jobs. There is a growing concern that the intensity rule has become more of a penalty on seasonal workers instead of an incentive to find work as originally intended. This is a situation that the government recognizes needs to be fixed.

How do we fix it? We eliminate the intensity rule as proposed in Bill C-2. It will remove the penalty imposed on Canadians who happen to live in areas with very limited opportunities for work.

Who will benefit? Canadians will benefit in every province and territory. We have heard about the benefits that it will bring to Atlantic Canada, and this is good news. However, it is also important to remember that claimants from Atlantic Canada account for less than 20% of the EI claims in any given year. This will help people everywhere in Canada.

In reality, seasonal employment is a fact of life all across Canada and there are many regions where alternative employment is difficult to find. We can ask construction workers in central Canada how they feel about this, or workers in the forest products industries in the western part of Canada, or the many seasonal workers in Quebec or the north. In truth, removing the intensity rule will provide economic benefits that will be welcomed throughout the country.

At the same time, we know that EI is only part of the solution. We will continue to work hard with provinces and territories and with businesses and community leaders to stimulate local economies because the best solution to unemployment is employment.

I will proudly vote for the legislation and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to do the same.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate you on your election to the chair. I believe you are the third elected Speaker that we have had in the history of the country.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the voters of Egmont for returning me for the fourth time in the last general election. I believe we came into the House at the same time, Mr. Speaker, so we must have been doing something right for our constituents.

This is the fourth time the people of Egmont voted for me. I am both humble and grateful that they bestowed the honour upon me. The riding of Egmont extends from the new city of Summerside on the eastern boundary all the way west to the North Cape. With the exception of the aerospace industry in Summerside, most of the industries in the riding of Egmont are seasonal in nature.

It is a very important fishing area of Atlantic Canada, with 12 small craft harbours in existence and a very lucrative lobster industry. Farming is a very important part of the economy of my riding with exceptional potato producing areas and dairy and swine industries. Forestry plays a smaller but vital role. Tourism is an ever growing part of the economy of Egmont. The construction industry also plays a vital role in the riding.

The unemployment insurance program is a vital program for the people of my riding because most of the industries are seasonal in nature. They must have this program in order to survive.

As I stated earlier, I have been here 12 years and I have seen the evolution of this file, the EI-UI debate, through the previous Conservative government and our own EI bill. Now, as a newly appointed member of the HRD standing committee, I will be playing a closer role with the program to see that it becomes a more responsive program for the people of Canada.

I heard people say how unfortunate it was to have time allocation invoked to get the bill through the House, even after we have gone through the last two federal elections with EI being one of the more prominent issues in the election debates. Both times the people of Canada have returned this government. They must be supporting our concept of employment insurance much better than the proposals that were set forth by the Conservatives, the Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP governments.

Maritimers have also heard criticism that perhaps Atlantic Canadians should go to where the jobs are. The most mobile people in Canada are the people from Atlantic Canada. If we were to go to the oil fields of Alberta, for example, we would find that most of the workers there are maritimers. If we were to go to Fort McMurray, we would see that over half the population of that city comes from Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada.

We always respond to where the jobs and have done so since Confederation, whether it was out immigration to the Boston states as we call them, or to Toronto when there were job opportunities, or to Vancouver when there were job opportunities or to Alberta where there are job opportunities now.

I know people who work the seasonal industries in my province. In the fishing industry, for example, workers fish during the spring and summer. They go to Alberta to work the rest of the year. Then, they return to Atlantic Canada to go back to the jobs where they grew up as sons of fishermen, hoping one day to replace their parents in the fishing industry.

Critics of the government claim that the contents of Bill C-2 represent backtracking on the reforms introduced in 1996. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government promised that if a monitoring process indicated that the changes were not producing the desired results, then legislation would be changed. Today this is what we are doing. We have found that the bill, as passed by the House a number of years ago, has a number of flaws in it. We are moving to correct those flaws.

It was generally agreed during the early days of this government that the unemployment insurance scheme needed to be replaced. It did not respond to the new economy in the 21st century. After much consultation with Canadians and despite the outraged cries of the opposition, some of whom did not want an EI program at all and others who wanted a guaranteed annual income, the government brought in a program to replace the old regime with the employment insurance program.

The new plan was designed to be sustainable, to be fairer, to encourage work, to reduce dependence on benefits, to assist those most in need and to help workers get back to work and stay at work. The program was implemented with the knowledge that being new it would not necessarily be perfect. We knew that with time we would likely identify areas requiring improvement. The legislation allowed for a period of continuous monitoring and assessment of the program to measure its impact on people, communities and the economy.

This is not the first time that adjustments to the EI regime have proven necessary. The government acted quickly in 1997 to launch a small weeks project in order to correct a disincentive for some people to work weeks with low earnings.

As the member for the area who identified the weakness, I knew that potato grading companies could not find workers. If people came into the potato warehouses for one, two or three days during the week, their benefits would be cut in half by their response to that call to go to work. This obviously was a disincentive to get people to work. We immediately moved to correct that.

Our studies and discussions with Canadians have shown us that many parts of the EI program are working well. There are some provisions that have proven ineffective, particularly toward seasonal workers. We have always had and we will always have seasonal industries. These industries are vital to our economic well-being.

On Prince Edward Island, in Prince county alone, 65% of the workforce works less than a 12 month period in one year. I take offence with anyone who suggests that these changes will simply make it profitable for industries to gear up for a short season. I would like to comment that the seasonal businesses which are profitable, when they have such a short window of opportunity, are very fortunate.

It should be noted that seasonality is determined by a much higher power. If mother nature did not co-operate these businesses could no longer be profitable and the basic existence of many of them would be put into jeopardy.

As for the employees, if the EI program was not in place what would they do to support their families without an income? We are talking about the reality of seasonal workers across Canada, not just in Atlantic Canada. Because these industries by definition employ people for only part of the year, we must always remain watchful to ensure that our economic and social programs do not exclude these people from living and working.

While EI aims at helping all unemployed workers, we must also recognize that some groups, such as seasonal workers, have particular needs and the program has special features built in to benefit seasonal workers across the country.

The hours based system, for example, takes into account the fact that seasonal work often involves long hours of work per week. It also identifies a sector of the workforce, even with part time work over the full year, that can now qualify. For example, an employee who works in a seasonal job can accumulate hours in smaller numbers in the pre and post season in order to qualify for benefits which previously he or she was not entitled to.

As I have mentioned, one of the intentions of the EI program is to reduce dependence on benefits by all Canadian workers, including seasonal workers. The so-called intensity rule was therefore introduced to discourage use of EI benefits by reducing the benefit rate of frequent claimants.

The unavoidable fact is that many seasonal workers have no choice but to resort to EI benefits. There simply are not enough job opportunities available to them in the off season. That is why Bill C-2 proposes removal of the intensity rule. This translates into a maximum of $988 for a 26 week period and $1,710 for a maximum 45 week claim in the pockets of Canadians. If there was a maximum claim of 26 weeks, they would only get $40 more a week when the intensity rule is dropped. It may not seem like a very large amount of money, but for someone making $200 a week this represents a very large portion of that person's income.

I encourage all members to support this program and get these measures through as quickly as possible for the benefit of all seasonal workers in Canada.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-2 today and to give the bill my qualified support.

That is not to say that I support the government's draconian tactics of shutting down the debate using closure. Use of closure once again shows that the government has a disregard for the central role of debate in the House and in committees.

While I feel compelled to support the baby steps that the bill takes to reverse the massive damage that the same government did to our unemployment insurance system, I do so reluctantly. I do so because I know it is better for the people in Dartmouth to have a little improvement than none at all.

At the same time, I also feel compelled to point out the basic flaws in the current system which the bill fails to even contemplate.

Bill C-2 fails to deal with the fundamental contradictions of our national employment strategy. We have Canada employment centres in almost every community in Canada actively promoting self-employment as a way to deal with an increasingly transitional labour force.

At the same time these same Canada employment centres administer an insurance program for unemployed Canadians that is specifically designed to deny all self-employed workers the same benefits their neighbours enjoy if they find themselves unemployed. This is madness. Why should someone become more economically vulnerable because they followed the government's advice to move into self-employment? Why should they put their families at risk because the government has decided that the best way to manage our labour market is to cut people off EI benefits?

Ottawa has been saving billions of dollars through denying people the right to adequate employment protection in the event of unemployment. The calculation of the amount of money lost to my community alone has been at least $20 million per year simply because of the restrictions this government has put in place. It has limited the amount of payouts claimants can receive and has reduced the number of persons eligible for benefits.

I reluctantly support the bill because some of these restrictions are being removed and my community needs the money, but the bill does nothing to address the fundamental problems with our employment insurance system.

It does nothing, for example, to address the fact that artists are currently unable to qualify for employment insurance. Our government considers artists self-employed, a fact that many would dearly love to change, and they are therefore denied maternity benefits and sickness benefits under EI. They are also denied the ability to participate in the Canada pension plan.

Does the government honestly believe that artists or others who are self-employed never have children, never get sick or never develop a disability? It is a tribute to our artists that they have been willing to make such a sacrifice for their art, but surely it is not a necessary part of our public policy or, if it is, I want the government to stand in this place and say so.

We also have no serious industrial plan to allow for the smooth transition for workers who lose their jobs in a certain occupation to go into another related occupation. Instead, they are told to become entrepreneurs, ineligible for EI, and it is often an unsuitable match for both.

I think of the situation of the more than 100 workers who are being laid off at the Dartmouth marine slips. These workers have worked for years repairing ships. They have exhausted their reduced EI benefits and are now facing welfare. They want to work in the supply bases for the Sable gas fields. While they are receiving co-operation from the local HRDC office, it is clear that there is nothing in our employment insurance system which connects the dots that they see so clearly.

One dot is an industry closing. Another dot is a related industry opening in the same area. Why can we not just move these workers to the new industry and give their families some security?

However, this is not something our system allows for. Instead we have a government basking in over $30 billion of employment insurance surplus while still leaving thousands of workers, even after Bill C-2, with no benefits.

Even worse is the insistence by large corporations and the official opposition that the action they would like to see is not giving unemployed people adequate benefits for which they have already paid or not extending the program to others who need it. Instead they call for slashing the costs to companies for EI premiums while maintaining our currently restrictive system. More money for businesses and less for the unemployed is the business agenda of this social program.

I hope the government will start to use our employment insurance system to address the problems of working families. It is time that the government begins to address the obstacles facing the unemployed, artists, Canadians with disabilities, and thousands of Canadians who find themselves between jobs through no fault of their own and need the assistance from a fair and equitable employment insurance program.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on Bill C-2. Before I get into the bill, I would like to take the opportunity, this being my first time to speak in the new parliament, to thank my constituents of Athabasca for returning me to the House of Commons for the third time.

It certainly was a very emotional, hurtful and difficult election campaign. Some unwarranted accusations flew around both in the national campaign and in the local campaign in my riding. I was very pleased that my constituents saw through that and chose to return me in spite of the rhetoric. I am very humbled to come back and serve them in the House once more.

The debate this morning and the action of the government to invoke closure or time allocation on the bill certainly disappointing. I came here some seven and a half years ago, perhaps overly idealistic about what parliament was all about, how it worked and how I could serve my country and be part of the institution that makes laws and governs and guides the country.

Certainly after seven years I think most of us, not only on this side of the House but a good number on the other side, share the opinion expressed by my former colleague, Lee Morrison, who served in the House for seven years. In a very blunt article yesterday or the day before in the National Post , he expressed total disillusionment and extreme disappointment with the relevancy of the House Commons and how it works.

I do not discount any of the accusations or comments he made, and I think many of my colleagues would agree with them. Perhaps those of us who are here live in the eternal hope that something might change somewhere along the line and we might actually have some reform in this place to make it relevant and give us some real input and influence in the way things happen. I think that would be a huge step forward. However, after the government's actions this morning I would not hold my breath. In spite of what seems to be a desire on all sides for change, it does not seem likely to happen. It could, however, happen easily.

There were accusations from a member of the other place that the quality of legislation being passed in this place was failing or dropping. I am sure the comments made by the member of the other place were self-serving and meant to justify the Senate's very existence, to some degree. On the other hand, there is probably some truth in what he said because over the last seven years this government has continually moved to consolidate power in the hands of the very few at the centre.

The quality of legislation would be better if there were any hope that when a bill entered this place and went through the process, it would emerge amended and improved. If so, some of the flaws that could show up down the road, pointed out no doubt by the courts, could be corrected before the bill was finished.

However, the government seems to have the attitude that once it introduces a bill it will lose face if an opposition or committee member amends a fundamental part of it. The government feels that would be a loss of face, and it just cannot allow that to happen. The government therefore uses its majority in the House and on committees at every stage, and the bill proceeds through as a matter of principle and of saving face rather than out of a real concern to produce the best possible bill at the end of the process.

There is no reason why the very drafting of the bill or the amendment could not be given to the all party parliamentary committees for input from all parties involved from the very beginning. Perhaps we could lessen the degree of ownership by the government in the bill. Everybody could have somewhat of a stake in the content of the bill, perhaps would be better able to support it, and feel that they are actually having some input and making some changes to the bill.

I am disappointed. It seems it just goes on and nothing ever changes. In spite of an express desire for change across the country, it does not change and I do not expect it ever will change to any great degree.

Bill C-2 is an effort to amend the Employment Insurance Act. The intention of the bill is truly misguided. We went down this road many years ago. I think we were making some progress in reform of employment insurance, which used to be unemployment insurance. Incentives were provided for people to find employment rather than incentives to remain unemployed. The bill seems to be returning to those times, especially in economically depressed regions of the country, when the EI program, or the UI program as it used to be known, was an incentive not to work rather than an incentive to work.

I heard some discussion earlier in the House about whether or not EI had become a social program rather than an insurance program. Clearly this is a move back toward becoming a social program and away from becoming an insurance program. I think that is supported simply by the fact that all kinds of sections or parts of the EI program are inarguably social programs. I am thinking of maternity and parental leave, which has recently become a much larger part of the employment insurance program. It is clearly a social program.

We moved away from that some years back in that employment insurance became harder and harder to obtain. One had to fulfil certain obligations to remain and to receive employment insurance wherever one lived. This is a move back toward seasonal employment coverage where people in economically depressed areas with seasonal employment went on the program. They seemed to be able to stay on the program for an extended period of time without actually having to show that they were actively job searching, without having to produce a number of job searches per week. In my view that is a social program because it tides workers over from a season of employment to an unemployment season and back to employment. That to me is not an insurance program.

Another kind of perverse incentive that seems to be inherent is that the ease of getting into the program and receiving employment insurance seems to go up the higher unemployment is in the area. The more depressed the area is, the easier it is to get employment insurance. That does not seem to be very productive.

Communities and industries in my part of Canada are crying out in huge numbers for workers and simply cannot get them. I get a dozen requests a week from companies applying to the foreign workers union to bring workers into Canada because they cannot find local people to work at the jobs. Yet we have this program that pays seasonal workers in parts of Canada to remain unemployed and remain where they are rather than provide some incentive to move to a part of Canada like my part of Canada where there is a need for those workers and where they could be gainfully employed.

There are a lot of other elements of the program that need amending. We need to change and go back to what was started some five or six years ago by this government. I hope the government will listen to some suggestions from the opposition and other members in committee so we might make this a better bill.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I did not say it. It was in the dictionary, but I will of course respect your recommendation.

I was saying that it is shameful to see the government taking money from society's most disadvantaged, men and women who have lost their jobs, who are vulnerable and who sometimes have no means to defend themselves. It is all the more shameful to see the government boasting in the throne speech that it is ensuring all children are protected from poverty.

