Debates of Oct. 26th, 1998

Supply

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my New Democratic Party colleague for her remarks. Earlier, I heard a Liberal member tell us that the government cannot meet all the needs. But, with $20 billion in the EI fund, a fund that does not belong to us, and only 38% of those who pay premiums qualifying, my thought is that this government does not want to take action because it suits it not to do so.

There has been no change in the reform. The matter is being studied. We know very well that this reform is having a catastrophic impact on the unemployed. Several thousands of people are on welfare. Again, the provinces must pick up the pieces because, in addition to not contributing to the EI fund, the federal government is preventing even more people from qualifying. This reform is unfair and the eligibility criteria are too restrictive.

We introduced six bills to improve the system and strike some sort of balance between the previous and present situations. The government is stalling, with answers about how things were before the reform, precisely so that it can rack up billions of dollars on the backs of the unemployed.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Quebec for her very interesting comments and for her work on this issue.

I would like her to remind us of the adverse effects that the EI reform has had on women. I would like her to repeat the example she gave a few moments ago and explain to us how pregnant women have been adversely affected by the reform.

I would also like her to tell us what the Bloc Quebecois thinks should be done with the EI fund surplus, why that money, which does not belong to the government, should be returned to the workers and the employers.

This situation has been strongly criticized throughout Quebec and Canada. By amending the Employment Insurance Act in order to use the EI fund surplus for other purposes instead of reinvesting it to lighten the workers' heavy financial burden, the government is practically stealing that money.

I would like my colleague to comment on that so we can better understand the situation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would need half an hour to answer my hon. colleague. What I can say is that, while the minister's objective is to encourage people to get back to work, that is not what we are seeing in real life. Including small weeks in the calculation of benefits discourages people from going back to work.

My colleague suggested that women, for instance, be encouraged to stay at home to raise their kids for two years because they need 30% to 117% more hours to return to the labour force.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is never easy to speak after hearing remarks as eloquent as the ones made by my colleague from Quebec. I will nevertheless try to clarify the motion before us today.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the important issue of employment insurance reform. For more than two years, we have been questioning the Minister of Human Resources Development about the steady decline in the number of unemployed workers who qualify for EI benefits.

All this time the minister claims to be concerned by this tragic situation, but does not do a thing to change it. Once again, the minister is full of good intentions, but does not act on them. It is always the same thing on the government side: all talk and very little action.

Worse yet, this government is trying to divert—and that is a rather strong word—the $7 billion it has taken—not to say “stolen”, for I do not want to use unparliamentary language, although the choice of words is still important—from workers and employers to spend as it pleases. This money does not belong to the government but to Canadian workers and employers.

As my colleague from Quebec said very eloquently a moment ago, the motion before us today concerns specifically an urgently needed amendment to the employment insurance plan. It must be recalled that this motion by the Conservative Party reads as follows: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue with the Employment Insurance Small Weeks Adjustment Projects and amend the legislation in order to make the adjustment projects a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act.”

As my colleagues have already said, we in the Bloc Quebecois support this motion. We have in fact been calling for essentially the same thing for quite some time. My colleague has said that a number of bills have been introduced on this side of the House, but, unfortunately, the government has repeatedly ignored them.

Last December, we introduced Bill C-296, one of whose clauses provided a method for resolving the problem of the small weeks. Unfortunately, once again, the government has refused to deal with it. The opposition has therefore been obliged to use an opposition day. Yet again, the government is rejecting both the recommendations of the Conservative Party and Bill C-296, which the minister should frequently refer to. The Liberal government must pass this amendment as quickly as possible in order to repair one of the many inequities it has caused with its reform.

I will first explain what the small weeks adjustment projects are. Then I will explain why it is vital to make these pilot projects into a standard that will be universally applied. Finally, I will explain how the government is trying to hide behind a commissioned analysis in order to justify its inaction in this matter.

Currently, the Employment Insurance Act includes a new method for calculating benefits, which penalizes claimants by calculating a lower benefit amount. This method also discourages people from working who might otherwise be working a limited number of hours and weeks. This problem particularly affects high unemployment areas and some categories of workers, mainly the young and the women.

We believe however that this motion is not explicit enough, since it does not specify if the areas involved would only be those where pilot projects are currently under way or all the areas in Canada. Under the current EI system, only 21 administrative regions out of 54 are affected by the lumping or exclusion of the small weeks. We are convinced that the new formula, whether it be the lumping or the exclusion of the small weeks, should apply throughout Canada.

