Bill C-44 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act

Employment Insurance

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are telling the minister once and for all that Bill C-44, which became C-2 and which let the government siphon off the employment insurance fund, has been passed. This is not the issue, however. The unemployed need the act to be improved. Your party is in office, we want to help, we want to work with the government on behalf of the people who need these changes.

I say to the minister: seize this opportunity before the House adjourns and work for the unemployed. This is what we want.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Employment insurance recipients and seasonal workers need the government to follow up on its election promise, because they are not mere statistics, they are people who, more often than not, have families to provide for.

Could the Prime Minister set aside, for a while, his ridiculous answers on Bill C-44, because this is not what is at issue? We are talking about the reforms that must be made to employment insurance. Will the Prime Minister make good on his election promise, for the sake of those who believed him?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Committees Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to make a comment and ask a question.

Could the member explain what happened during the election campaign when there were demonstrations in the Prime Minister's riding?

The Liberals had made some promises. One of the ministers, the public works minister, and another one whose name and title I cannot remember, promised people in Quebec that there were going to be further changes to employment insurance over and above what was in Bill C-44.

Could the member explain it to us in order to shed some light on the issue?

[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.

Employment Insurance Act

[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.

[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.