Worse yet, in another paragraph, there is the following:

There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created employment insurance.

This government is ignoring the demands by social groups opposing the legalization of this misappropriation of $38 billion dollars from employment insurance, which is now $30 billion.

Clearly, employment insurance has become a payroll tax. The government is refusing to give the unemployed and workers what is coming to them and continuing to accumulate surpluses on their backs. It has no concern for their welfare, and they are left behind by this employment insurance reform.

The measures in this bill will not solve the problems caused by the system, including those of seasonal workers in the regions, especially young people, women and all workers in general.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes Bill C-2 in its present form. The Bloc Quebecois is proposing a favourable and constructive approach, because it feels that it is essential to respond as quickly as possible to the real needs of unemployed workers. This is why it is calling for two bills.

The first bill would deal with urgent needs. This is what the Bloc Quebecois would propose: abolition of the intensity rule, of course; abolition of the discriminatory practice of taxing back the benefits of frequent claimants; an increase in insurable earnings from 55% to 60%, so that unemployed workers could have a decent income; abolition of the clause that discriminates against new entrants in the workforce, especially young people and women; and, finally, abolition of the waiting period.

The second bill would concentrate on long term amendments to be discussed in committee, such as the creation of an independent EI fund.

Before the election was called in the fall, the government introduced the same bill, giving the Liberals full control over the EI fund. At the end of 1999, the surplus in the EI fund stood at approximately $30 billion. Since 1994-95, the Liberals have helped themselves to more than $38 billion in this fund. Hence the importance of creating an independent fund.

This bill does not meet the essential demands of the Bloc Quebecois. The government does not go far enough to improve the system and put a stop to the discriminatory criteria. The government broke its election promises when Bill C-44 was introduced before the election campaign. People said that bill did not go far enough. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister himself admitted that his government had made mistakes. He said “It is true that we made major mistakes in that bill”. The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport personally pledged to make changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

For example, on November 9, 2000, the daily Le Soleil reported that the secretary of state had said that “Following the election of a majority Liberal government we will restore the process and ensure that the changes are appropriate and that they adequately reflect the realities and needs of the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and of all Quebecers and Canadians. I am committed to making changes to the act and we will make changes”.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport came to my riding because workers from the FTQ, the steelworkers union, and the CSN had planned a protest. He came to ask them not to protest, because he would personally make sure that changes would be made. This is a disgrace.

Where is the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and what is he doing? Absolutely nothing at this point. We do not hear him and we did not hear him during the debate on this bill. Now that the election has been held, we find ourselves with the same bill as before and the issue is still not settled. This attitude is unacceptable. We can no longer hope that politicians will be taken seriously when they display the attitude I just described. This is no longer what we call democracy. It is misleading the public. People expect more than mere election promises. They expect significant and concrete corrective measures.

Under the current plan, higher income earners, for example those engaged in seasonal work, particularly in the construction sector, have to pay money back when they file their income tax returns, if they have earned more under the employment insurance reform.

Over the past five or six years, employment insurance has been the single most important factor influencing poverty in Quebec and in Canada. As I said earlier, the government claims to want to protect poor children. If there are children living in poverty, it is because there are parents living in poverty. The government has not done anything to reduce poverty in this country. Therefore, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-2.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my fellow citizens of Manicouagan for showing their confidence in the Bloc Quebecois for the third time in a row.

Personally, this is my second mandate, and they almost tripled my majority. What a vote of confidence, and I thank them for that. The local press described my win as a landslide victory, since I obtained 54% of the votes, compared to the 28.5%—or to be generous 29%—of my closest opponent, a Liberal.

Today I am, of course, pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations. This is a debate that goes back to the January 1997 reform of the employment insurance program.

That reform was supposed to have been in response to the expectations of the public and the realities of the labour market. Predictably, it has had the opposite effect.

Bill C-2 comes nowhere near responding to the expectations of the unemployed and of the workers. With it, the government is only providing a very incomplete correction to the problems caused by its past reforms. It is not addressing the real problems, and the amendments proposed are highly inadequate.

First of all, the matter of eligibility has not yet been settled. What the government is doing with its employment insurance bill is simply legalizing the diversion of $30 billion from the employment insurance fund. This money clearly belongs to the workers, the unemployed and the employers who have contributed to employment insurance.

Legalizing this diversion of $30 billion is as if the government took $100 from a worker's pocket and then gave him only $8 back.

Taking the surplus in the employment insurance fund, which came from the pockets of workers, without their permission fits the dictionary definition of theft. This morning I checked the Petit Robert for the French definition of voler , and it translates stealing as taking something that does not belong to us. This is disgraceful.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today. The member who just spoke talked about the need for seasonal workers to be covered. I note that in Bill C-2 there has been a longstanding problem where farmers, for example, who work off the farm have always had to pay into the employment insurance fund but have never been able to qualify. That is seasonal work too. It should be one way or the other. If they cannot qualify, they should not have to pay into it. That is a needed reform that has bugged me and a lot of people in agriculture for a long time.

I want to ask why it is so important today to rush the bill through the House by using time allocation. This is a leftover from the last parliament. In fact, it probably was created as a result of the Liberals losing a number of seats in the Atlantic provinces in 1997. I think the member who just spoke would agree with that. He is one who moved over to the Liberal Party as a result of those changes, so it was politically motivated I suspect.

It seems to me that if the bill was so important when it was introduced last year, why did the government not see it through at that time? The question of how important it was did not seemed to deter the Prime Minister when he called an early election after only three and a half years. It was left to die on the order paper along with a number of other bills that the government had as its priorities.

Why was parliament not continued on at that time and allowed to have the kind of debate we needed to properly debate this bill? No, we had to have time allocation again today. I have been in the House since 1993 and I think it is the 69th time that the Liberal government has used time allocation on these types of bills.

The part that bothers me more than anything is this: what is so heavy on the government's agenda that it would force us to move this quickly on Bill C-2? There is a total of eight bills that have been introduced so far, hardly a heavy legislative agenda from my point of view. It is the first bill that was introduced by the Liberals this session and they are using time allocation to ram it through parliament. What kind of signal are they sending to the Canadian public?

Why did they call an election so early? Why did they not have it as a priority to continue on and resolve this last fall, instead of having to go to an election which caused the House to be dissolved? In fact, they were not in that much of a hurry to come back in January. If it was that important why did they not call the House back in January to get right at it? No, they did not do that.

Now we have this ludicrous situation where the Liberals have now exceeded Brian Mulroney's terrible record in terms of time allocation on bills. I noticed that they managed to be very critical of that when they were on the other side of the House, They said it was an affront to democracy. The Liberals have passed Mr. Mulroney's record in roughly the same amount of time. They are going to continue to use that as a club in the House of Commons.

This is not the first time it has affected me, either. On October 20, 1999, I spoke about time allocation and how it affected my ability and other members' ability to speak on the one of the bills in the industry category, Bill C-6, the privacy bill. I had just been appointed the industry critic for our party. I have the Hansard here. It was another bill the Liberals seem to have been in trouble with. They had not consulted the provinces to any great length. The Senate had to bail them out in terms of a lot of amendments that came through to pick up the bill and make it better. I give the Senate credit for doing that.

Yesterday Senator Grafstein was very critical of the House of Commons for running bills through this place without proper debate and proper consideration, in a hurried manner, and therefore leaving the Senate to clean them up. I suggest that this is one of those kinds of bills. Why the hurry? Why can we not have the proper debate in the House? It does not make any sense. This is the place to debate. I know a lot of our members would like to speak on it and are not being allowed to.

This is an old tactic. I was restricted in October 1999. I said at the time that it was the 65th time they had used time allocation. We are now up to 69. The clock is ticking. I am not sure why the Liberals have to do this, but they seem like they want to poke the finger in the eye of those people who want proper debate in the House of Commons. It does not make any sense.

We have the Canada employment insurance program. The government seems to think that it can put in a program that can substitute for a job. That is wrong. Thirty years ago it was an insurance program and the government has moved it away from being that. We would like to make changes to that and have the employers and the employees administer this program. However, that is not the case. In fact, I read in my notes that in Bill C-2 the Liberals even want to change some of the aspect of consultation and advice provided by the Employment Insurance Commission. Its advisory capacity is being taken away. It seems like the Liberals want to control this.

The government had a $35 billion surplus in the EI fund. The people who watch this said that we probably need $10 billion to $15 billion to be prudent. The fund is roughly $20 billion over those amounts. What is the government doing with the fund? It goes into general revenue and gives the Liberals a chance to play with the hard-earned money which has been taken off the paycheques of employees. It also affects employers as well.

Canadians would be far better served if that amount were lowered to a prudent calculation, roughly $10 billion to $15 billion, stop the payroll taxes on hardworking Canadians. The finance minister said that in 1994. When he needed more money to play with, suddenly it was not a payroll tax anymore. That is really what it is.

Some people would argue that the government has balanced its books on the backs of employees and employers who contribute to the fund. There is some justification for that and it needs to be reviewed.

There is no substitute in Canada for real employment. The employment insurance program that the government has been tinkering with will not do it. It has to get the fundamentals right and get taxes down, including payroll taxes, personal taxes and corporate taxes. We see the United States moving in that direction. Canada has not caught up from the last round in terms of corporate and personal income tax. We are at a real disadvantage. Our employers and companies are at a real disadvantage if we compare them to those in the United States.

Twenty years ago the productivity of Canada and the United States was almost exactly the same. What has happened in twenty years? The United States is still number one in terms of productivity. Where is Canada today? Canada is ranked 13th in the industrial world.

It is no coincidence that these things have happened. They have happened because of thirty years of mismanagement by the government across the way, a big interventionist government and growing government programs, programs which were financed with deficit financing. Increasing deficits require payments to pay off the interest on the huge national debt.

Canada is faced with a 30 year decline in our dollar. We have a 30 year decline in direct foreign investment in Canada. Even Canadians are looking outside our country for a place to invest because they cannot get the kind of return on investments they need. The EI fund is one of the funds responsible for this.

Up until 30 years ago, when Canada made those changes, Canadian and American unemployment rates could be charted. They were basically the same year in and year out, in good times or bad. Canada had a divergence in that 30 year period and we are roughly 3% to 4% higher than the United States all the time.

There need to be reforms. There needs to be proper debate in the House. I am very concerned that the government is moving so early in this new parliament to cut off debate on such very important issues. It should be chastized for doing that and should not follow that course of action in the future. Members across the way should be ashamed to support that kind of government intervention.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are all here in this House to represent the people in our respective ridings. I am sure my problems in this House are far from over.

Throughout the entire election campaign triggered by the Prime Minister, I have heard colleagues admit openly that a mistake had been made with the Employment Insurance Act. The reform of 1996 was a mistake for all the workers of Canada, the workers of Quebec in particular. This reform has only given the government the opportunity to make profit at the expense of the workers.

A while ago, I heard a member across the way telling us this was a social program. Employment insurance is not a social program, it is insurance, one paid into every week by workers from their paycheques, in order to be covered if they run into difficulty.

During the campaign, we saw this government exhibit a flagrant lack of humanity. With the holidays close at hand, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois wrote to the leaders of all the other parties asking that the House sit December 19 in order to try to settle the employment insurance problem.

That lack of humanity became evident when the only leader to refuse to come to the House to discuss the employment insurance problem was the leader of the Liberal Party. Since we would have come to this House to settle one single question, we would have had time to debate and resolve this issue of employment insurance that is so important to all Quebecers and Canadians.

The government, through the leader of the Liberal Party, refused to take part in this important debate sought by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

The position of the Bloc Quebecois on employment insurance has remained unchanged. The debate must be held in two parts, so that the pressing discussions on the applicability of the program may be held and a decision on the use of the $32 billion surplus amassed by the Government of Canada on the backs of workers may then be reached.

What will the government do with this surplus, which is growing by $6 billion a year? Bill C-2 promises a return to workers of no more than 8% of the surplus accumulated annually.

So there is a big problem. The government has again refused to listen to the Bloc Quebecois and to split this debate and this bill so we may debate a separate bill dealing only with the $32 billion surplus and have another bill that would deal only with pressing matters.

My riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel faces significant employment problems. Over the summer, the rate of unemployment was around 8% to 8.5%. With the arrival of winter, the rate goes up. At the moment, the rate of unemployment is around 14%.

Employment is primarily in forestry, agriculture and tourism. Obviously, with the announcement of large investments in Mirabel for the foreign trade zone, major industry is making an appearance in our riding. This, by the way, is the work of the government of Quebec, through its finance minister.

No federal money was invested in the foreign trade zone. These are all tax credits and investment credits from the Government of Quebec. Once again the federal government has done nothing. But let us get back to the topic at hand, the EI bill.

Members have understood that the major amendments sought by the Bloc Quebecois are still relevant and deserve more attention than the limited speaking time we are getting today, because the government has decided to shut down debate. We are still left with the infamous waiting period. Bill C-2 still contains the two week waiting period.

People in the street call this a penalty. Workers are made to wait two weeks. This is a penalty. Everywhere we go, people tell us they have to wait out their two-week penalty. With a $32 billion surplus in the fund, is it not time to reconsider this waiting period, this penalty applied to workers when the fund in fact belongs to them?

Is there not some way for associations of workers in Quebec and in Canada to sit down around a table and say “Listen, now that there is a surplus in the fund, it is time to reconsider this waiting period, this penalty applied to workers”?

Yesterday there was a major fire in my riding that left some forty employees all but out in the street with only employment insurance to turn to. They will have to wait out the two-week penalty period because their place of work went up in flames yesterday.

It is unbelievable in a modern society, with surpluses of $32 billion in the employment insurance fund, that workers who are out of work because their plant burned down would be penalized and have to wait two weeks. It is high time we review this two week waiting period.

Why will the government not do so? For the simple reason that this two week waiting period will allow it to increase its surpluses in the employment insurance fund. We were protected until today. The $32 billion remained in the government's virtual surpluses. That money was not touched. Now, with Bill C-2, the government will appropriate the $32 billion from the employment insurance fund.

It will be able to use the money saved because of this two week waiting period imposed on Quebec and Canadian workers, who work hard to earn a living. The government will be able to take that money and invest it in businesses. Members should look at what has been going on in recent months with investments in the Prime Minister's riding. The workers' money will be used to reward friends of the Liberal Party.

This situation is unacceptable. It must stop. Workers in Quebec and Canada must finally be allowed to take advantage of employment insurance surpluses that belong to them. These workers need a true program that reflects their needs in our modern society, as the Prime Minister says.

It is time Canadian and particularly Quebec workers have access to that money and have a program that reflects their needs, so that they can finally benefit, in difficult times, from a true insurance program that they have funded themselves. No one in the House should ever again say that this is a social program. It is not a social program. It is insurance that belongs to the workers in Quebec and Canada.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the time to talk about these very important EI changes before us today and about the certainly very concrete steps that the Government of Canada, this side of the House, is proposing in this very important area.

Before I do, I want to somewhat address the crocodile tears we hear from the members opposite when it comes to closure or time allocation. Especially galling, I think, are the reformed Alliance people. It was not so long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Alberta cabinet and the Alberta government. When the government sat, which is, as we know, very rare in Alberta, he brought in time allocation and closure on all kinds of measures, including the restricting of seniors, the shutting down of kindergartens, and of course the infamous bill 11. So this is really hard to take, from the people opposite especially, who say one thing and propose to do quite another. If anyone is the king of closure when it comes to those matters, it is the Leader of the Opposition.

