Debates of Dec. 8th, 1995

Supply

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

moved:

That this House denounce the government for its massive cuts to the unemployment insurance system that limit access to the program and hit young people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of pride and with the greatest determination that I table this motion this morning. The official opposition is outraged by the fact that women, seasonal workers, newcomers, any person who is not already on the labour market and all those who are forced to look for work on what is called the new job market are dealt a direct blow by this UI reform, which was so long in coming and which the government did not see fit to make public before the Quebec referendum. In short, it hits anyone who does not have a secure job that pays reasonably well. We know that such jobs are becoming increasingly rare.

That makes a lot of people. One thing is sure, within just a few years, hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers will be affected. For the hon. members' information, I should mention that, each year, one third of the workforce in Quebec relies on one form or another of UI assistance. Now this inequitable reform hits directly anyone who is not already a player in the system, any new player who might need the kind of collective support provided by a real UI program, as opposed to a bogus program.

From now on, the first time someone apply for UI benefits, he or she will be required to have worked 26 weeks, 35 hours a week, over the previous 52 weeks to be eligible. Anyone who knows anything about the labour market knows how hard it is to meet these requirements. Anyone who has a child, brother, sister, mother or friend who is a newcomer knows how terribly difficult it is to meet these requirements in the world we live in.

Seventy per cent of all part time jobs are held by women. And 40 per cent of them are held by young men and women. In the future, 910 hours of work will be required to qualify, or 26 thirty-five hour weeks, instead of 20 fifteen hour weeks. Let us look at what 910 hours of work mean.

Someone who works part time 15 hours a week can quite simply not meet the requirement over the year. It would take this person 60 weeks, but there are only 52 in a year. On the other hand, if someone works part time 17.5 hours a week, by the end of the year, he or she could qualify. These figures show the scope of the change. This is a major change.

In fact, as I said earlier, many women, young people and newcomers will be excluded. The government boasts that an additional 500,000 people will be covered by the UI system. This is a reference to all the workers who, until now, did not pay premiums and consequently were not eligible to UI benefits, because they did not work more than 15 hours per week.

The truth is that, given the prerequisite, this measure, which, in other times, might have been an improvement, will in fact force these people to pay premiums, without actually being eligible to UI benefits.

From now on, there will be two groups: those in the system and those out of it. This will create yet another obstacle for those who are excluded and who will often have to fall back on social assistance. Eligibility for UI benefits, when one is in the system, will also be based on a number of weeks of employment, which will vary from region to region. The minimum required will be 12 weeks in regions with a high rate of unemployment. In Montreal, it is currently 14 weeks. So, under the new system, a Montrealer will have to work 14 thirty-five hour weeks, instead of 14 fifteen hour weeks.

What does this mean in the case of all the new short term positions and part time jobs? It means that it will take these workers longer to qualify. It also means reduced benefits, since it will take longer to qualify, but the entitlement period will ultimately be shorter.

Once again, this is somewhat like a sure ticket, not to British Columbia, but to the welfare rolls. It must be understood, by the way, that the fact that this reform was carried out without any consideration whatsoever of the social assistance or other programs

already in place has resulted in a system that is not better adjusted and co-ordinated than before, but in some ways worse than before.

For those who do not have jobs as stable as the hon. members here-relatively stable at least, for five years-we need to realize that life is not easy. Finding a real job is extremely difficult. This is the case whether a person has an education or not. I know numerous teachers with two master's degrees and a Ph. D. who are still muddling along as best they can, and have had to be on unemployment insurance temporarily in the past. Now they will no longer be eligible.

The same is true for all those who are term employees. New jobs, even in the technology field, jobs with the Internet, in the graphics field and so on, are contracts for X weeks, often not very many. The person may make good money, but after that it dries up and another job is hard to find. That is how the job market is structured.

These measures before us, however, instead of being tailored to the new job market, do nothing more than to take unemployment insurance back to the days when a person had a good job and a good boss, but expected a cycle of layoffs from time to time. Then unemployment insurance was around to fill the gap.