But first, I want to say that the government must act quickly because the small weeks pilot projects are coming to an end on November 15. As we all know, the purpose of these projects was to reduce some of the disincentives and devastating effects of the Employment Insurance Act. In fact, the new legislation unfairly penalizes those who agree to work small weeks, where they earn less than $150.

I think it is also important to mention, because it not only affects the formula, that these projects were to pacify the employers who were complaining about being unable to find employees ready to work small weeks. So, for some time now, some workers have agreed to work small weeks, because they thought the program would be renewed. The minister has to set things straight right away and tell us what he intends to do with these projects. If not, he would be penalizing these workers whom he has kept in the dark, without telling them what he was going to do.

Let me remind the House where this program to reduce the effects of the federal government's drastic cuts in the EI program comes from.

On March 5, 1997, barely two months after the coming into force of his new program, the Minister of Human Resources Development had to announce adjustment projects to mollify employers and workers in areas where unemployment rates were very high, including eastern Quebec and the maritimes. This admission of failure was the sign of his lack of vision and understanding of the impacts of a reform crafted mainly to save billions of dollars at the expense of the unemployed.

The main problem, already mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois, is the disincentive to work. A worker who accepts to work a few hours a week for a while, combining small and big workweeks, will probably be penalized financially the next time he puts in a claim. This is due to the new way benefits are calculated.

Suppose a worker in eastern Quebec works 20 big weeks at $450 a week, and six small weeks at $60, for a total of 26 weeks and an income of $9,360. Now he will have to make do on $198 a week.

Before the reform, he would have been entitled to $248 a week, and to $245 under the pilot project. In Quebec, 13.7%, that is nearly 14%, of people who lost their job have worked at least one small week. This rate is much higher in the maritimes and eastern Quebec. It is 24% in eastern Quebec and in the Chicoutimi—Jonquière area.

There are reportedly 25,000 persons in this situation in Montreal, which represents 11.8%. Women are more likely to be in this group: 22.7% compared to 5.5% of men. Young people are also affected: 17.2%, or almost 18 of young people under age 30, as opposed to 8% of people over age 30.

I think these figures are self-explanatory. The federal government has tightened EI eligibility criteria to such an extent that it is making young people and women pay for the debt with premiums they pay to protect themselves from unemployment. This misappropriation of funds is unacceptable and the government must agree now with today's motion.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, once again I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc.

When we listen to these speeches, we realize that what is happening in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, in terms of unemployment insurance, is much the same. I think I will call it by its real name, even though the name was changed to “employment insurance” to try to convince people they will find a job, despite the fact that the Liberal government will not make an effort to create jobs.

I would like to know if my colleague encounters the same problems as I do in his riding. I receive calls from people concerning their cheques. A lady called me yesterday and said “I think the employment centre has made an error in my calculation. I have worked more than 20 weeks, but it only calculated six weeks. My cheque is only for $60 a week; I cannot live on that. I think it made a mistake”. I told her no, it did not make a mistake. It added the famous divider of the 26 week period to make the calculation. I even received calls from people getting $32 a week.

I would like to know if my colleague from the Bloc receives the same type of complaints in his region.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her questions. Her questions are always well founded.

I remember last week's debate on APEC. The question was very much to the point, and it enabled me to inform the House of the Canadian federation on APEC.

Yes indeed we are getting calls at the office. Why? Because this government must understand immediately that the employment insurance reform and the new employment insurance legislation serve to exclude and to discriminate against young people and women, in particular. The Bloc Quebecois considers it unacceptable to have contributions paid into a plan that denies benefits. I think this must be said loud and clear.

It is as if we had paid insurance premiums, but were told “We will not pay you”, after a fire in the house. That is unacceptable. It is an exclusion clause and a discriminatory clause that affects not only young people and women, but entire regions and thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

I hear the members opposite reacting to my words; clearly they do not come from regions hard hit by unemployment.

They are certainly not from the regions excluded, whose constituents are excluded, by the plan. In this regard, I agree entirely with what the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said. Many people in my riding have told me of the pitiful state of this plan.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out something about EI that completely stunned and staggered me.

Employers must pay their share to the EI fund. All businesses must pay. It is not only the employees who pay. The Government of Quebec is an employer and, as such, its share exceeds the real needs, so it contributes to reducing the federal deficit to the tune of $200 million a year.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the whole issue of the surpluses. I know that I do not have much time to answer, but I will try to do it quickly.

Employers and employees contribute every year to a program, but cannot get benefits. For us, that is unacceptable. In the past, before the reform, more than 75% of young unemployed people could claim UI benefits.