However, that is typical. I listened intently to the member who spoke before me. I recall that in 1993 and again in 1997 a Reform Party member of parliament took a poll of his constituents on gun control. Guess what he found out? He found out that his constituents actually liked what the Government of Canada was proposing on gun control. Did he vote accordingly? No, of course he did not, so again it was “say one thing and do another”.

I could go on: Stornoway; the use of cars; the member for Edmonton North, her pension and the pigs on the lawn; the member for Medicine Hat and his pension; paying Jim Hart $50,000 to give up his seat. I could go on about the $800,000. Oh, we are so fiscally responsible, says he, yet he is so willing to spend $800,000 when it comes to taxpayers' money.

It becomes a little galling after a while to have to listen to those reformed Alliance people opposite who are so good in their overzealous way of saying one thing and doing another. The holier-than-thous rise up in unison, it would appear, to try to condemn a government that actually is operating in the best interests of all Canadians, is doing the right thing when it comes to EI reforms and is adjusting accordingly.

Why? Having done what we did in terms of the EI adjustments and having listened to the people—which is actually what good government should do and then readjust accordingly—readjusting is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-2 today. We are moving expeditiously.

Why are we doing this? We are doing it because we need to make the adjustments necessary and do so in a retroactive way that will enable the workers and those who will benefit as a result of the changes we are proposing to benefit in a manner consistent with the values of this great country. That is precisely what we are doing.

It becomes crystal clear, then, at least to me and the members on this side of the House, that fundamental elements of the reform package such as the hours based system and the first dollar coverage are working well. However, there are some elements that need adjustment and fine tuning to ensure effectiveness and fairness in the system.

Over the past number of years since this government took office after the Tories opposite, who left this country bankrupt and in a mess, we have known that because of good governance, fiscal prudence and wise decisions we have brought back prosperity to Canada. In fact, with regard to unemployment we are now nationally at 6.8%. All I can say is that this is enormously good news for Canada and for all Canadians. It is the lowest level in a quarter of a century.

However, as we know, there are still pockets across this great country where unemployment remains in double digits. Those are the areas we need to address, because after all, we want all Canadians to share in this new prosperity, and when those who are not sharing in it need help, it is the Canadian way to assist people who require that assistance. I am thinking, for example, of forestry workers on the west coast. I am thinking about construction workers in Ontario and fishers in the maritime provinces. These hardworking Canadians often struggle, but they are the backbone of their communities and, by extension, they are the backbone of Canada. These are the people we are reaching out to help. That is precisely what I believe Canadians expect us to do.

We need to act swiftly and we are doing that today. We have had hours of debate. We have had a number of days on this. It is now time to act and move on. That is why time allocation is here today. We want to proceed, and we want to proceed with expedition to ensure that the few elements of our reforms that need to be adjusted will be adjusted, such as the intensity rule and the clawback provision. In doing that, the program needs to respond, then, to the realities facing countless communities across Canada that depend on seasonal industries. Many offer limited options for working off season. In these many communities, I am afraid that the intensity rule has proved ineffective in reducing dependency and is viewed as simply punitive. That is why we are doing what we are doing today to correct that.

As members may know, a person's EI benefit rate is reduced by one percentage point for every 20 weeks of regular or fishing benefits he or she has collected in the previous five years. Depending on the numbers of weeks of benefits paid in previous years, a person's benefit rate would drop from the usual 55% to 54%, then to 53%, and down eventually, as we know, to 50%.

Our goal is simple. It is to reduce reliance on EI, but—and this is a big but—our analysis that we have done in this all-important area shows that in practice the rule does not curtail frequent EI use, particularly in areas where there are few job opportunities.

In short, there is growing concern that the intensity rule acts only as a penalty. That is unacceptable, so we want to eliminate that rule, and effective and actually retroactive to October 1, 2000, we propose, then, that the basic benefit rate be restored to 55% for everyone. I think that is a good move. Certainly my constituents in Waterloo—Wellington agree with that.

This does not mean that we will accept the high unemployment found in these regions. EI is only part of the solution. Certainly we should think about it and think about it hard and long. There is a growing need for everyone, governments, businesses, communities and individual Canadians, to work in partnership to stimulate local economies and make the economy work for everyone, especially people who might not otherwise get the chance.

We need to work together, then, to create sustainable employment opportunities for everyone. For example, I want to point out that the Atlantic investment partnership is a $700 million initiative aimed at helping Atlantic Canada generate jobs and growth in the new economy. I remember with dismay when people from the reformed Alliance made the kinds of comments they did about Atlantic Canadians. What was it again? They called them lazy and indolent. What an insult. I want to point out right here and now what an insult that was, not only to Atlantic Canadians but to all Canadians. That is how those people opposite think. They think in those biased, stereotyped terms.

Thank goodness that we on the government side do not think like those people with a dinosaur, Jurassic Park mentality, but let us move on to the positive. The positive is quite simply what our government is doing to ensure that we help people no matter where they are: east, west, north or south. We are ensuring that they get on with the business at hand and that they have good economic bases for themselves and their families.

I will borrow a line from Gilbert Dumont, president of the local Charlevoix committee on EI. He said that we must find permanent solutions to employment in our regions. He is absolutely correct. We on the government side are trying to ensure that is precisely what happens.

That is why our government is forging strong partnerships with businesses and communities to create new opportunities that reward work and people in that sense. We need to provide more Canadians with the tools and opportunities they need to support their families and earn a good living.

In conclusion, employment insurance is a tremendously important social program for Canadians. It is well regarded and well respected. From time to time we have to fine tune it to ensure that it works effectively and efficiently, but it is a program that Canadians cherish. We on the government side will continue to ensure that it is in place for all Canadians wherever they live in our great country.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the House resumed sitting. I would like to congratulate you on your position and certainly the other Speakers. I also would like to thank the people back home who worked so hard to send me back here.

I suppose that is what we are talking about, the people who worked so hard to send us to represent them in the House of Commons, yet we are now debating Bill C-2 under the restraints of closure.

Before the motion on closure was brought in on the bill this morning, another motion was brought to us, as members of parliament, to accept a committee report without debate. We find that wrong. It does not give us the proper opportunity to represent our constituents' wishes.

People who believe in us have worked hard to send us here. They support our beliefs and principles. We are all here for that reason. However, we may have different ideas and philosophies on how those things should be done. They support what we believe in and they send us here to project and support their beliefs and our beliefs.

It is with a great deal of distress that we continue to have the motions of closure. This is the 69th time since 1993 that the government has used closure. It is wrong because it limits the opportunity of members of parliament, duly elected to represent their constituents, to voice their opinions.

The member for Fraser Valley, the House leader for the opposition, in his question of privilege really brought a lot of these points to bear. We need to change things in the House somewhat so we can better reflect the concerns of the people who elected us. To a certain degree, the actions of closure really put us in a position of not being able to do that.

After we complete debate Bill C-2 in the House today, it will go to committee when the committees are struck. I think Canadians need to know that the committees are all weighted in favour of the government as well.

Regarding the report that was tabled this morning from a committee, the government used its majority on that committee to defeat a motion that would have allowed committee members to elect a chairman of the committee by secret ballot. It is a small thing but it would mean a great deal to put some credibility at the committee level. However, it was voted down by the government's majority.

When we finish with the bill at this stage, it will go to committee. Will the government allow meaningful debate at the committee level? Will it take meaningful suggestions? Will it allow amendments? Will it just use its power again as majority at the committee level to override anything that comes through?

We have seen it before. I sat through the committee process on the discussions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were many amendments and hours and hours of meetings. In the end the government brought in its members who were used as voting machines. They were completely unaware of what the issues were. They were completely unaware of the debate that had taken place. They were completely unaware of the amendments that they would be voting on. They were nodded at when it was time for them to stand and vote. That is wrong.

People who are making these decisions should at least be aware of the issues. To see members whipped into line, to come to committee and vote on a policy that they have no idea about is wrong.

With regard to these issues of closure, parliamentary reform, the whole idea of committee involvement, and bringing back some responsibility to us as members of the House of Commons, it is not only our party, the official opposition, that is pushing them. It is everyone. People in all roles, on the front bench, on the back bench and on the government side, have passed comments on our ineffectiveness as parliamentarians, on how our ability to cause change has been eroded. It is not a single party issue but an issue for all parties.

The Leader of the Opposition has stated that Canadians are justly proud of our heritage of responsible government, but our parliamentary democracy is not all that it should be. Too much power is exercised by the Prime Minister instead of being shared by our elected representatives. That really gets to the crux of the matter. An excess of party discipline stifles open discussion and debate, and grassroots citizens and community groups feel that their opinions are not being respected or heard.

That gets to the real point of the discussion today. What we are hearing from our constituents is not coming up through us and getting to the House because debate is being limited and committees are being structured in such a way that meaningful change cannot happen.

The member for Toronto—Danforth, a member for whom I have a lot of respect, hosted an event in Toronto last year to support farmers from across the country. I respect him for doing that. To do that in downtown Toronto and to have it come off as such a success was a good thing. It brought some attention to the issue at hand. Not much change has happened since then, but I appreciate what he did there. He has stated that parliament does not work, that it is broken, that it is like a car motor that is working on two cylinders.

Let us fire up the rest of those cylinders. Let us make this parliament work effectively and strongly. Let us put all the horsepower behind it that we can. Let us give ourselves as members of parliament the right and the ability to voice our opinions.

The Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis, formerly a Quebec cabinet minister, is another person I sat with on the environment committee and is somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. He stated that being on the backbench they are typecast as if they are all stupid and are just supposed to be voting machines.

Recent statements made by the Prime Minister while in China indicate that this is how he feels about his own backbenchers, never mind other members of the House. He feels that they are voting machines, that they will stand and be counted whenever he tells them to.

Progressive Conservative Party members have not been left out of this. They put forward in their last election platform that we must reassert the power of the individual member of parliament to effectively represent the interests of constituents and play a meaningful role in the development of public policy.

We have to bring back into the House and into the hands of the democratically elected members of parliament the ability to effect policy. We cannot leave it entirely in the hands of bureaucrats. I know the bureaucrats have a function, but certainly their function should be to support what members of parliament want and what they are putting forward.

The NDP House leader has been a champion of parliamentary reform. He takes every opportunity to bring up the subject and have it debated. Even today, in response to the question of privilege by the official opposition House leader, he again brought up point after point with regard to what needs to be done to bring back some power to MPs.

Here is a quote from the front row, from the finance minister. He finished a statement by saying that MPs must have the opportunity to truly represent both their conscience and their constituents. I like that statement because it pretty much comes out of one of the policies and principles of this party, which is that we vote as our constituents wish and we vote our conscience.

The idea that we cannot do that is hard for people to believe. Let us look at the alienation in parts of the country where people feel they are not being brought into the mix, into the debate. They feel powerless. There are simple things that could be done to bring back the feeling people need to have, which is that they are part of the process and when they cast their votes it means something.

The fact that the number of people voting in federal elections in Canada is dropping is a crime in itself. Why are people not engaged in the debate? Why do they not feel that their votes count for something? We have seen in the United States how much every vote does count. I think it is a fact that Canadians feel that whatever the average guy on the street says or wants does not make any difference.

Why would anyone elected to serve their constituents not back changes to make the House more relevant? We need free votes in the House of Commons. As members of parliament, we must have the ability to vote as our constituents wish us to. I wish I had more time to speak. There are so many things we could do, but when we are debating Bill C-2, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, under a motion for closure, it just emphasizes what is wrong with our system.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important piece of legislation. This bill illustrates once again the progressive agenda of the government.

The agenda was set with foresight in the beginning and has been followed consistently ever since. This is an agenda that was vindicated by Canadians in the last election. The critics of the government claim that the contents of Bill C-2 represent backtracking on the reforms introduced in 1996. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If members will recall, it was generally agreed during the early days of this government that the unemployment insurance scheme had to be replaced. Everybody agreed to that. After much consultation with Canadians and despite the outraged cries of the opposition, the government brought in a program to replace the old regime with the employment insurance program.

The new plan was designed to be sustainable, to be fair, to encourage work, to reduce dependency on benefits and to assist those in need and help workers get back to work and stay at work. These goals are being achieved by the employment insurance program.

The program was implemented with the knowledge that being new it would not necessarily be perfect. We knew that time would show up areas requiring improvement. The legislation allowed for a period of continuous monitoring and assessment of the program to measure its impact on people, communities and the economy.

This is not the first time adjustments to the EI regime have proven necessary. The government acted quickly in 1997 to launch the small weeks pilot project in order to correct a disincentive for some people to work weeks with low incomes. Our studies and discussions with Canadians have shown us that while many parts of the EI program are working well, there are some provisions that have proven ineffective or in some cases, punitive, particularly toward seasonal workers.

We have always had and always will have seasonal industries in Canada. These industries are in fact vital to our economic well-being. Because these industries by definition employ people for only part of the year, we must ensure that our economic and social programs include these workers.

While EI aims at helping all unemployed workers, we also have to recognize that some groups, such as seasonal workers, have particular needs and that the program does indeed have special features built in to benefit seasonal workers. The hours based system, for example, takes into account the fact that seasonal work often includes long hours of work over a short number of weeks. As a farmer I can attest to that.

As I have mentioned, one of the intentions of the EI program is to reduce dependence on benefits by all Canadian workers, including of course seasonal workers. The so-called intensity rule was therefore introduced to discourage the repeat use of EI benefits by reducing the benefit rate of frequent claimants. It was designed to encourage people to take work.

However, we have gone through a period of unprecedented economic growth and not all Canadians have benefited equally. Seasonal workers tend to be among those whose fortunes have not improved in step with the overall economy. Some regions still experience double digit unemployment rates. This is reflected in our monitoring and assessment reports. They indicate that the proportion of benefits paid out to frequent claimants has remained stable at around 40% since the introduction of the intensity rule.

The unavoidable fact is that many seasonal workers may have little choice but to resort to EI benefits. There simply may not be enough job opportunities available to them in the off season. In other words, what was intended as a disincentive to rely on benefits has become a punitive measure where there are few alternatives available. That is why Bill C-2 proposes the removal of the intensity rule.

Meanwhile, to provide a real solution to workers in these circumstances, the EI program retains one of its most important provisions, the active measures under part II, the employment benefit support measures.

Using these instruments, the government will continue to work with the provinces and the territories and at the local level to develop long term solutions that will diversify local economies and make them self-supporting in providing jobs. The long term solutions require a concerted effort by all levels of government, businesses, community leaders and other Canadians to develop effective measures.

We need measures to ensure that the necessary education and training opportunities are there for the workers in the seasonal industries. We need measures to promote economic diversity in communities that rely on seasonal work. We need measures to build the capacity of communities to become economically self-sustaining. The government continues and will continue to work in partnership with all Canadians to ensure that these measures are developed and put in place. That is our commitment.

In the meantime, we should not forget that the new EI system introduced in 1996 and subsequently improved remains effective, equitable and responsible. The hours based eligibility system provides access to benefits to people who were not previously covered, including some seasonal workers and part time workers.

The first dollar coverage introduced by EI has removed the incentive for employers to limit part time work in order to avoid paying premiums. The changes contemplated in Bill C-2 will improve the plan even further, helping to ensure fairness and to serve the interests of Canadians in the labour market.

The EI reforms of 1996 represented the most fundamental restructuring of the unemployment insurance scheme in 25 years. While debating the proposed areas of adjustment, we should bear in mind that the core elements of EI are being maintained because they work. I want to stress that. Why throw something out when we know it works. That does not mean that the program is fixed in amber.