This reform reintroduces, in another disguise, the two tier unemployment insurance scheme that had all of Canada up in arms during consultations on the so-called social program reform. Everyone, including the committee formed by the minister specifically for this, was against it.

Now, with the penalty for "frequent users" as they are termed, a penalty which creates two types of unemployment "pay", depending on whether a person is one of the lucky ones with stable jobs-they have put effort into it too, but luck also enters into it-or one of the unlucky ones who have not managed to have stable employment, there will be two levels of benefits. Two levels, when all is said and done: 50 and 55 per cent. That means that there is constant pressure in favour of decreasing the general level of benefits, each year heading us closer to the U.S. level of 50 per cent of the industrial wage.

This is a regressive reform, that is to say instead of removing the limit on contributions so that people with high salaries, or those who do overtime, may help provide a bridge for those workers who are less fortunate-there was some suggestion of raising that ceiling in the other so-called reform of 1994-instead of going ahead with this, the government is backing away. This is even contrary to what the minister has said, in claiming it was a progressive step. The government is bringing the limit for contributions down to $39,000 per annum. Above that no more is paid into unemployment insurance.

This has a serious economic effect. Let me tell hon. members right off that it is anti-employment. How so? This measure will hit workers and businesses in the so-called labour intensive sector. There will be a reduction in unemployment insurance premiums but also in the solidarity that unemployment insurance provides, since labour intensive businesses which pay high wages will still have an incentive to make their employees work overtime instead of hiring additional workers.

That is not the only regressive aspect of this measure. There is more. Listen to this. The only tax reduction allowed by the government benefits businesses and employees earning a salary of more than $39,000. Until now, they had to pay unemployment insurance premiums but from now on that will no longer be the case. They stand to benefit from a tax reduction that will cost how much? $900 million. It will cost the unemployment insurance account $900 million. So who is going to make up the shortfall? Workers paying premiums for the first time. I did not say first time UI recipients but first time contributors. From now on, UI premiums will be paid on every hour worked.

I explained earlier that this did not mean automatic eligibility. Far from it. But it does mean they will have to pay, those 500,000 or so who are going to pay starting with the very first hour worked. Students who could be exempted previously will have to pay regardless and will not get their money back until they file their income tax return. People who earn less than $2,000 will get the money back when they file their return. Yes, it is easier to administrate but it does not make things easier for Joe Blow.

So a tax reduction for people earning more than $39,000, and for the others a tax increase that will kick in from the very first dollar earned. This is a very regressive measure.

And there is more. I did not mention annualization. What that means? It means that from now on, a young person who has a two-month design contract worth $10,000 will pay premiums on the full amount, but if he gets nothing else in that year, he is not eligible for unemployment insurance, although he paid the full premium on $10,000. Great. You know how much this will put into the UI account? One billion dollars. That is what senior officials came out and told us at our briefing session.

So we can hardly call this reform employment insurance. Despite the announced employment benefits, it is the kind of insurance that will ensure that an increasing number of people will have no other recourse than to go on welfare.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

It is poverty insurance.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

We could call it poverty insurance, and in the case of first time workers, that may well be the case.

Furthermore, in addition to the term employment benefits being a misnomer, they will merely replace a number of active measures that were given rather short thrift. They still exist but with a difference. Instead of being paid out of the general tax account, benefits will now be paid out of the unemployment insurance account.

So the additional money that will be taken out of the pockets of the unemployed and businesses and workers earning less than $39,000 will be used to pay these new employment benefits but, instead of coming out of the general account, they will come out of the unemployment insurance account.

The official opposition will do everything in its power to stop this reform.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going through difficult economic times. And that is why people with some economic imagination ought to know where the cuts should be made. They should not be made at the expense of the average citizen who is having enough trouble surviving as it is. There are many people having trouble keeping their heads above water. Unemployment insurance is supposed to be a life preserver. However, instead of helping people to survive-I am not saying the present system is perfect-the proposed reform is based on the wrong economic premise: it is anti-employment. It will generate insecurity and poverty.

As for those described as abusing the system, one thing must be said-and this is something we learned from the economists long ago-no system can be set up without this happening, unless considerable thought is given to the way it will be used. Those who do not abuse the system will, as we say, get it in the neck.