I will conclude with a question: What percentage of young unemployed can now claim EI benefits under the new system? Only 25%.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to this motion brought forward by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

It will please members to no end to know that I will be sharing my time with the hardworking vivacious member for Guelph—Wellington.

I have a speech which took me hours to prepare, but basically I am going to touch on a few nuances brought forward by some of the members opposite, in particular members of the Reform Party.

It is interesting to note that in the weekend's paper it was clearly evinced that one of the members of the Reform Party, I believe the member for Medicine Hat, practises some of his dialogue before speaking in the House of Commons. Other members of the Reform Party perhaps better take a look in the mirror before they start making disparaging remarks about this piece of legislation and condemn it in its entirety for the simple reason that they say it is isolationist and it targets one part of the country, which is absolutely and unequivocally a falsehood.

They are indulging in nothing more than verbal turpitude. They are the people who want at the end of the day to speak for all Canadians, whereas this piece of legislation basically does address all Canadians. One member said it does not reach into his riding because he has 17% unemployment in his riding. If he has 17% unemployment in his riding and he wants to rail against the government, he better look inward and say perhaps there is something he personally should do to alleviate those concerns.

In this piece of legislation when we talk about the big weeks and the small weeks, we are actually looking for a formula to address unemployment.

We on the government side do not look upon unemployment favourably. We are trying to do everything we possibly can to ameliorate the situation and address the concerns.

When we look at the big weeks I think of the word big and my hon. colleague from Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle. He is big in heart and big in empathy for those who are dispossessed and those who are out of work. When we look at the small weeks I think of the word small and the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

He has a small vision of the country. He is from the Bloc Quebecois Party which does not really care about the rest of the country. Everyone knows that it is an isolationist party. Dare I say that the opposition party, the Reform Party, in some instances also delves into the realm of being isolationist because it does not want to address the entire situation.

I know my hon. colleague opposite is a business person. He knows that the best way to alleviate unemployment is to have a strong, vibrant economy. I know the hon. member, the little fellow from Medicine Hat who has certain Thespian qualities about him, has said that they would create in the blue book about one million jobs by the year 2000. I believe that is their mandate.

All of Canada knows that we on this side of the House have already reached that point. We have created about 1.3 million jobs and growing, less than two years faster than the Reform Party suggested. Talk is cheap. It is easy to say what one is going to do. We have actually done it. We have the lowest unemployment rate now in about eight years.

Another thing that is great for business and will help the employment picture is that we have the lowest interest rates in over 30 years.

I am a business person besides. When I had a real job I was in business, until I got elected as a member of parliament. I see what goes on here on occasion. It is dreadful. Let us face reality. If there are low interest rates which we currently have, the lowest in over 30 years, it is very propitious for the job sector. That is one of the reasons we have the lowest unemployment. It is now down to about 8.4%. When we took over in 1993 I believe it was something around 12.4%. That in itself propagates that the unemployment picture will look better.

To get back to this piece of legislation, I agree a lot with what the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has been saying, but I cannot say to him at this stage, today, here and now, that I am in complete agreement with him on this issue because it is a pilot project.

We will take a look at it on November 15. The hon. member should hold his horses, or perhaps I should say to him sharpen his blades. He has already told me that he is a hockey player. I believe he is skating on thin ice on this one. He should get his skates sharpened because we on this side have sharpened our pencils. That is why the employment picture is at the best it has been for years and years and years.

I know the fourth party, the NDP, is very concerned about the unemployment picture. Its members are very eloquent spokespersons in that regard. However I disagree with them. I do not believe that we should have generations and generations of people on unemployment. I would like to see these people get job retraining and upgrading. I believe they agree with me in that regard, but that is where they viscerally disagree with the Reform Party because the Reform Party's agenda is to cut them off. Anybody who has come back year in and year out to the employment insurance fund would be arbitrarily cut off. The NDP agrees with the Liberal Party in the area of job retraining.

We look after our students. We have the youth employment centre programs which are generated with the money from employment insurance premiums. Everyone would like to see a reduction, but at what expense? The finance minister has clearly indicated that we are a caring, compassionate country. We will reach out to all sectors of the population to try to help them.

Some people think employment insurance is a fund but it is not. It goes into the general revenue fund. That was passed in 1986. I was not here in 1986. I do not know who was here then but I believe that is when it was passed.