The government will continue to monitor and assess employment insurance and make changes if it becomes apparent. It is just being flexible and that is what the government has always been all about.

[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.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in congratulating you on your election as Speaker. We look forward to working with you.

As this is my first speech of the 37th parliament I take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Calgary East who, with a resounding victory, sent me back to represent them in the House of Commons.

I also congratulate all members who have returned and those newly elected members who have received their own votes of confidence from their constituents and are here to represent them. I want to go on record as stating that I strongly believe in Canada like most of us who have been elected in the 37th parliament. Canada is a land of opportunity. Canada has been built over the years by creating bridges. These bridges are very important to our regions.

I was saddened today when my colleague from the NDP started accusing us and asking for an apology for someone else's comments. This kind of rhetoric creates division among regions and creates a problem in our vast country.

Let me tell the Liberal government that there is western alienation. It should not think for a moment that it does not exist. It exists because the government has not built bridges over the years. It has taken the west to be its backyard and western Canadians are saying that can no longer be the situation. They want to be equal partners in Confederation. They are asking for change. If the government keeps ignoring them it may have some serious repercussions for the country.

Today we are debating Bill C-2, the Employment Insurance Act. The Employment Insurance Act is one of our social safety nets and one that we have talked about a lot. Over the years it has assisted many Canadians during a time when they may have had a temporary break in their working career, which is an understandable thing and the reason the legislation was created.

However, as time has passed something has happened.

Before being elected to parliament, I was a small businessman. In 1985 and for the past 15 years I had my own business. With my accounting experience, I saw this one graph line that kept going up and up. This graph line represented the government's increases in payroll taxes and EI, and its introduction of service charges. These things created a heavy burden on Canadian businesses that had a hard time meeting their payroll obligations.

New immigrants, especially from open markets like Hong Kong, who came to Canada to set up businesses, looked at the taxes and said that they could not survive. They packed up and left. These were warning signs that were ignored by subsequent governments.

In 1993 the Liberal government curtailed benefits to the EI program but at the same time leaving high premiums. The result was a huge surplus in the EI fund. This provided the government with the opportunity to reduce payroll taxes and EI premiums for both the employer and the employee. This would have provided businesses with more opportunities to reinvest and create more jobs.

The Bloc member spoke about the softwood lumber issue having an impact on his riding and creating unemployment. I would like to tell him that softwood lumber is not part of the free trade agreement. It is tied to tariffs. It is where the market is curtailed and Canadian companies cannot take advantage of that market.

As borders open up there is a need for Canadian businesses and companies to stand up and compete with everybody from around the world. As we open up free trade agreements and our borders, competition increases. We have to compete with business people from other parts of the world selling the same product. How are we going to compete?

We all know that 43% of Canada's GDP is tied to international trade. This shows how important international trade is to Canada. One out of three jobs is tied to international trade. Have we realized what has happened? We are now in competition with everybody who is trying to sell the same product. Whoever is more competitive and selling their product cheaper will take the market. There is no more loyalty.

Every corporate business person knows that loyalty does not exist any more. Even I as a businessman knew that. People are now looking for value for their money. The same applies to businesses and corporations. Therefore we have to say that we have products at good market value, that there is good value for what we are charging.

I have travelled with Canadian business people around the world where they sell products in competition with others. The same happens. Companies from every part of the world are bidding along with Canadian companies. However, when foreign companies come back they have to work under the conditions that exist in our country. Those conditions include high payroll taxes and high taxes.

Let me give a short example from Alberta. As members of parliament we have constituents coming to our office. My cases were concerned with EI because it is a federal responsibility. People who did not qualify or who had problems sought the assistance of their members of parliament. However, I have noticed that the number of constituents looking for assistance with EI problems has diminished dramatically. Why? It is because today in Alberta they can find jobs. They are no longer unemployed and fewer people are losing their jobs.

Why is there a market for jobs in Alberta? Before the Klein government was elected, the previous government followed policies similar to those of the present federal government: high taxation, spending government money, pouring money into the economy, artificially propping up the economy, and saying it will to work. It did not work.

Then the Klein government came in and said that this was not the way it would be. It was simple mathematics: it had to reduce taxes and reduce the debt. It went on a cutting spree. There were protests by the people affected but the Klein government carried on. It has reduced government expenditures and directed money toward the debt and toward creating an atmosphere of sound economic principles where businesses could compete.

Many people will say that Alberta is rich because of the high price of oil and the high price of natural gas. Let me tell the House what just happened recently. Alberta has put its house in order by laying a sound financial foundation. That is the reason Alberta today is reaping the benefits. We could contrast that to British Columbia where the situation is similar. That is the problem, simple and straightforward.

Today the government of Alberta can reduce taxes and can invest in health care. It is investing in more equipment.

I was invited by the government of Alberta to attend a globalization conference which was held in Banff in October. There were CEOs from all across the nation, the key players in our economy. Message after message came through that we had to be competitive. If we are not, there will be clouds on the horizon.

In April this year, we are going to have a free trade of Americas conference in Quebec City. Now these people want to protest. It is an old policy where they still want to go back to 30 years ago. Anyway, they are welcome to protest. They are already detached from the Canadian public, so it is okay they can protest. It is no problem. The fact of the matter is that the borders are going to open up.

I am not going to say that globalization by itself unchecked is the best thing. We have to make sure that everybody benefits from this opening up of the market and not create fortresses. Canadian businesses need to get into that place. They need to be updated to grab the opportunities. The way is not to keep taxing. The way is not to keep a burdening us. The way is not to reduce the competitiveness of a Canadian business. It is as simple as that.

What do we need? What did I hear from the business people? They need a lower tax regime so that they can reinvest, not make profit. They need to be allowed to take advantage of emerging technologies. They need a trained workforce. They are willing to be partners in the training of that workforce but they need to have that room. They then said they would be in a position to take advantage of the opening up of the market.

I said this it in the House before. The Minister for International Trade keeps going across the world signing free trade agreements. If we are not going to take advantage of the free trade agreements for Canadian companies, what is the point of signing the agreements? We can go on as many trade missions as we want. Let us look at the result of Team Canada's trade mission.

Yes, it is nice. Business people are going there looking for opportunities. When they come back, they find that they cannot take advantage of those opportunities because the economic regime allowing the competitiveness does not exist right now in Canada. The Minister of Industry, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated contrary to what his counterpart was stating. He admitted to that. He of course had to backtrack. That was not the government line.

I will never understand the transparency point. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission looked at this thing. It was independent but I do not know if it was really independent or whether it had patronage appointments or whatever. Now that has been taken away. Again the government controls it. We have a massive overpayment in EI and the government does not want to do anything about it. It does not want to clear the regime. It has also taken the ability of somebody else to come along, an independent commission, and make sound recommendations. The government wants to make the sound recommendations.

My colleagues and I will talk and try to improve on the legislation.

Before I conclude, I want to make this point very clear. Before the free trade of the Americas meeting in Quebec City, our trade minister is going to the USA. The appointment of a new U.S. trade representative opened up an opportunity for us to become a world player and sell our products. We will fail to take advantage of all this if we do not create sound economic principles.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, except for today's question period, this is really the first opportunity I have had to rise in the House in this 37th parliament.

First, I want to thank the constituents of Rimouski—Neigette-et-la-Mitis for their tremendous support during the last federal election. I am proud of the confidence they have shown me and I can assure them that I will continue to make their interests my first and foremost priority.

To you, Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend my congratulations on your election as Speaker of the House. I was very impressed by all the comments I have read about you in the papers. Best of luck in your new duties.

Let us now turn to today's debate. Last Friday, February 2, the government introduced Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

Those of us who have followed the recent election campaign of the Liberals, mainly in the maritimes, the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspésie area, the North Shore and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, expected the government to show a little more respect for the people and not to have so much amnesia.

If that had been the case, the government would have introduced a very different bill from the one now before the House. When I saw the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, I told him “Now we will look for results. We have kept abreast of the promises you made”. He answered“ Do not worry, we will keep our promises”.

We are off to a really bad start. The bill we have before us for study is, unfortunately, identical, but for a few commas here and there, to one introduced just before the House was prorogued, Bill C-44.

I would like to make some things perfectly clear concerning Bill C-44. Just before the last general election was called, the Liberal government wanted to head off to the hustings with the advantage of Bill, C-44, which brought in a few changes to the conditions for eligibility for employment insurance.

It therefore sought the unanimous support of all House leaders in place at that time to help accelerate the process of getting Bill C-44 passed.

All opposition parties refused to give this consent to the leader of the government. The Canadian Alliance had its reasons and the Bloc Quebecois had its own, as did all parties in opposition.

We were mainly opposed to the outright theft of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. We had the support of Action Chômage and various lobby groups in the province of Quebec. They were not prepared to trade a few meagre improvements for the theft of billions from the fund's surplus. We therefore opposed rapid passage of the bill.

When the government says that the Bloc Quebecois voted against the bill, it is engaging in misinformation, disinformation and even demagoguery, since a vote on this bill was never held in the House. It is true that the Bloc Quebecois refused to be an accomplice to the theft of the employment insurance fund, because we learned at a very early age that he who holds the loot bag is just as guilty as the one who fills it. So, we refused to be the accomplices of this government by agreeing to quickly pass this legislation.

Then came the general election. What happened? Every day, there were all kinds of polls. Among other things, we heard that the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party would disappear, that they would fall into oblivion, that they might manage to save a few seats, but that they would no longer be official parties in the House.

We also heard an increasing number of experts, analysts, parliamentary correspondents, journalists and professors of political science say that we seemed headed for a minority Liberal government, something which became a source of concern for the Liberal Party's top strategists. These people said to themselves “We need a good cause. We should make a good sales pitch so that Canadians will like our party and give us a majority government. Then we can do whatever we want”. It was to be promises during the campaigns and then arrogance, contempt and, above all, no recollection of the commitments made.

In order to make sure the Prime Minister would get the Guinness record he wanted so badly, that is to get a third straight majority mandate, top Liberal strategists said “What would be good for the Liberals would be to make people from the maritimes and Quebec believe that if they elect us we will change the employment insurance program”.

Several ministers got down to work and travelled throughout Quebec and the maritimes, especially in the regions most affected by unemployment, and promised that the employment insurance plan would be changed.

It is amazing how easily people let themselves be fooled once again. The government has broken its electoral commitments. The new Bill C-2 is the exact copy of Bill C-44, introduced before the election.

The government has done exactly what it did when it promised to scrap the GST, to use the Prime Minister's words.

We should examine what some members of the government said. It is a very revealing exercise. On January 17, 2001, La Presse reported comments by the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who never misses an opportunity to make promises concerning the employment insurance system. Unfortunately, he is not as good at it as when he makes promises about sports. He has a better command of his own portfolio than that of the human resources minister, who does not seem to understand the commitments he has made on her behalf.

Here is what La Presse wrote on January 17 “ If well reasoned and justified arguments are brought forward, we are open to change”. He further clarified “The public works minister and myself are open to this kind of dialogue. We are open to discussions”.

Some openness. The government's mind is completely closed. We are caught in the same situation we were in with Bill C-44. The dilemma is absolutely unbearable: we are penalized if we vote for it and penalized if we vote against it. The government puts us in a very uncomfortable position.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said that if we had good and justifiable arguments, his government would be open to change. We have been here since 1994. We were elected in 1993 and began sitting in parliament in 1994. What have we been doing since 1994? Day after day, all the critics for the Bloc on that very important issue, be it the hon. member for Mercier or the hon. member for Kamouraska—Témiscouata—Rivière-du-Loup—Les Basques, asked questions about the issue first to Mr. Axworthy, then to Douglas Young and to the current Minister of International Trade. As for the present minister, we confronted her day after day, but to question her about a scandal so outrageous that we did not have time to ask questions about the employment insurance plan.

However we did question her three predecessors about their employment insurance reforms. We reminded them of the position they had taken when they were in the opposition and were opposed to the changes proposed by Mr. Valcourt but that was like talking to a wall. They all had the same answer, always the same answer: “The hon. member did not read the documentation. He or she does not understand and will not understand anything about the reform”.

This is what we were told day after day. All those ministers showed how they betrayed Canadians.

They have never been able to explain the real idea behind the reform. The government wanted to get more money into its coffers because it needed billions of dollars to pay for its scandals, for its expenses and to grease its friends' palms; that is why it had to reform the EI on the backs of workers and employers, that is on the backs of those contributing to the EI fund.

Time and again at committee stage, we put forward justified and justifiable arguments showing the need to change that plan which is against the young and discriminates against them. It is so discriminatory to young people that I cannot see how it could be constitutional.

Earlier, I heard the member opposite—I do not remember the name of his riding, but it is close to Nunavut or Abitibi—say that young people do not leave our regions because they do not have jobs. Of course, they do. Over the past five years, in my region, we have seen 700 young people aged between 15 and 29 leave.

Do you know what it means when young people aged between 15 to 29 leave? It means that the population is declining, that we no longer have the resources we need to develop, that the government could not care less what happens to the regions. Yet, it is prepared to spend millions of dollars to get elected, as we have seen in the Gaspé, while letting people wallow in unemployment.

They are asked to work 910 hours. It is impossible for a young person to work 910 hours. They really have to leave the region and go to a large centre to find other jobs in order to manage, and to work the famous 910 hours. Then, they never come back to the region, or almost never.

I myself heard the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, make his promise during the campaign. He had forgotten, and his organizers made him get back up on the stage. I saw him with my own eyes and heard him with my own ears say “Oh yes, that is true. I had forgotten to promise that we will rework the plan”. What did he say? He said that they would, in February, give money to the unemployed retroactively. “Housing costs are not paid retroactively”, commented my leader.

How can the Prime Minister, who knows what really goes on in his government, say that there will be retroactive measures? We tried for retroactive measures for those who lost their job between July 17 and September, so they would be included in the same plan as the temporary measures proposed by the government. The government refused to allow a retroactive arrangement for these people. However, they will have to face the gap, as my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst said. The spring gap is coming. The Prime Minister will not notice, any more than will the minister.

What was the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport saying during the election campaign? He said “Once a Liberal majority is elected”—ah, now the cat is out of the bag. They wanted a Liberal majority so they could continue being arrogant with people—“we will reinstate the process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet the needs, for the most part, of the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Canadians as a whole. I have made a commitment to change the law and we will see to it”.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who is also a boxer, has become a featherweight in this government since he has been unable to include one single amendment in this bill. Not one.

Moreover, we may soon be gagged both in the House and in committee because the government will find that too many people are complaining about its arrogance. It makes no sense at all.

The Prime Minister added “We realized that it was not a good decision, and that we should not have done it”. That is what he admitted, in the Canadian Press, on November 4, 2000, in the middle of the election campaign, on the subject of the cuts to the employment insurance plan his government had imposed. He recognized that it made no sense but now that he is back in power with a majority government, it suddenly makes sense to him to keep on being arrogant.

I could keep on quoting clips collected during the electoral campaign, but it would remind Canadian and Quebec people too many bad memories.

I am sure they bitterly regret now what they did on November 27, because in other cases they did the right thing. In my riding, 60% of the people supported me when I told them I would come to Ottawa with a strong voice to represent them and to defend their interests about unemployment insurance and the Young Offenders Act. The government is up to its old tricks.

As for parental leave, the government has no idea of what makes sense.

My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, our critic on this issue, explained very well this morning that we will unfortunately be faced with having to vote against the bill, not because we are against tiny improvements, at least they are improvements.