It is not surprising this measure was not revealed before the Quebec referendum. I would add, however, that workers in the Maritimes are also hit hard. I will say one thing, and I will repeat and repeat it: the approach of this government is to cut the number of workers in the labour market where jobs are not stable. It has nothing to do with the workers and everything to do with the labour market.

Instead of looking for the economic means to transform the labour market, the government is penalizing people, particularly those people who live in the Maritimes and Quebec. Quebec is being further penalized because it has a bigger population. The announced cuts of $640 million are added on to the $735 million in cuts to be made this year and next.

Even taking into account the supposed existing active measures, which will, under this program, this so-called reform, now come out of the unemployment insurance account, even here there are cuts of $400 million in addition to the $735 million. This means more than a billion dollars in cuts for Quebec, not to mention the billions also cut in the Atlantic provinces.

When the labour market fails to provide a job for everyone, people are not punished. What suffers is the economy and the development we are trying to work on.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will stop now, but I promise that, though I stop now, I will continue to talk about this reform and do everything I can to block it. It makes no sense for a country like Quebec and for a country like Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the hon. member conclude her remarks by saying she had a lot more to say. That was certainly my hope because I did not hear very much that was worth noting.

I have a problem understanding how a member of Parliament who was a very active member of the human resources development committee in which witnesses continually stated to us that they wanted a change to the status quo, could comment to the House of Commons that she still believes in the status quo. She still believes in the system which Canadians from coast to coast, particularly those who are unemployed, have told us is not working. It is simply unbelievable that at this stage of the debate the hon. member would not come up with any proposals that would speak to the modernization and restructuring of the Unemployment Insurance Act.

It is also quite fascinating how the member and her party have spent the past two years advocating separatism. They have advocated the notion that Quebec on its own could actually be a more functional society but for some reason or other they have not mentioned that this type of political instability has resulted in job losses in this country. They do not talk about that because they are too busy trying to pretend they are the defenders of the less fortunate in our society.

The hon. member also does not talk about the fact that 100,000 jobs will be created as a result of the employment insurance changes the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled last Friday. She does not talk about that because it is good news. She cannot relate to positive change in people's lives.

There are also some things she omits, such as the family income supplement where people with dependents will be able to earn up to 80 per cent of average earnings. She does not talk about that because it speaks to helping people. It speaks to giving greater income security for people while at the same time providing them with the tools required to find work.

She also does not talk about the progressive measures that anyone can access. The five tools of the human resources investment fund were outlined by the minister. Those who have had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the past three years, UI exhaustees who were marginalized and were excluded by the unemployment insurance program, will now be part of that.

The hon. member does not want to hear the truth. She does not want to hear that we have worked very hard to build a better system. Bloc members do not want to hear the good news because their agenda is that they do not want success in this country. They want to break up the country. That is the reason.

Canadians need to face the facts. They need to face the truth about who is sitting in front of us: separatists who are not willing to accept the fact that the employment insurance bill means positive change to people's lives; it means people will be given the opportunities to acquire the skills to re-enter the workforce. Bloc members do not want to hear that.

In reference to sustaining the unemployment insurance program, a program that has grown from $8 billion to $18 billion in less than a decade, any rational human being will say that we simply cannot sustain the type of skyrocketing costs this program has put on the taxpayers, the employers and employees of this country. Those are the facts of life.

It is a real shame that the Bloc Quebecois separatists cannot come to grips with reality as we get ready for the 21st century. They do not talk about the premium relief that is being given to employers and employees. They do not want to talk about that because it is good news. They do not want this bill. They do not want the new employment insurance bill to work. That would mean that Canada works. They have no interest in telling Canadians we are improving their quality of life. It is a real shame they cannot intellectually cope with the type of positive changes that are being implemented.

My question is fundamental. Is the hon. member really serious when she says that the employment insurance bill is completely flawed? Why did she omit reference to the progressive measures which exist in the bill? Why did she do that? Is this part and parcel of the separatist plot?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first say that, had the government tabled its bill on unemployment insurance before the referendum, you might not have had the displeasure of having to tell us we are bothering you.