We have managed that fund remarkably well. I remember back in the early 1980s when the unemployment insurance fund was running at a deficit of about $500 million a year. Now, because we have a surplus and because we are managing it extremely well, we are to be penalized and we are to be looked upon in a pejorative manner. I emphatically state we will not apologize for managing that fund extremely well, better than it has been managed in years.

I know the member for Medicine Hat likes to get involved in Shakespeare. Alfred Lord Tennyson said:

Come, my friends. `T is not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. It may be that the gulfs will wash us down; It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,— One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

That is what the Liberal Party of Canada will do. We will strive to find resolutions to the unemployment issue. We will seek the solutions in good Liberal policies. We will find a way to help all people throughout the country because that is the Liberal tradition.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a serious matter today. This is no time for fooling around.

The issue of small weeks does not affect people who are unemployed in the usual manner. It affects those who work for a living every week that they have a job, for 20, 24, 25 or 26 weeks a year.

If the system is not extended, a person earning $450 a week for 20 weeks and $60 a week for six small weeks will receive benefits of $198, instead of the $245 the program now allows.

This is no joking matter. We are talking about salaries of $20,000 or $25,000 a year. Only people completely cut off from reality would laugh at such a situation. This is not a case of asking people to become more eligible. We are asking that benefits be reasonable, because the cost of this system for one year represents one half of 1% of the surplus in the fund.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

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

I would like the member to listen to what I am saying and take this a little more seriously.

Could he not ask his party to devote one half of 1% of the $20 billion surplus in the fund to maintain a program that has been around for two years?

In conclusion, I would remind the member that the Auditor General of Canada said that, if the federal government used the money for anything other than unemployment, administration costs and training expenses, it would be illegal. Right now, the federal government is receiving interest on the EI fund and it would illegal for it to use it elsewhere.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised and astonished at the comments of the member opposite.

Does he think that government members are not serious minded? We are indeed, but you are not, because the former Bloc Quebecois leader said that Canada was not a real country.

It is not real. Your leader said that, so what are you talking about over there?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would again remind members to address each other through the Chair.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I saw the member getting upset just a minute ago. I am a little concerned because I have to give credit where credit is due.

Definitely the Bloc has been fighting, like the NDP has been fighting, to try to bring justice to this program which has been destroyed by the Liberal government. The member has talked about how well they manage and how proud they are of what they have achieved. What they have achieved is the creation of the biggest gap ever between the rich and the poor.

They sit there and are happy about it and so proud that they managed. I can manage my finances very well at home. I can save 50% of my money if I want to starve my two kids. I can be very proud that I have money in the bank. I get upset when I see members of parliament saying that they are proud of the surplus. Yet they do not talk about the hardship they have created for the people and for the community.

This is not just a seasonal worker problem. It is a community problem created by the Liberal government that is so proud of this surplus. I do not understand it.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member opposite to understand this, and I will make it very clear and very plain to you. We have reduced—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Make it plain to everybody but make it plain through the Chair.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have reduced the employment insurance premiums not once, not twice, not thrice but four times. We have managed that fund very well. We have reduced unemployment from 12.4% to 8.4%.

I remind the hon. member opposite through you, Mr. Speaker, that I suffered through an NDP government in the province of Ontario, and let me say that it was not a pretty sight. It is a travesty to see that Ontario's Bob Rae was named man of the year for creating jobs in Buffalo.

We are doing what has to be done to alleviate the difficulties with employment insurance premiums. We are doing a remarkable job. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite, but deep down where it really counts I know she agrees with our policy in this regard.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for his eloquent comments. I think they were most interesting.

I rise in the House today to take part in this extremely important debate on the employment insurance system. I am pleased the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has brought the motion before the House. It gives the government the opportunity to help Canadians understand why it was necessary to reform the old unemployment insurance income support system.

The hon. member's motion specifically addresses the small weeks adjustment projects. These pilots have served as an added incentive for workers to take any employment, even for a few extra hours. That is the thrust behind the new EI program to ensure that every hour of work counts toward eligibility for benefits and to encourage people to work as much as possible.

I think that is very important. I do not have a problem with the small weeks adjustment projects per se. They are an important means of helping seasonal and cyclical workers, a means of making the system a little more fair. However, I do not think that small weeks adjustment projects should continue in their current form indefinitely.

As the hon. member knows, these projects are being carried out in 29 high unemployment regions. While I understand the need for these projects in these areas, I would ask the minister to consider the advisability of making them less regional and applying them more evenly across our great country.

Employment insurance is an important part of our social safety net. I emphasis the word employment because I think the change from unemployment to employment insurance was an important one.