There are some improvements. There is the elimination of the intensity rule, the elimination of discrimination concerning the rule of tax clawback for frequent users, the change in the definition of new entrants or re-entrants to the labour force for special benefits, which applies mainly to pregnant women, the indexing of yearly insurable earnings and the reduction of the premium rate to $2.25, which is not enough but is still better than nothing.

What is terrible is the stealing of the fund. Never would I have thought that the Liberal government would do such despicable things. Once again, it has fooled the people on all counts.

Canada made some progress when minority governments were in office. It is very sad that there is not one this time. Imagine how different the bill would have been if the leader of the government had to deal with the four opposition parties to give us a bill that fulfilled the Liberal Party's promises.

Human Resources Development

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in the House and later on today we will continue to debate Bill C-2, the reforms to the EI system.

The minister's officials, who were here this morning, know full well the issue. It is hard to believe that they have not informed the minister at this point of some of the infractions going on in the fishery community where seasonal workers, the disenfranchised, are being abused by her officials.

Will the minister act and act quickly on the abusive behaviour by her officials?

Employment Insurance Act

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, several times during the debate today I have heard members of the opposition make reference to the bill going to committee.

I want to clarify a point. As members of the opposition know, we are now at the second reading stage of Bill C-2, after which the bill will go immediately to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I am clarifying this because members of the opposition all day have been suggesting that it might not go to committee. The bill will, in fact, follow due process like any other bill.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I am not sure whether to chastise you, criticize you, or promote you. During the last parliament you were the government whip. I guess I am giving you some credit because it was a very tight majority. You never lost a vote in that three and a half years.

Although it is difficult for us on this side of the House to say it, I think you did an extremely good job. Despite our political differences, I think your colleagues recognized that. I wish you the best in the chair. Being a former NHL referee, as has been mentioned many times, it comes naturally to you. This is probably a tougher forum than some of the ones you have refereed.

Bill C-2 is a replacement for Bill C-44 which died on the order paper when the election was called. It was to address some of the difficulties the government incurred following its draconian moves on the EI file in 1996. At that time The government inflicted a lot of punishment on seasonal workers.

It really revolved around the intensity clause, which meant that if one collected employment insurance over a period of years, one would lose 1% of the benefits, up to 5% if one collected over what is called a 20 week cycle over a five year period. In other words if one was a claimant for five years, one would lose 5% of the benefits. That would bring it down from 55% to 50%.

That does not seem like a lot of money to any one of us in the House, but my colleagues and I have done a quick calculation based on a minimum wage worker. Many workers in New Brunswick and other parts of Canada are earning minimum wage. In some cases it is as little as $6 an hour, or $240 a week before taxes, before EI premiums, CPP and all other deductions are taken off. With a $240 paycheque, how much does one have at the end of the day? It is not very much. I suggest in the order of $200 with any luck.

When our jobs ran out what did we do? Was there a safety net? There was, and it was called unemployment insurance. The name has now been changed to employment insurance. I guess it is a more positive name. No one wants to use the word unemployment. Employment insurance is the instrument we would look at for some protection and support when we are unemployed.

The intensity rule meant that a minimum wage worker would be entitled to $120 a week in employment insurance. That is what their benefit would be if they were unemployed. It would be 5% higher, somewhere in the order of $126, maybe $130 tops, if one had not claimed employment insurance at all. Basically, that is the straw that broke the camel's back.

The government was not being very responsible or responsive to its citizens at the time. I know some of the ministers in Atlantic Canada simply played hardball with the seasonal workers. They basically told the workers to get off their rear ends and go to work not realizing that work does not come that easily in some parts of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada. I am still surprised at my colleagues from the united alternative, formerly the Reform Party, when they talk about lazy Atlantic Canadians. They have made that statement more than once. In fact it hung them in Atlantic Canada in the last election. They were out campaigning hoping to get elected while calling the people lazy, the very people they would have been representing in the House of Commons.

Seasonal work is not the type of work that most of those people would prefer. They would prefer full time jobs, 52 weeks of the year, but unfortunately that is not possible in some parts of the country.

When the government brought this in, it received a lot of criticism. In fact, that criticism was borne out in the election of 1997 when the Liberal Party lost 19 seats in Atlantic Canada because the feeling was that the government was not being responsive to the people it represented.

Atlantic Canada is the poorest part of Canada. We do not have oil in the ground at $40 a barrel. If we did there would be a big difference. We do not have a car manufacturing capacity and the benefits of an industrialized society. We will give all levels of government credit for making advancements but there is still a long way to go.

We still have fish plant workers and fishermen. We have woodworkers and people employed in the tourism sector. All of those are seasonal workers, workers who can only make a living part of the year and at the end of the year they are left to draw employment insurance.

When the government realized that it had lost those 19 seats in 1997, it decided it would do something about it. On the eve of the election last fall, it brought in a bill that would address this issue. In other words, it would eliminate the intensity clause. It decided that it had made a mistake, that the 5% punishment on seasonal workers was too much and that it was going to change it. I give the government credit for doing that.

Unfortunately, the legislation was held up in the House by the united alternative party because it does not believe in that. There was just too much generosity in the package for minimum wage workers for members of that party to swallow, despite the fact that they have swallowed themselves whole on the pension issue. They made a career of attacking big government and the generosity of government, and destroyed many political careers in the process, only to find out that every single one of them will eventually jump on the pension bandwagon which they chastized, criticized and condemned for the last 10 years of their lives. What else would we expect them to do on this bill? What do they do? They attack little people.

The government can be attacked on this as well because it is addressing the intensity clause. In so doing, it has eliminated the commission.

The commission is the body set up by the government to determine what the rate will be. Currently employees are paying $2.25 into EI. That is their premium. The employer is paying 1.4% above that. Effectively the employer is paying over $3 and the employee is paying in $2.25.

What has the government now done? By stealth, it has limited the capacity of the commission to establish the rate because the rate is too high. The rate could be set at $1.75 for the employee. That is borne out by the auditor, the chief actuary of employment insurance premiums. He states in his report:

It is likely that a rate as low as 1.75% could also be set for the year 2001 and kept for the indefinite future. Although this rate would contain a smaller margin of safety, the current surplus would still make it a reasonable option.

The government has simply eliminated the ability of the commission to set the rate because it is sitting on a $35 billion surplus in the fund. This is expected to grow to $50 billion in the next two years while the commission is suspended.

The rate could go down to $1.75 because the interest on that $35 billion today has to go back into the fund. That helps keep the rate lower. The reason the government will act in stealth is that the EI surplus is just a bookkeeping entry. The government even wants to eliminate that, because once it eliminates that entry it will be free to cash in the $50 billion and use it as it so desires. In fact it already has; this is just a paper transaction.

This will effectively allow the government to keep the rates higher. If it does not have the $35 billion, the interest on which helps to keep premiums lower, it will then have the ability to sneak premiums up when necessary. This is why the entire bill has to be revisited. The ability of the government to suspend the commission has to be eliminated.

The government has a history of acting in this way, especially on this file. Who else but this lonely group of us at this end of the House of Commons will stand to defend the lowly, seasonal, minimum wage workers? I give the NDPers credit. They consistently support the little guy, and that is what we are doing. We cannot leave it up to the government to do it because it has a horrible history of ignoring the little people.

What happens when those safety nets disappear which we see happening at the municipal, provincial and federal levels? What do the little people have to fall back on? We are not talking about the generosity of government. We are talking about a fund that they have paid into, expecting it to be there when they need it. It is called insurance.

How many times have we heard about people being duped by insurance companies where they pay in but cannot collect? It is pretty well the same. The government wants them to pay in. It wants them to pay premiums higher than they should be, but it does not want them to go to the fund when they need help.

For example, we have government departments acting in collusion to hit little people who cannot defend themselves.

I refer to an article that appeared in Saint John's Telegraph-Journal on Friday, February 2. The headline reads “Tax case against auctioneer thrown out” and is subtitled “Justice: Revenue Canada unfairly targeted businessman, judge rules”. The article about a businessman says that “Saint John auctioneer Tim Isaac's tax evasion case has been thrown out after a judge ruled that he had been unfairly targeted by Revenue Canada”.

Isaac survived this witch hunt only because he had the financial wherewithal to hire a lawyer to defend him. The judge came down hard on the Department of Revenue, which is now called the CCRA, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. The better words for that would be “Revenue Canada”. That is what we used to call it.

Now we find the same thing happening to the lowly clam digger. What do clam diggers do? They go out right now in sub-zero weather—they go out in summer as well—to harvest clams in the mud flats by digging them up by hand. It is back breaking labour. These people are the working poor, there is no question about it. They average $6 an hour, maybe $8 an hour if they are lucky enough and strong enough.

I have just found out that there is another witch hunt underway, but this time it is Revenue Canada, now called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, working with DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and HRDC, Human Resources Development Canada, to take a look at some of these clam diggers' claims. They will also take a look at some of the buyers of these clams, because somehow they feel that the tax man is being cheated. This morning HRDC officials confirmed that they have had numerous third party reports concerning claimants drawing EI who have not worked, who did not dig enough clams to actually claim the benefits they are claiming. That is the long and short of it.

What are third party reports? Are they hearsay evidence? We do not know. No one knows. These are rumours, the same kind of rumour that allowed the tax people to go after Mr. Isaac. He hired a lawyer and the government was chastised severely by the judge in that case.

In this particular case we have 33 to 36 interviews by government officials—interview is basically another word for interrogation—of the lowly little clam diggers to determine whether or not they dug clams. They had no counsel in the room with them. They had no one representing them. Not one of them, and probably not all 36 of them pooling their resources together, could afford a lawyer.

Is this the type of government we have?

When people get desperate they do desperate things. One of the things that people want to do when they get desperate is to feed and clothe their children, particularly when it is the kind of winter that we are having now in eastern Canada.

We will never know what goes on in that room when two government officials interrogate the lowly clam digger. That is digging to the bottom of the barrel when one goes in and violates people's rights or, as our justice critic says, the charter of rights. Do the government officials read the clam diggers their rights when they go into the room and interrogate them? My feeling is no, the officials probably do not, because they know that they can kick the bejesus out of these little people, get away with it and have a minister sitting right over there defending their actions. In fact, it was government orders from right here in Ottawa that caused them to do this.

I am not criticizing the local HRDC officials, because if they do not carry out their actions, they are gone too. The government does not have any compassion for its own workers and has even less compassion for the disenfranchised, which is what these people are.

That is why when we stand up in the House we defend the little guy, because no one else is going to do it. The little guys cannot afford a lawyer or a consultant and there will be no one on that side of the aisle to come to their defence, and very few of us on this side. That is one of the few things I can give the Bloc credit for as well. It is not very often I defend the Bloc. They will defend their lowly woods workers and fishermen. The NDP will defend the little guy as well. So will we. The majority in the House will not do that.

This type of harassment of little people has to cease and desist. If the ministers involved had any respect at all for human life and human dignity they would get together, share the information, consult with the members on this side of the House and find a better way of doing this. In the middle of winter when it is damned hard to be make a living as a clam digger, what is now being done is wrong.

We will be proposing amendments to the EI bill. We are prepared to support it with some amendments. We do not want to go back to the old days of what they called the lottery, of working 10 weeks and loafing for 40. There must always be a balance between a system that is too generous and one that is too miserly and too hard on the workers. That is the type of balance we want to strike. That is the reason we will support anything that comes in to help the little guy, but we do not want to flip-flop too much the other way and make the system too generous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his question. Yes, something could be done.

What is going on now is regrettable. I did not say much about the divider. One can work 420 hours over a 12 week period and divide by 14. Again, we are stuck with the divider. Bill C-2 should eliminate the divider rule.

As for those aged 50 and over, it is not easy—and I am sure you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker—with the new technology, to go back to a community college and try to learn how to operate a computer and become an expert in the new technology.

We need a program to help these people. Back home, there are plant workers who tell us “We have worked for 35 or 40 years in a fish plant; give us our pension, do something”.

For example, in the case of those over 50 and out of work, we had a system whereby they would work for six months and then let someone else take over for six months. That program worked well but only lasted five years. It had a positive effect in my region. People felt useful to the community. They felt useful in today's world and they did not find themselves with nothing at all.

Perhaps the bill should include such initiatives to help those who lose their job at a certain age because of the new technology or cuts. We must help them upgrade their skills or find something else. An employment insurance program should be in place to help these people. We now find ourselves with something that makes no sense.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for pointing out some of the many shortcomings in Bill C-2 and itemizing how it fails to help the people, at least in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst.

We have many similar problems right across the country with EI system that has ceased to become an employment insurance system. How can we even call it an insurance program any more when it does not provide benefits for unemployed people who need them?

Could the hon. member expand on some of the specific problems with Bill C-2? The government changed the clawback provisions. However, even though it tried to change the intensity rule, it failed to touch on the way the benefits are calculated or what we call the divisor rule. Under these new rules workers who make applications now are getting $130 or $200 a week on their first paycheques, instead of $430 which was common in the old days.

It is not difficult to see why there is a huge surplus in the fund. First the government makes it more difficult to qualify and if people are lucky enough to qualify, which is like winning the lottery, it will gouge the actual benefit they receive by using the divisor rule and calculating the dead weeks.

Could the hon. member itemize those shortcomings in the way the benefits are calculated?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to wish you good luck in your new position as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. I am sure the future holds interesting promises.

Second, I wish to thank the electors of Acadie—Bathurst who have put their trust in me for a second mandate as their representative in the House of Commons. I have always said that it was an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Acadie—Bathurst.

It is also a pleasure to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-2. This bill was long in coming. Yet, as I will explain later, it does not go far enough. It was long awaited by those who have to rely on employment insurance benefits because of the EI economic region they live in.

As we know, legislation was passed in 1996, which may even be responsible for my getting elected in 1997, because of changes that the Liberals had brought to employment insurance. Members will remember that my predecessor, Doug Young, introduced changes to employment insurance and described people back home as lazy and do-nothings, people who did not want to work. He did not defend the interests of our region.

We ended up with a bill on employment insurance similar to the one before us today, which needs to be amended.

Bill C-2 now before us is an unfortunate one. In May 2000, through a motion that I had introduced in the House of Commons, I made a request to change employment insurance. My colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Miramichi—there did not seem to be any problems in Miramichi—asked that changes be made to the EI plan rather than to the legislation.

The House passed my motion unanimously. All members present in the House of Commons supported my motion requesting that changes be made to the employment insurance plan. In October, with Bill C-34, we proposed changes to the EI plan. Why was it not passed? Because the Liberals preferred to wait till the last minute, because they knew that the Canadian Alliance was against all changes to the plan.

The Canadian Alliance had its leader come to Bathurst, New Brunswick at the Keddy's Hotel to meet the Alliance candidate, Jean Gauvin. The day before, the Alliance leader had said in western Canada “No changes to EI. There should even be more cuts”. Once in New Brunswick, he told Jean Gauvin, his candidate, that if the Canadian Alliance were elected it would save EI and help Atlantic Canadians. He was speaking from both side of his mouth.

The next day, in Hamilton, Ontario, he said “EI will be cut in Atlantic Canada. These people have to be put back to work. They do not want to work and are dependent on employment insurance”.

Again this morning, we heard what the Canadian Alliance member had to say.

The Canadian Alliance does not understand our country. It does not understand working men and women. It does not understand the jobs in the country. It is time it got out of Alberta and B.C. and came down to the Atlantic.

I hope that we go to committee. I hope the parliamentary committee travels across the country. I will invite it to come to my home area. I hope Jean Gauvin will have the guts to sit in the hall and listen to the Canadian Alliance's feelings on employment insurance.