You did not dare, because all the improvements you are talking about are largely, and I underscore the word, eyewash. Sure, there are measures, and I mentioned them, but I did not mention the case of insurance, which is supposed to be unemployment insurance, which is taking on airs of family policy and is out of touch with need.

Furthermore, I-

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

What is your point?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Had you read our minority report, you would have seen that we had a point and you would have understood that, if the government had removed the ceiling for benefits, it could have cut contributions further for all business, including small and medium business, which creates jobs.

Instead, the government chose to go with high salary employees and business, big business and high tech and capital business. So it could have helped create jobs, instead of having the imagination and the courage to create conditions to cut contributions without reducing the account.

So, instead, it opted for a position that leaves contributions high, reducing them five cents per $100. Really, for small and medium business this means nothing and for big business and high salary employees it means they no longer contribute to the common good.

I conclude by saying that the surplus in the unemployment insurance account is a hidden tax for those earning less than $39,000. They will have to pay a tax, which we might call a "special deficit reduction tax on workers earning under $39,000". It would be the truth. This is where the truth lies, in our opinion.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that it has taken the hon. member for North York two years to figure out that there are separatists sitting in the House. I congratulate him.

Since the change in government in Quebec has unemployment gone up that drastically? From her speech I take it that it is running rampant in Quebec under the separatist government.

I have listened to members opposite saying what a good job the government has done in addressing the unemployment problem. All the investigations I have done indicate that the greatest employment has been created through patronage appointments.

There are two different seats of power in the country. I have not seen much of a difference in the unemployment rates. Young people in Canada are still searching for jobs. That has not been addressed. They say this tinkering will help. Since I have been here in Parliament I have noticed that when the government tinkers with programs, usually the situation gets worse.

My question to you is: What is the unemployment rate now in Quebec and what was it before the separatist government took over?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask all hon. members to please address their remarks through the Chair rather than to each other directly.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that the unemployment rate has dropped since the separatist government came to office. I also want to tell my hon. colleague that the history of poverty in Quebec is one of the main factors that, in the 1960s, made not-so-young people like myself worry about the fate of Quebec in Canada.

I know that it would take much more time than I have to respond to this, but if my hon. colleague is interested, I would be delighted to show him that, as you saw during the referendum campaign, there is in Quebec an important consensus among the disadvantaged, the workers, the social forces that are progressive but largely in favour of sovereignty, because many people-it went up to 49.4 per cent, as you saw-feel that the only way they can improve their lot is by taking control of their own destiny.

We know that the economic situation in Quebec has major advantages but also disadvantages that we want to deal with. We want to emphasize our assets. We want to work on eliminating our problems and we feel frustrated by government policies that do not meet our expectations in any way.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In recognition of the way the Minister of Human Resources Development has been treating B.C. over the changes to the welfare rules, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, on behalf of the North Vancouver Riding Association, for me to present to the minister at this time its annual 1995 horse's ass award-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I do not think that is a point of order. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the antics of a clown are allowed sometimes in the House.

In reading the motion brought by the member for Mercier and listening to her remarks, I am reminded of the old line of Winston Churchill's that "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

What we have seen today is the ultimate act of fanaticism. It showed a total lack of touch with reality, a total distortion of the facts and a total unwillingness to agree to an exchange of reasonable dialogue or exchange of views. It is a closed mind, a reactionary mind and in many cases a misinformed mind.

That is unfortunate when one begins to talk about one of the most important and significant changes addressed in this House. The hon. member for Mercier seems incapable of dealing with legislation on its merits, on its measures, on its proposals but instead relies on the old rhetoric, the old speeches, the old lines without being in touch of reality whatsoever.

An interesting judgment has to be made when listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Mercier. It is a line of thought that we have heard all too often in the remarks of Bloc Quebecois members over the last two years. They have become the party of exclusion. They keep people out. They have become the party which says it cannot bring people in or widen the boundaries but in fact wants to restrict.