That party's leader said it would not change EI and that if elected it would protect the working people. The Alliance is two-faced. It was two-faced when it said that if elected it would refuse the pension plan. Now its members must look at it again for the good of their families. That is what they are saying now.

That party's leader said he would never take up residence in Stornoway because it was a grassroots party, and he moved into Stornoway. He said he would never use a limousine and he used one. I am sick and tired of listening to how the Alliance feels about our country and especially how it treats working people.

I will now switch topics because I do not want to spend more time on the Canadian Alliance. The Liberals are the ones who made the changes. They listened to the Reform too much when it was in the House of Commons.

We have the example of Hamilton, Ontario, right now. Workers went on strike. When the strike was over the company decided the workers had nothing to do with the strike and wanted them to return to the 85% level of production needed. They punished them by not allowing them to collect employment insurance.

The Liberal government supports Stelco which is against steelworkers local 5328. That type of program is against working people. It is not acceptable.

The surplus in the employment insurance fund is $32 billion and all of it was taken right out of the pockets of workers without their permission. I have put it this way because I am not permitted to use the word that comes to mind, although according to the definition in the dictionary, it is stealing. That is what it is; $32 billion was taken from men and women who have lost their jobs, the least well off in our society, who have no means of defending themselves, who cannot afford big name lawyers to take their case to court. These people cannot defend themselves.

It is a disgrace what the government says in the throne speech:

Now Canadians must undertake another national project—to ensure that no Canadian child suffers the debilitating effects of poverty.

It is a disgrace because 1.4 million children do not have enough to eat. These children are hungry today. What does the government say in the paragraph just before this one? It says:

There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created Employment Insurance.

The government should have gone on to say that these people were robbed by the Liberals. It should have said so in its throne speech because that is what happened. What the government did was a disgrace.

In October, not long after a motion to make changes to the employment insurance plan was introduced and approved in the House and the Liberal government said it would amend Bill C-34, it called an election.

With all due respect, the members from Madawaska—Restigouche, Beauséjour, Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and my opponent, Bernard Thériault, all said “We want to be in the Liberal Party. We want to be in the governing party because we want to be part of the government so that we can change things”.

Bill C-2 is exactly the same as the one introduced before the election. This is a disgrace. It really is disgraceful to hear candidates like Bernard Thériault say to the population in the Caraquet area that when the Prime Minister came for a visit in Belledune, he did more in five minutes than I had done in three and a half years.

The people from the Acadian peninsula and Acadie—Bathurst did not believe that. This is why he did not get elected. People woke up and decided they would not be bought for 5%. This is what happened in my area.

How many times have I said in the House that there is a big difference between a seasonal worker and somebody working in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. The situation is completely different for a seasonal worker.

The Liberals must realize that it is impossible to find cod under the ice in Chaleur Bay in February. They must realize that blueberries cannot be picked under the snow. They must get this into their heads.

It is about time the Liberals understood that we cannot cut Christmas trees in July. This is the way the industry works in the region. Given the quotas imposed by the government, we cannot cut wood in winter in our region, in New Brunswick and in Atlantic Canada.

As I have said many times already, the people in major urban centres are always happy to receive our 2x4s to build their houses but people in my area have no choice. When the fishing season is over, it is over. There are no other jobs. Putting the cart before the horse is not the way to go. Let us put the horse in front of the cart and be sensible about the way we work at improving the economy so that people can find work. Do not take away their last resort, the only way they have to put food on the table.

It is totally unacceptable that in 2001 children are going to school on an empty stomach. The throne speech tells us that the government wants to put an end to child poverty but it is the Liberals themselves who made them poor. This is a fact.

They say they want to help people get an education so that they are better trained but they penalize people who work in the construction industry. Nowadays people who go to a technical school or a community college are penalized. Before they were not penalized when they received unemployment insurance benefits to finish school or improve their training. Now there is a two week penalty. In the meantime they have no income. For someone who works 12 months a year, this makes no sense.

People working in the industry, for example, who wanted to become better in their trade and obtain more knowledge, were being sent to community college and did not have a two week waiting period for employment insurance. The first day they entered community college they are paid.

Today what do people get? People feel they are finished because they have no money to buy food or provide for their families. Employment insurance was not meant to hurt working people. The $32 billion does not belong to the Minister of Finance to balance his budget on the backs of people who lost their jobs. The billions of dollars in the fund was to help individuals who did not have jobs. The throne speech said that Canadians chose to have employment insurance, but the Liberals chose to take it away from them. That is not right and it is not fair. It is totally unacceptable.

Back home, in the Acadian peninsula, in the Bathurst area or in Gaspé, we have jobs in various sectors. Some people work in the forest industry, others in the fisheries, while others work in tourism. Back home there is no more work after August 15. All the visitors are gone. Work starts on June 15 and ends on August 15th.

All those who work in the tourism industry have a problem. As for the fisheries, the lobster season starts May 1 and ends June 30th; herring fishing starts August 28 and goes until around September 15 or 20. After, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. Does it mean we should close down the Atlantic fisheries, that we should lock it up? We will have to close it down and it will be all over. It is a pity.

Yesterday, a lady in Moncton called me from Albert county. She had called the new Liberal member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. I do not know if there is a word to describe this member. I will not say his name in the House. She told him she had a problem with her employment insurance. He said that all the members are from Ontario and that we are too small a number to bring about changes to the employment insurance, we are on our own.

He should never have run if he feels he is too small and on his own. He should be in politics to speak up for the people of his area, this is what the campaign was all about. I invite the new members from our region who are very familiar with the issue of seasonal work to help their Liberal colleagues acquire a better understanding of this issue.

Whether in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, the situation is the same as in northern Ontario, Manitoba or British Columbia. A logger without a job is just that. One cannot change a logger into a cook. That is the problem. The same thing goes for plant workers. We need those workers.

Hopefully we will not fight when the bill goes to committee. Today, I tried to describe the real problem facing our regions. Families are being destroyed and people arev killing themselves because they do not have anything to eat. Heads of families call to say they have nothing to give their kids during the spring gap, from February to May. They have nothing left.

What is the solution: work, employment insurance, welfare? No. We need a better system. The only way we can have a better system is by sitting down and talking like civilized people and by listening to the problems of Canadians, of workers across the country. Workers are workers, whether they are in the Gaspé Peninsula, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, northern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, and we must understand them.

It is not easy for those people who are struggling in an industry that is very dear to us. People in Ottawa love to eat fish and lobster but there is no lobster in Lake Ontario or in Lake Huron.

There is, however, in Chaleur Bay in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Pacific Ocean as well. An understanding of and an openness to our seasonal industries is required.

Once again, and I will keep on repeating this, it should be possible to speak to one another and find solutions. It is not a question of considering Bill C-2 again and passing it as quickly as possible. The people concerned are tired of being studied. Action is required now.

I urge the parliamentary committee to visit my riding to see what it is like for men and women who work in fishplants and for woodcutters. I invite them to pay us a visit and get the whole picture. Perhaps then they would understand the situation.

The leader of the Canadian Alliance drew up the plan in half an hour in Bathurst. He understood that changes to the employment insurance were needed. The only problem was that when he left he forgot that the Atlantic provinces belonged to Canada and said that we should cut them again. That is how fast he forgot.

I hope the Canadian Alliance is willing to work for the better of Canadian men and women and that it has an open mind, not just for big corporations, but for the little guy and the little woman who works day after day to try to make a living.

I am glad to have had this opportunity to speak about the problems in our region. I can, if necessary, provide further details. What we need are real solutions that make EI accessible to those who need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the occasion of the start of debate on Bill C-2 on employment insurance.

From the start it is important to establish clearly the point we have reached in this debate. In January 1997, the reform of the employment insurance plan took effect. It was supposed to attune the plan closely with the realities of the labour market and enable people to return to work quickly.

However there is a major flaw in the system. Under cover of the reform, which was to improve employment insurance, the plan started pumping money to the Minister of Finance of Canada. It became one of the best tools in the fight against the deficit on the backs of the unemployed, workers and employers.

The federal government wondered how to go about collecting as much money as fast as possible and as quickly as possible, and on the backs of whomever would be the easiest. It turned toward society's most disadvantaged, the unemployed, people who were not necessarily solidly organized in social terms, and imposed the employment insurance plan on them.

I will provide an example for members. The employment insurance plan is based on contributions by employers and employees, and benefits are paid. In 1994 the surplus was $2.3 billion; in 1995 it was $4.3 billion; in 1996, $5 billion; in 1997, $6.7 billion; in 1998, $7.3 billion; in 1999, $6.5 billion; and in 2000, $5.6 billion. The surplus is approaching a total of $30 billion to $31 billion.

Accordingly, the federal government, since imposing the new employment insurance plan, has taken $31 billion more from the pockets of employers and employees than it has paid out to the unemployed as benefits.

I will not use the word that we would use back home because it would be considered unparliamentary, but the government has plumped up its coffers by making employers and employees pay excessively high premiums and by tightening the screws across the board.

First, it looked for a way to reduce benefits to a bare minimum. One thing it came up with was the intensity rule. For the past three or four years we have been telling the government that this rule has to go. Finally it listened to us and introduced a provision to that effect in Bill C-44. The intensity rule is federal bureaucracy at its best. The federal government is saying that our seasonal workers are unemployed because they want to be, because they simply do not want to work. The idea is that it will give people 55% of their average earnings the first time they draw EI benefits and bump them down to 54% the next time around. It figures this will encourage people to get out and work.

Let us take someone earning $600 a week. This is not astronomical—it amounts to $30,000 a year. If such a person worked 18 to 20 weeks, at $600 a week, his employment insurance cheque would normally be $330 a week. The intensity rule would lower this to $300. This means that the government has pocketed the $30 difference, a loss that is keenly felt at this income level. The federal government has siphoned off quite a bit this way.

The demands for changes to this rule of intensity, which the government has finally decided to change, are nothing new. They have been around for a very long time.

The government imposed a program that would collect as much money as possible to battle the deficit. I have already given some examples of the amount of money it has generated. As a result, the program no longer has any credibility.

Today, about 40% of the unemployed qualify for benefits. If this were a private insurance plan, no one would subscribe to it. When we pay premiums for a car, a house or other kinds of insurance, we expect to get some benefits in the end. This one is a mandatory program to which everyone contributes. The Liberals changed the rules in 1997 and now everyone pays into it.

Young workers start contributing as soon as they start to work, even if they do not work the 910 hours required to qualify. Women returning to the workforce contribute as soon as they start to work. If the young worker has not accumulated 910 hours, “so long”. No question of paying him or her any benefits. Although the worker has contributed, there is no entitlement to benefits. Today's bill does nothing to correct this.

A system has been created, a way of doing things that works to the detriment of the people in our society who are the worst off. It has, however, been realized that the surplus accumulated over the years has to be put back into the system one day in the context of the present legislation. There was a provision that the government could decide to use this money for other purposes within one economic cycle. That it has done.

At the end of the economic cycle, it should put these surpluses back into the system but it does not want to do that. Making lower income earners contribute has worked just too well.

For example, people pay premiums on their income up to $39,000. Someone earning $100,000 pays premiums on the first $39,000 but not on the difference between $39,000 and $100,000.

Similarly, someone earning $45,000 pays premiums on the first $39,000 but not on the additional $6,000. This is assuming that person contributes to the employment insurance program, because many people do not. During his last mandate, we even informed the Prime Minister that he was not contributing to the employment insurance program. After 30 years as a member of parliament, he did not know that. We informed him of that fact.

There are others who do not contribute, including all the professionals who work but do not pay EI premiums. This means that these people did not do their share in the fight against the deficit.

When there are surpluses, as has been the case in recent years, people expect lower taxes. For some, it is the way to get something back for helping to fight the deficit. However, those who do not pay much tax, those earning $15,000, $18,000, $20,000 or $25,000 per year—and there are many who earn such salaries and even less than that—do not really need a significant tax reduction but rather an acceptable and adequate employment insurance program that will provide them with a decent income when they find themselves between jobs. The bill still does not provide such a program.

This issue was the subject of a major debate during the previous parliament.

The debate was so important that during the election campaign the Prime Minister was obliged to recognize that a lot of errors had been made in the reform. He said, for example, on November 4, 2000 “We realized that it was not a good decision in that we should not have done it”. He was talking about the cuts to the employment insurance plan his government had imposed.

The Prime Minister himself has recognized that the government made a mistake. Bill C-44 had been introduced before the election campaign and people were rightly saying that it was not enough. It was in reaction to this position that he said “It is true, we did make major mistakes”.

The problem today is that the bill before us is the same one we had before us prior to the election. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party noted very clear messages on this. It told the public that significant changes would be made.

For example, I quote the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, who said during the election:

Once a Liberal majority is elected, we will reinstate the process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet the needs, for the most part, of the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Canadians as a whole.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also responsible for Quebec, also supported the arguments in favour of changes to the employment insurance plan. The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport continued, speaking as well for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, “The government is open to discussion”.

There is a problem in this government, because we did not know who speaks on its behalf, except that now we know, the bill has been introduced.

On the subject of this bill, the remarks of the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also responsible for all of Quebec, were rebuffed by the government. Once again with the administration of the employment insurance account, it would appear that it is not those who want improvements who have won but the Minister of Finance. Money must continue to flow from the pump for him because he needs it and he is still getting it the way he always did.

This attitude is unacceptable. Politicians cannot expect to be taken seriously by public opinion if the government keeps acting this way.

If one makes a promise during an election campaign and, immediately after winning the election, one forgets one's promise, this fuels frustration and cynicism toward politicians. The Liberal Party is truly responsible for that.

There is even worse. Cynicism does not stop people from eating. It is something very difficult to bear and very damaging to democracy but today we have a situation where Canadians expect significant corrective measures, a situation where people going through hard times expected much more than what they are seeing.

It has been proposed that the intensity rule be abolished. It would be interesting to increase the average benefits from 50% to 55% for everyone. However we have seen that 55% is not enough. The thing to do would be to increase this percentage to a higher level, something like 60% of the average salary. Thus the unemployed could count on a decent income between two jobs, which was the intent of the employment insurance plan.

Even if economic growth is optimal, some seasonal jobs will not reap the benefits. Economic growth is important because it is essential to job creation and is part of the fight against poverty.

In forestry, agriculture and tourism, the fact that the economy is in good shape does not necessarily translate into a significant increase in benefit weeks or hours of work. As we have pointed out, the jobs in these seasonal industries are also seasonal. These workers are therefore entitled to a minimum acceptable income.

There is also the whole issue of maternity and parental leave. After much lobbying, the government reduced the number of qualifying hours from 700 to 600. It may interest members to know that before the reform, however, a woman needed 300 hours to qualify for maternity leave.

If the government had just stuck with the requirement in the 1997 regime—20 weeks of work at 15 hours a week, or 300 hours of work—nothing would have changed and more women would have been able to qualify.

At the time the federal government took advantage of the situation and raised the requirement to 700 hours, or 20 weeks at 35 hours. That is many weeks. The result was that far fewer women were able to qualify. For five years, we were stuck with a regime that was divorced from the conditions workers actually face.

I will give an example. In 1989, before all the reforms, 82% of unemployed women qualified for benefits. We saw this percentage drop dramatically as soon as the Liberals introduced their change. In 1994, benefits had dropped to 59% of earnings. The downward trend continued, and in 1999, 38% of unemployed women qualified for EI.

This behaviour is totally unacceptable especially because, with the increase in precarious jobs and part time jobs, the number of people contributing to employment insurance but not eligible for benefits has increased. This is the ideal clientele for the Minister of Finance. On the one hand, he collects the money and, on the other hand, he does not give it back.

The same thing has happened with young workers. In 1989, 98% of young people between the ages of 20 and 24 were eligible. In 1999, only 24.9% were.

This means that only one young adult out of four is eligible. In Bill C-2, there is no provision in this respect. They have decided not to change their tune. I have already asked questions on this and I received the same answer as when I asked about the intensity rule “This rule has been put in place because people are unwilling to work hard. If we cut their income, these people are going to go back to work”. This is the point of view expressed by the Prime Minister himself when he referred to the unemployed as beer drinkers.

This is the bureaucracy went by for four years. People were systematically penalized. They were told they would lose benefits because they did not want to work. We realized that after three years of studies on this matter. During that time, a lot of people lost money and could not afford to meet their mortgage or car payments or to raise their families. This is unacceptable.

Today the government is proposing that the measures be retroactive to last October. These people should benefit from retroactivity back to the date the plan came into effect because it is inhumane. Canadian workers are being treated like economic guinea pigs. It is totally unacceptable.

The conception that people are a little lazy and do not want to work is being applied to young people. The minister herself told me “If we take away the discrimination toward young people, they will all drop out”. That is the exact same conception as for seasonal workers.

When young people drop out, it is not because they do not want a job but rather because they have a problem. We see nothing to that effect in the new bill. It is as if the new bill would not change anything. This is not acceptable to me.

We have in front of us a system that does not function well. Everybody contributes from the first hour worked. There is a dramatic drop in the number of contributors who qualify. We have seen it with women and young people. There are those who earn more than $39,000, as I was saying previously, and women who just do not qualify any more. More and more women could not qualify for the employment insurance system.

Average benefits also dropped considerably. The tables have been changed. Instead of being eligible for 40 weeks of benefits after a certain number of hours of work, people now qualify for only 32, 33 or 34 weeks, which means less income, and the creation of what has been known as the spring gap. People will live through that again this year.

Last summer there was an attempt to change the regional map. In my area, people applied for unemployment benefits between July 9 and September 17. Because the minister had changed the regional map without reasonable consultation having taken place prior, 565 hours were required to qualify instead of 420 hours previously. Instead of being eligible to 32 weeks of benefits, they were given 21.

We should remember what happened as a result of public protests. It was a few months before the election. The federal government was paying a lot of attention to these things. It decided to correct the situation. On September 17, it said it would return to the old rules: 420 hours to qualify and 32 weeks of benefits.

However it cannot correct the situation that it created with the summer gap between July 9 and September 17. These past few weeks there are people in my region whose benefits are running out. It did not correct that situation, while it would have the opportunity, in legislation such as the one we have before us, to say it made no sense to create for two months sub-citizens, sub-unemployed, people who do not have what is required to qualify.

Some people came to my office. They were two friends who worked in the same business. One said “I submitted my request on September 15 and got 21 weeks of benefits”. The other said “I went on September 18 and for the same length of employment I got 32 weeks of benefits”. Where is the justice in this?

At the time, when this correction was made, the minister told us that it would take a legislative change. The legislation would have to be changed. Legislation cannot be changed like that. Changes cannot be retroactive.

Today the legislation is being changed. This would be an excellent opportunity to amend the act and to restore the dignity of an EI system that would provide the benefits that these people deserve. There is no such amendment, even if the Prime Minister himself was made aware of the situation.

I wrote him last December asking if there was really no way to address the situation so as to provide these people with more acceptable conditions. I am still waiting for an answer.

The government is now making some corrections that were suggested as important a very long time ago, dealing with the intensity rule, eligibility for special benefits and clawback. According to the present system, seasonal workers who make a lot of money, particularly in the building industry, have to give it back when they file their income tax, when they earn more than a certain amount.

A solution had to be found, because no one enjoys giving back part of the money earned during the year, money used to keep the family, and having to give it back suddenly in March and April.

I do not think we would like to live with this kind of situation given the kind of work we are doing. If we were told in February or March that for the purpose of our personal income tax return the vacation allowance should be considered as a supplement and returned to the government, we would not find it very interesting.

We are still faced with a situation or a government approach that is unacceptable. We have a fundamental problem that is reflected in the spirit of the Speech from the Throne. I quote the only sentence referring to employment insurance in the Speech from the Throne “There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created Employment Insurance”.

That is a complacent statement. It is as if, when employment insurance was created, we had solved all the problems of the unemployed people who needed income between two jobs. Rather, it is the opposite. It is unemployment insurance that was created soon after the war in order to provide people with sufficient income. It is only when the plan was changed under the Liberals that it became the employment insurance plan.

We had an unemployment insurance plan under which people, through collective solidarity, could get a decent income between two jobs. The name of the plan was changed and not only the packaging but also the content were changed. It has become a money pump for the finance minister. It has become a way to make sure the government gets as much money as possible. This certainly does not meet the objective outlined in the Speech from the Throne, which was to ensure an income for workers and their families.

I think employment insurance has been one of the main factors in the increase in poverty in Canada over the last five or six years. We keep hearing about concerns for children with respect to the child tax benefit. It is not a bad program per se but we must remember that if there are poor children, it is because there are poor parents to begin with. If the situation were different, if employment insurance had not been cut as it has, many children would be much better fed every day in their families.

A lot of people would not have to resort to food banks at the end of each month. We are talking here about money and an insurance program, a program based on contributions. Society as a whole, workers and employers contribute collectively to offer those who lose their jobs some form of income. But cuts were made to this program, which changed it into a program promoting financial dependency. I think an important social pact that existed in Canada was also broken.

For many decades now the resource rich regions of Canada supplied the raw material, the basic resources our society needed to function. Now that we have also developed the new economy, this employment insurance plan has put an end to an existing agreement. Under this agreement, the resource regions that had industries, such as forestry, agriculture, tourism and fisheries, were to develop their resources but because these industries do not operate all year long, the plan would provide adequate income to workers so they could have a decent life in their own region. However the government put an end this agreement unilaterally.

One the one hand, it has decided to apply to seasonal workers the principle that they do not work because they are lazy and that putting more stringent conditions into the plan will make them work harder. Benefits will be cut and workers will have to manage.

On the other hand, the government was supposed to invest in the diversification of regional economies and thus counterbalance the effects of the tightening of the employment insurance plan. But that money never came, and when it did, it was invested inefficiently.

We witnessed the HRDC boondoggle. A program called the transitional jobs fund was used for electioneering purposes, especially in 1997, to help the Liberals win more ridings. We have never seen so much investment in Bloc ridings as we did then. The Liberals had carefully targeted the ridings where they wanted to get results. But this did not resolve the social pact issue.

Right now, resource regions have to adapt, and they have had to bear a disproportionate share of the fight against the deficit. Now that we have surpluses, they cannot get their fair share. I think there is a basic problem with the implementation of the plan.

There is also another important aspect. The employment insurance program has been in place for five years now. It is reviewed every year. It is in its fourth year and we are waiting for the report. We hope the report will be published soon and it would be important to have it before the end of this debate. Maybe we could adjust things based on the report.

Apart from the financial problems the unemployed may have, there is a need to bring the plan in line with the labour market. Among other things, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed that self-employed workers be eligible on a voluntary basis. Why not put this possibility on the table? Today, with the new reality of the workplace, why can we not be more flexible and find a way to make the program more acceptable, since many people work part time and 18% of the people are self-employed?

The answer is always the same: the basic principle is not to provide people between jobs with a decent income but to accumulate as much money for the finance minister, so that he can invest in all kinds of activities with the money of those who are the worst off.

It is much easier to force a worker whose status is precarious, a young man or a young woman starting to work at 15 hours a week and getting a pay cheque for the first time, to contribute to the plan. How can he or she protest and say “ It does not make sense for me to contribute when I do not even qualify”. Before these young persons get organized and make representations, things will not change much.

People have learned their lesson. I am now very satisfied with the public's reaction to Bill C-2. I just received a call from a representative of the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi du Québec. I asked him if he had a problem with the fact that we considered it unacceptable for the government to legalize the misappropriation of these surpluses and, as a result, that we oppose the bill even though it proposes some improvements we have been asking for a long time. He answered that he did not because the association thinks that the bill is a disgrace. The government ought to be ashamed of trying to use blackmail by saying “I stole $100 from you and I am giving you $8 back, so you should be delighted”. When someone takes $100 from me he owes me this sum and he must give me back $100, not $8. Otherwise it is unacceptable to ask us to be delighted because we are getting $8 instead of the $100 owed us.

I think that in this regard we are on solid ground. Unions and other representatives of the workers and the unemployed know very well that we stand for social equity. This is what the population wants and it needs no explanation. We are going to defend social equity and I am ready to debate our position at any time.

People know very well that if we just agreed with the bill, the $30 billion surplus would just disappear into the system. The unemployed would never benefit from the surplus. All the sacrifices they had to make in the fight against the deficit would not earn them anything while other groups would benefit from those sacrifices.

Management of the system must appear to be fair for people who contribute to the plan, for the employers and the employees.

Seasonal workers are at the mercy of economic cycles. Unemployment rates are down in every region of Canada. In many places, the 10%, 12% or 13% unemployment rates we saw a few years ago are now 7 or 8%. However in those areas seasonal workers do not necessarily work a higher number of weeks. For them the situation did not change. They need to qualify for employment insurance to get an income for the winter months and the months when the industry they work for slows down. When the unemployment rate suddenly decreases in an area, instead of needing 420 hours in order to qualify, they will need 500, 560 or 600, and in the end they will get benefits for fewer weeks.

This has given rise to a situation where there are problems not only in rural areas but also in cities where there has been a big drop in the unemployment rate. There are situations where people have to work 700 hours in order to qualify and they end up being 7, 8 or 10 weeks without any income. It is not a very interesting situation in which to be.

This debate is closely connected with the issue of globalization. We must not forget that the 1994-95 employment insurance reforms were carried out because the International Monetary Fund and other organizations urged Canada to put its fiscal house in order. To be productive, Canada had to create programs that were quite similar to those of the United States.

The government tried to bring our employment insurance system in line with the American system. Sometimes it forgets to look at both sides of the fence.

Even in the United States, for example, for the waiting period, there is, just like in our system, an old principle stating that during the two first weeks, the claimant is considered to be unemployed and, therefore, he gets no benefits. That principle dates back to the time when workers did not start paying premiums the moment they started on the job. A person had to work 20 hours a week for 15 weeks in order to qualify. Now that everyone contributes right from the first hour worked, this archaic waiting period ought to be done away with, but it is still in the plan.

This is another element the government should change. There is a $30 billion surplus and the bill involves about 8% of the annual surplus in the employment insurance fund in recent years. If there is an annual surplus of $6 billion, that will mean $500 or $600 million will be put back into the fund, which is about 8% of the surplus. The government keeps the rest, which should go to employment insurance. This is unacceptable.

The government must be brought around to changing this, and I hope that will happen during the committee hearings. It will be very important for all groups wishing to make representations to come and do so. People have met with the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and probably with ministers in the maritime provinces as well, and just about everywhere else, and have been told changes would be forthcoming. Those people are not very happy this morning to learn that this bill contains nothing of what was promised to them. The only way they can get their point across properly is in a parliamentary committee.

Members can be certain that those of us in the Bloc Quebecois will be open to people having an opportunity to be heard, so that amendments that reflect the points they have brought up can be introduced.

I am anxious to see the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the Minister of Human Resources Development contradicting each other on issues on which they have theoretically reached agreement secretly during the election campaign.

Somebody, somewhere, must have said “Yes, there will be changes and here is the list”. I am eager to see, when these requests are made public, who will win the battle going on among the departments under the responsibility of the current Prime Minister? Who will win in the end? Will it be those who are seeking improvements or those who want the system to remain the same and to continue to grab as much money as possible?

We, from the Bloc Quebecois, have the advantage of being able to speak publicly on this subject. We do not have to hide behind cabinet secrecy or government solidarity. I can assure the House that we will fully assume this responsibility.

We were expecting much more since the Prime Minister had admitted that it was a bad reform.

Why is there an extension of the evaluation period of the system? We learned in the bill that the annual evaluation, which was to apply for a five year period, would go on for many years. The message is aimed at those who are waging a trench war to obtain improvements to the system. We will have to fight for the issues that we raised on a day to day and year to year basis.

There are encouraging signs. We have long said that we are against the intensity rule and finally the government has decided to do something about it. Our arguments are just as strong on many other issues, including discrimination against young people and women. In the end I am convinced that the government will have to act.

We do not have an election every year and this government's sensitivity is lower following an election. It seems to diminish until the next election gets close. That is a reality with which we have to live but we still believe that the soundness of the arguments and strength of the people who come to tell us what they are experiencing will allow our views to prevail.

In recent weeks I also spoke to Françoise David from the Fédération des femmes du Québec. Mrs. David wishes to make representations to the parliamentary committee reviewing these issues, as do the union representatives and officials from the Associations de défense des chômeurs. I am convinced that in the end we can arrive at a positive solution.

I would like to refer to a release issued by the CLC, the Canadian Labour Congress. The title of the release is to the effect that two thirds of the unemployed will still not qualify. This morning Hans Marotte, who is the spokesperson for the Associations de défense des chômeurs, said the same thing:

The current bill does not in any way solve the issue of eligibility to the plan. The current program will simply improve a number of minor conditions for people already in the system, for example, by abolishing the intensity rule.

However the issues of insurability and the return of the right of access to the plan for those unemployed have not been resolved. In view of all this, clearly we cannot vote for the bill unless it is thoroughly changed.

The Bloc Quebecois proposed two things. First, we recommended that the bill be split into two bills. One would be debated later and would cover the whole issue of management of the fund surplus to enable it to be come an independent fund or a payroll tax. This indepth debate would be held in the coming weeks or months.

The other bill would concern the list of improvements to be made to the plan which we should vote on soon. We are ready every day to do so.

The argument that the Bloc Quebecois is holding up the vote on improvements is totally false. We are ready to vote on improvements at any time but we will not be duped into approving a clause that would enable the government to retain control and legalize the misappropriation of surplus funds. The bill currently permits that.

The government is shifting responsibility for setting the contribution rate from the employment insurance commission to itself. If the bill is passed, next year, when the rate is set, the government would not have to take the needs of current workers into account. It would have to take the needs of labour into account along with its own financial requirements and this would justify anything the government wants to do.

The reason this clause is included in the bill is that we are at the end of an economic cycle. If there is such a change, the government would have to put money back into the system and it is not ready to do that.

What people living with the employment insurance plan want, whether they be employers or employees, is a system that gives value for money. In an insurance plan, when there are surpluses, either premiums are reduced or the terms and conditions are improved but no third party grabs the surpluses and uses them for some other purpose. Those who pay premiums are the ones who should benefit.

We have before us a bill that is totally unsatisfying and inadequate. This is a bill that would not satisfy the unemployed, workers, employers or unions representing workers. This is a bill in which the government is trying to make a fool's deal with us, a deal where it would give us some little improvement, while what is needed is a comprehensive employment insurance reform. Such reform would ensure that the plan would be administered by the people who pay into it and give dignity back to it, so that it can really serve the unemployed and not pay for the federal government's debt.

We all have efforts to make regarding the debt. We have done some in the past but there are people who did not get the return on their investment that they deserved. On their behalf, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this bill as long as the changes deemed necessary have not been made.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment to the chair.

Bill C-2 was known in the last parliament as Bill C-44 and is known more by its unofficial title of the Liberal Atlantic Canada re-election strategy. The parliamentary secretary has explained some of the details of the bill so I will not go into them. However, I will say that the official opposition does not support the approach the government is taking on these amendments.