The Bloc Quebecois talks about exclusion. In fact, this bill is inclusive and fairer. While 93 per cent of the work force was covered under the old UI system, 97 per cent will be included in the new system. Because of the inclusion of the new formula many people will automatically be covered by the new employment insurance system.

That is what is at the heart of this debate. To what extent do we provide good, effective coverage, real support for employment and a fair balancing of the need to create jobs and at the same time protect income?

Let me deal first with the most important result of this reform, which is the part time worker. We listened very carefully during the public consultations and recognized that the labour force has changed dramatically. More and more people now work on a part time basis. They deserve the same protection as everyone else. They deserve the same maternity benefits, sickness benefits, income support, help in getting back to a job and the same security that provides.

Under this program we are providing the formula that would allow half a million part time workers to gain eligibility and the Bloc is opposing it. They have taken a stand today against the rights and responsibilities of part time workers to have the full rights of every other Canadian. That is the basic position of the Bloc Quebecois. Keep half a million people out is the message from the member for Mercier. Half a million people will be denied benefits. Half a million people will not be given the right to gain

eligibility. It is incredible but understandable, considering the history of this party. It is an act of exclusion.

Let me give a very practical example. The one thing the hon. member for Mercier seems incapable of offering is actual working, practical examples of how the new regime would develop.

Today, under the existing regime, the basic rule is that if people work less than 15 hours a week they are excluded from the program. They have no opportunity to receive protection on income or maternity benefits. However, under the new regime, someone who works 14 hours a week over a normal work year period would amass a total of over 700 hours which would automatically bring that person into the scheme. It would automatically give that individual the right to maternity benefits, employment benefits and income security. The member for Mercier is opposed to those people being included. She is an exclusionist. She wants to keep people out.

Therefore, all those people who have faced what they call the glass barrier, who have had an artificial roof which stopped at 15 hours, under the prescription of this member, would be kept out. They would have no income security, no protection and no opportunity for re-employment. That is the reality and the truth of the hon. member. She is saying, time after time, "keep these people out, exclude them, keep the parameters and boundaries restricted". That is the true mind of the reactionary. That is the true mind of a person who cannot change. That is the true mind of the fanatic who is not prepared to give up her ideology for the sake of helping more people receive protection.

Let me give another working example, the people who now have several jobs over a period of time. Under the old regime they get credit for only the first job. They cannot make a multiple claim. Someone who works 10 weeks at 14 hours per week and then finds another job for 35 hours per week would not be included. They would not qualify. They would not get the same kind of protection.

Under our new proposal that person who has a series of multiple jobs, whether in construction or in the service industry or anywhere else, would be able to accumulate 700 hours because we are saying the key is every hour counts. As a result they would now be in the program.

Now we have an hon. member from the Bloc saying keep all those people out. Do not give them any protection. Do not give them any income security. This fixation and fanaticism we hear on the status quo, the end result is to be discriminatory.

The hon. member for Mercier is arguing for discrimination against a whole class of workers throughout Canada. As a result many people who are working part time, who do not have that opportunity, would not be given the rights to become eligible and to get the protection.

One thing the hon. member does not include is that under the new scheme if people do not get sufficient hours to qualify even though they have the right, they are entitled to a full rebate on their premiums. They do not pay it.

The hon. member is deliberately giving misinformation in the House because she refuses to recognize that all those people under that new coverage would have full rights to a full rebate of all premiums. It is a really serious charge. People in the Chamber have to ask about the veracity and credibility of a member of Parliament who makes a claim without being prepared to say what is the case.

That could only be a clear, deliberate, malicious, malevolent attempt at misinformation. Coming from that member, I am not surprised because she has been doing it for the last two years. That is the real example.

Over 1.3 million people with part time attachment would be subject to a full refund of all the premiums. That would include people now who pay into the system and get no refund. Over 900,000 Canadians who pay in and get no benefit would now be able to get a full refund of their premiums.

All the nonsense we hear from the opposition, Bloc and Reform, simply means they have not read the act. They do not know how it works and they are deliberately trying to misinform people.

There will be 32 per cent fewer people paying into the EI system than are paying now because of that refund program.