We are not alone. There are people and organizations across the nation who feel that this is not the right direction to take: the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, the St. John's Board of Trade on the east coast, the Vancouver Board of Trade on the west coast and probably all the boards of trade in between. Even the Canadian Federation of Labour has problems with the bill.

When the bill was first introduced last fall, this is what Catherine Swift, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had to say:

After several years of making some steps in the right direction on EI policy, this is a U-turn that hearkens back to the 1970s—a big spending government promoting dependency on programs, instead of solid economic growth. We thought they had learned something from the mistakes of the past.

We also have the International Monetary Fund report. Last week the finance minister was bragging about how the IMF supports Canada's economic incentives and economic and fiscal policies and said that he had received high praise from the IMF. However, he chose to ignore paragraph 8 in the report, which I should like to read into the record. It states:

Comprehensive reforms enacted during the 1990s to the Employment Insurance (EI) system and to social assistance programs and the introduction of the National Child Benefit have enhanced the flexibility and efficiency of the labour market, boosting employment growth and helping to reduce structural unemployment. Pressures to ease the impact of some of these reforms—particularly the 1996 EI reforms—have intensified as they have become more binding. The Government has mitigated the intended effects of some of the reforms and has proposed to rollback others. In particular, the IMF staff sees the proposed elimination of the intensity rule, which was designed to discourage frequent use of the system, as sending the wrong signal. Frequent use of the system, along with the provision of extended EI benefits for high unemployment regions for a prolonged period of time, has had adverse effects on the behaviour of both workers and employers, has significantly raised reservation wages in high unemployment regions, and has reduced labour mobility. In addition, the recent experience in the United States suggests that labour market flexibility is an important factor in fostering the rapid adoption of productivity-enhancing new technologies. Therefore, the IMF staff continues to endorse the implementation of new measures to reduce the frequency of EI use (such as experience rating of the EI premium rate, which would tie the rate for individual firms directly to the use of the system by their workers) and the elimination of regional extended benefits.

This quote is from the International Monetary Fund, which the finance minister seems to think is highly supportive of government policies. This is one area in which it has recommended and suggested to the government that the change in direction is not in the best interests of the economic future of our country.

If IMF support is so important in all other areas and if its recommendations are so valid in all other areas, why does the government turn its back on the recommendations that the IMF put forward on the EI insurance program?

The question is, with this coming from the IMF, why would the government go in this direction which retreats from the very policy that the IMF claims is having a beneficial economic impact on Canada.

We in the official opposition feel that it is extremely important to get the bill before the standing committee on human resources so that the committee can hear witnesses and have an indepth study to look at the EI program and the benefits and lack of incentives that are being proposed.

We would like to put Bill C-2 before the House of Commons and have the government, which said it was in favour of parliamentary reform, let the bill pass through to committee in a very real and meaningful way.

Let us see whether the government will seriously listen to all aspects of the discussion from witnesses who have a lot to say about the legislation. Let us see whether the Liberal government will actually allow committees to do their job, to listen to witnesses and to come up with recommendations to change the legislation and make it more meaningful.

The Canadian Alliance would like to see whether or not the government is willing to look at some of the concerns that have been expressed. One concern that has been expressed is that the legislation is taking the control or responsibility from the EI commission and placing the rate changes in the hands of cabinet.

There is a real concern out there, not only in the Canadian public, among workers and employers alike, but in labour commissions and labour organizations, that the government is trying to control this fund to a degree that we have never seen before. Instead of having the employment insurance program at arm's length from government, the government is reaching in and bringing in total control over the EI program.

One has to ask oneself why this would happen. Why would the government want to have this kind of control? A surplus of $40 billion may be all that is needed to see why a government would want to do this. The EI fund is reaching the point of having a $40 billion surplus. I think the government would like to see this as its personal slush fund to use at will rather than for the purpose it was intended.

The chief actuary for the fund has indicated that a $15 billion surplus is all that is required in the program. I would like to look at last year alone. EI premiums last year were $18.511 billion. That is money coming in. EI benefits paid out were $9.3 billion. That leaves a $9.211 billion surplus in this fund which the cabinet wants to control. I suggest that is the wrong direction for the country to take. It is wrong from the employer point of view and from the employee point of view. It is wrong from every way we look at it for the cabinet of a government to have control over that kind of money, which was put in place for a specific reason.

I am sure the poor working person who is paying employment insurance premiums does not want to continue paying an inflated amount of money so that the government has access to a huge surplus fund to use whenever it wants. When these surpluses were brought to the attention of the government, what did it do? It reduced premiums by 25 cents, a small, piddly amount.

The reality is that every worker could stop paying EI premiums for two years and we would still have the surplus in the account that is required, according to the chief actuary, to have a stable fund. We could go two years without any premium payments and the fund would be where it should be.

We must ask ourselves why the government is so intent on keeping employment insurance premiums to a level that gives it surpluses every year, to the point of building a surplus fund of $40 billion. The reason is so that the government can balance its books. It is balancing its books on every working person and on every business person who provides jobs for working people. That is not fair. It is not right and it has to stop.

In its August 1999 unemployment insurance bulletin, the Canadian Labour Congress states “The UI fund must be separated from the government accounts, and the authority and autonomy of the UI commission must be strengthened”. That needs to be brought before the committee of parliament. It needs to be reasoned out. We need to find a way of strengthening the EI commission, of putting it at arm's length from government and taking control of it away from the Canadian government and cabinet.

This is only a drop in the bucket for the government, which takes things out of the public eye, away from commissions that do business up front, and puts them behind the doors of a cabinet meeting. It puts things beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians to understand or to know what is going on.

It is distressing to me to see that we will be continuing this direction with a government that has told Canadians it will be more transparent and more open. We see that the very first legislation to be introduced in the House of Commons is doing precisely the opposite. The government is taking something that is open and transparent and putting it behind closed cabinet doors.

More than anything else, the thing that distresses a lot of Canadians and me personally is the importance that the government places on making small amendments to the employment insurance legislation rather than looking at creating an environment of long term permanent jobs for Canadians across the country from coast to coast.

Five years ago the Liberals announced changes to EI. The Prime Minister stated “we wish to provide an incentive for people to work instead of receiving social benefits”. We have to wonder why the government is turning away from that challenge.

The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Prime Minister have said that the best way to help unemployed people is to put them to work, to give them jobs, to have jobs created so that they can find employment. I suggest that the government has done little to create any employment. The parliamentary secretary claimed that there were 400,000 jobs created in Quebec and 2.1 million jobs created across the country. I challenge her, in that it was not the federal Liberal government that created those jobs. The small business community and the business community created those jobs.

The Minister for International Trade pointed out last year that 85% of these new jobs were created due to trade. Most of the increased trade is due to the free trade agreement and NAFTA, and let me remind Canadians of elections past when the Liberals opposed the free trade agreement and NAFTA. They violently opposed free trade and NAFTA until they formed the government.

There are some things that the government could do. The first is to substantially reduce personal income tax.

By leaving money in the hands of consumers, the government could have increased the purchasing power of Canadians. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that by increasing the purchasing power of Canadians one increases jobs. There are provinces that have shown that this works. There are provinces that had the courage to do what had to be done and they saw the benefits. The federal government did not have the courage.

If the government really wanted to do something concrete, something that would benefit the economy, it could have developed a vision for a national transportation infrastructure strategy program.

I am amazed that the government has such little insight and foresight and such little incentive to place the country in a position where we can compete in the North American marketplace and compete internationally.

The Liberal government is not even paying lip service to the development of a national transportation strategy. While our economy has grown, we are still relying on a transportation system that was built almost a half a century ago. We think the system should be adequate enough to service our people and our goods. In many places, the movement of people and goods is in total gridlock while the government sits back and does nothing.

The port of Halifax is a very good example of what could have been. Two years ago Halifax was bypassed as this continent's Atlantic super port. Halifax has an excellent port. It is much more convenient to Europe. Why was it bypassed? It was bypassed because there was no adequate infrastructure to move the goods from the port to the North American trade market, to the cities and towns that would be using the materials brought in. There was no adequate railroad access to the market. Why did New York get it instead of Halifax? It was because there was no adequate infrastructure program in place to support the Halifax bid.

Think of the jobs that the transportation infrastructure strategy would have created, not only in Atlantic Canada but in the north, long term jobs that would have benefited the future economy. Where is the strategy, the planning and the insight? The strategy is not there. The vision is not there.

The government wastes money on grants and all kinds of things, but it does not put money where it would have a meaningful impact on the growing economy of our nation. It is not just Atlantic Canada and Quebec, it is also the north. The north has the capacity and the potential of some major developments and megaprojects. The north is an area of traditionally high unemployment and it is waiting for something to happen.

The aboriginal community in the Northwest Territories is prepared to negotiate for the Mackenzie River pipeline. There is also talk of a gas pipeline from Alaska coming down through the Yukon to join the existing pipeline network that currently extends as far as northern Alberta. Alaska is also seeking a rail link from that state to join our northern rail lines that only go as far as Fort Nelson and Dease Lake in northern B.C.

People in the Northwest Territories are also talking about extending the Mackenzie Highway from its current northern terminus at Wrigley all the way to Inuvik. The extension of this highway would assist in opening up the vast untapped mineral reserves of the Northwest Territories.

Let us not forget our new territory, Nunavut, which would like a road link with the rest of Canada. While these projects would undoubtedly cost billions of dollars, they will also return billions of dollars to the federal government coffers through taxes and royalties. Equally important is that they would provide hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of man years of employment, good paying long term employment.

If the Liberals were truly interested in an employment strategy for the country, they would be in extensive negotiations with the territories, the western provinces, the American and Alaskan governments, northern aboriginal communities, environmentalists and the business community on how they could develop our north. However there was not a passing reference to this kind of development in the Speech from the Throne, not even a mention of developing the north.

Instead of co-ordinating projects that would employ thousands of individuals, they tinker with the EI bill by making minor amendments. They are more concerned about keeping people on employment insurance than they are in providing them with good, long term, full time employment.

Nevertheless, because of the Liberal's lack of vision we are limited to debating a handful of amendments to the EI act. There is no vision of moving forward in a strong dynamic way by making great changes and great projects. We are talking about minor changes to an existing bill that does not address the serious problems of employment.

We will not spend a lot of time on the details of the bill at second reading. We want to move the legislation before a committee. We want to see whether the Liberal government is intent on opening up the process of reforming parliament to allow real discussion and real debate on employment insurance and what it should be doing and what it is doing. We want to see whether things can work differently and better.

We want the first bill being debated in the House of Commons to go to committee. We in the opposition will make a commitment to go there with an open mind. We hope the government will go there with an open mind as well, so that we can hear witnesses and people who specialize in this area and, if necessary, make changes to make the legislation better. I would like to see the bill serve as an indication of the willingness of the House to do things differently for the good of all Canadians.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, our parents always equated work with health. Our Prime Minister often tells us work is dignity. Meeting our own needs and those of the people who depend on us is also a source of pride, self-esteem and hope in the future. That is why this government has worked so hard, and continues to work so hard, to sustain the economic health of this country. We are very much aware that prosperity creates jobs, many jobs.

Since our government was first elected in 1993, more than 400,000 jobs have been created in Quebec. As a result, there has been a five point drop in the unemployment rate, to a 25-year low.

We are proud of Canada's economic performance. There are 2.1 million more jobs today than when we took office in 1993. We know that all Canadians benefit from this economic growth in one way or another. However we also know that they do not all benefit from it equally.

Therefore it is our collective responsibility to help those who, through no fault of their own, have difficulty providing for their needs. For this reason we have dynamic and effective social programs such as employment insurance.

The old employment insurance system was in need of updating. We therefore organized a broad consultation in all regions of the country. Then in 1996 we carried out an indepth reform of this program, which is one of the cornerstones of our social security system.

We are all aware that the labour market is constantly evolving. As technologies develop, markets become globalized and new forms of work are developed, change is taking place more rapidly than ever. We therefore wanted to ensure that our employment insurance program can effectively meet any shortages in the labour market.

Given the extent of the reforms, we promise to monitor the short and long term effects very closely. For this reason we included an annual evaluation mechanism that enables us to identify and correct certain provisions that are not having the desired effect.

This mechanism is very useful. In 1997 we used it to correct certain deficiencies by introducing the pilot project for small weeks.

One of the objectives of our employment insurance reform was to encourage people to work. In order to better achieve that objective, we introduced the short week pilot project and we have made various adjustments along the way. Today, we are continuing in the same direction with this bill, which seeks to ensure that the program is fair and effective.

As members will recall, Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, was introduced last September. This legislation was at second reading at the time of the election. Canadians supported the legislation and gave the government a clear mandate to advance the proposed changes. Bill C-2 is the same bill with an additional minor amendment concerning EI fishing regulations.

Members will recall that enhanced EI parental benefits came into effect on December 31, 2000. Payment of similar benefits to self-employed fishers requires an amendment to the EI fishing regulations. However, because of the election, amended regulations could not be approved by the House in time for December 31.

Amended regulations were tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development and are being considered by the House. Bill C-2 would make these amendments retroactive to December 31, 2000, so that fishers can have access to the same types of benefits as other Canadians. This is the fair thing to do.

We want to provide additional help to those who are looking for work. We also want to correct certain provisions that are less effective than anticipated.

First, we are going to eliminate the intensity rule. The purpose of this rule, introduced in 1996, was to reduce the reliance of frequent claimants on employment insurance and to encourage work efforts.

Over time we have noted that this intensity rule did not produce the anticipated results and is instead seen as a penalty on workers living in communities where job opportunities are limited. Therefore we are correcting the situation.

Moreover, in those regions where seasonal industries are major economic catalysts, we will closely co-operate with the communities and with all our partners to help them diversify their economy and create jobs.

The bill also amends the criteria governing the clawback provision. That measure was introduced in the late seventies to deter high income earners from frequently relying on employment insurance.

The clawback will not apply to first time claimants and claimants collecting special benefits, namely sickness, maternity or parental benefits.

Moreover, this clawback provision should reflect today's economic reality. Therefore, we want to ensure that it targets only taxpayers with higher than average incomes.

Therefore the net income above which benefits must be paid back by repeat claimants would increase from $39,000 to $48,750. The maximum repayment would be limited to 30% of net income above this clawback threshold.

The government places a high priority on the welfare of families. Therefore, we have taken into consideration the case of parents returning to the labour market after having taken an extended time off to care for their children.

The regulations governing re-entrants' eligibility for regular benefits will be amended to ensure that parents of young children who return to the labour market are not unduly penalized because of their absence. This measure is in addition to the higher parental benefits that have been in effect since December 31, 2000.

As members know, since that date, all Canadian families that have a new child can enjoy much longer and much more flexible maternity and parental benefits. Thanks to these new measures, a large number of parents will be able to spend more time with their young children.

The bill improves our employment insurance system even further. It benefits parents and Canadians in all regions of the country who are looking for work. It also demonstrates our commitment to carefully scrutinize the effects of this very important social program.

We are also extending until 2006 the mandate of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to continue closely monitoring the effects of the program.

I am very pleased that the economic situation in Quebec and in Canada has greatly improved. The amendments proposed to the House today will better help those who live in regions where seasonal work and unemployment are higher than average.

Our ministers travelled throughout Quebec and Canada. They met with workers and they found out for themselves that some provisions of the employment insurance program were not producing the anticipated results.

This is why we are proposing these amendments today. These amendments are improvements to the former law.

Our government promised to act. It is fulfilling that commitment.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for the Minister of Human Resources Development]

moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)