Let me talk for a moment about seasonal workers. Again the member is deliberately and maliciously trying to misinform Canadians because by going to an hour system, by allowing every single hour to count, means many seasonal workers can qualify earlier than they can now.

I was on a radio program yesterday and someone called from the construction industry. He said they work 50 or 60 hours a week. Right now under the old system all one does is get credit for a week. They get exactly the same credit as somebody who works 25 hours that week. The person does not get claim for all those hours.

Right now, if the person is working 60 hours a week, they could qualify under our program within eight, nine or 10 weeks to be eligible, and every single hour counts beyond that. Close to a quarter of a million seasonal workers will be able to extend their benefits several weeks longer as a result of the hour system than what they can do under the old system.

Once again the hon. member for Mercier is arguing for a program that would deny those workers the right to have their season extended, to get better benefits and to be given the full credit for the work they do simply because it is the ideology that gets in the way of good, sound reasoning and practical common sense.

That is clearly beyond the ken of the hon. member to understand. People should get full credit for the work they offer. They should be given the opportunity, the incentive, the reward and the credit when they work more hours to get full benefit as opposed to being denied that credit, as they are under the existing system.

Those quarter of a million seasonal workers who will be able to get extended benefits is another demonstration of how we are including people, not excluding people, as the hon. member has argued to keep people out and deny them their rightful due and their rightful reward.

May I also talk for a minute about the impact on families, women and children. It was interesting that the hon. member seems to have eliminated from her presentation one of the most important innovations of the program, the family benefit supplement. This ensures basic guarantee income protection for all those with families under UI. It is something that has never taken place before.

This will automatically include about 350,000 Canadian families, about 115,000 alone from Quebec. It means they will be able to achieve up to 80 per cent of their insurable earnings. It will mean that on average a single mother with two children who now is under the old UI system, under the new system will be able to receive on average 10 per cent higher benefits. Yet the hon. member condemns in a blanket statement the opportunity for us to provide better protection for low income Canadians under this program.

Furthermore, we have said in the new legislation this same worker could now work during her claim period on UI up to an additional $50 per week without having it in any way taxed back from the program. It means a person on claim can make another $50 and improve their income.

As I said, the real issue for people is income, how much money they can actually get for their families. By offering the incentive again and be able to work while on claim without have any deduction up to $50 can add another substantial portion of income to low income people.

The other exclusion put forward by the hon. member is that women who have taken maternity benefits under the old system to look after their children when they want to come back to work have no recourse. Under our new proposal they would be eligible for all the new employment benefits. They would be able to start their own business, have a training voucher, have a wage supplement, an income supplement, work on a job core program. It is a major

assistance for women coming back into the workforce to get those employment benefits which up to now they have not had any access to.

Yet the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to say: "No, we do not agree with that. We do not want to help women coming back to the workforce. We do not want to give them a chance to get back into employment. We do not want to provide them with the kind of support they need".

That again is another act of exclusion by the hon. member for Mercier; deny women the right to get back in the workforce, deny women the right to have extra income protection for their families, deny women the chance to have an extra ability to make money while on claim. All those measures designed to improve the income base of women coming back into the program the hon. member for Mercier simply denies, excludes, rejects and demonstrates once again that ideology and fanaticism are her major problems, not the real point in this legislation. That is the real issue here.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or at least to ask you to come to my assistance. There is a limit to being called a fanatic by my hon. colleague opposite. This has been going on for years. I ask that he withdraw his statement.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I ask the hon. minister to withdraw the term "fanatic". I do not think it contributes to the decorum we want to have in the House.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was simply referring to a comment by the hon. Winston Churchill, which has been quoted in the British House of Commons on several occasions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the minister used the term "fanatic" I ask the minister to withdraw it.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the term under your direction and I will ask to have the matter checked and we will see whether it is properly within Beauchesne's.

It does not change the argument. It is clear the hon. member feels full liberty in the House to castigate without obstruction. If she cannot take the heat she should not be in the kitchen.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? That was a sexist remark.

Have him withdraw this remark, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you I am not the only one indulging in heated arguments, here.