This program was never intended to make being jobless easy but rather to tide the person over between jobs and to act as a buffer while the person is looking for work. The idea is to get unemployed workers to use EI as temporary income support while looking for a new job or upgrading their skills so they can return to the workforce as quickly as possible.

The new EI system has been restructured and redesigned to be more inclusive. For example, a number of those who are taking part in the small weeks project also receive the family income supplement, a supplement introduced by this government to address the needs of Canadians who may be living in poverty. A $50 floor on earnings also applies to low income earners so that these workers can earn more while still receiving EI benefits. Workers with an annual income of less than $2,000 also have their premium payments refunded and are eligible to participate in active employment measures.

The reform of the EI system has benefited many people. EI is now more accessible to women. Close to 700,000 women who work part time now have their EI payments refunded and because every paid hour of work counts the 14 hour job trap women used to find themselves in under UI has been lifted.

The small weeks adjustment project is just one example of how the Department of Human Resources Development is responding to the changing labour market.

Today very few people stay at the same job for more than 10 years. The average person changes careers, not just jobs, five times between the time they finish school and the time they retire.

People have to be flexible and willing to adapt to new work environments and working conditions. The good old 9 to 5 does not apply to every job. Some people work 40 hours a week while others work at two or three part time jobs or are employed casually on a day by day basis.

This is why small weeks adjustment projects can be so beneficial. I would like to ask the minister to consider the advisability of seeing the project standardized and nationalized.

As the member of parliament for Guelph—Wellington, a riding representing a high number of construction workers, I use the construction industry as an example. A construction worker may work 40 hours one week and 20 hours another week. Construction is not a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday industry. Workers work until the job is done be that on a Monday, Wednesday, Saturday or any other day of the week. When the worker gets laid off, somewhat of an inevitable occurrence in this profession, and if they choose to apply for EI their benefits are calculated on their last 20 weeks of work.

Let us take a mason who has worked 40 hours a week for 6 months on a construction week then during the last 20 weeks of the project the nature of the work changes and his hours are cut back to 30 years for 5 weeks and then 20 hours for the next 5 weeks. The amount of EI the mason is now eligible to collect will be considerably smaller due to those small weeks. That does not seem very fair to me.

The small weeks adjustment projects were implemented for situations like this one, the ones we have in Guelph—Wellington. However, we cannot access this project. In practice they have only been developed in certain regions of the country.

Employment insurance is part of Canada's social fabric and a reason why Canada is ranked number one by the United Nations in terms of our standard of living. It is the Canadian way to help others in need. Charity and community spirit are two identifying features of our national psyche.

When Quebec was devastated by flooding a few years ago Canadians from every region responded. Even though Quebeckers did not want to be a part of this country Canadians went there and responded because they are Canadians, Canadians who live in Quebec.

A year later when the Red River overflowed people in every province and territory reached out to the people of Manitoba. Just last year when the ice storm struck Ontario and Quebec citizens from my riding of Guelph—Wellington and communities like ours everywhere responded immediately to the call for help in Quebec again.

I see that Bloc members are laughing because other Canadians responded to their needs. I think that is a terrible thing. It is very sad that the Bloc Quebecois responds by laughing and mocking.

Given this track record of helping our fellow citizens, no matter where they live, it does not make sense to help unemployed workers in one region of the country more than in another region.

All hon. members agree we have a responsibility to do everything within our power to help Canadians and their families avoid poverty and its traumatic effects.

I believe the small weeks adjustment projects are an important addition to the employment insurance system. I would like to see them continue, but nationally as well as regionally. The government knew that some regions had higher unemployment rates and that EI reform would impact some communities more than others. However, labour market conditions are changing everywhere and small weeks is a problem encountered by EI applicants across the country. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

It is my understanding that the government is now analysing the projects to determine what action may be required. The government is close to being able to make a decision on the future of the small weeks adjustment projects experiment. These projects are scheduled to be completed on November 15. It would be premature to commit to renewing them without first assessing their impact and the effectiveness in the regions in which they will be implemented, then taking a serious look at where else they could be of benefit to all Canadians.

As I mentioned, Canada is considered the best country in the world when it comes to our standard of living. Our social safety net is a big reason why. Canadians look out for one another in times of need. Whether the hardship is caused by a national disaster, illness or unemployment it is important to help our fellow Canadians wherever they are, wherever they live.

I understand that unemployment is higher in certain regions of the country, but we also have to look at the unemployment levels by industry to ensure we are helping as many Canadians as possible and helping them equally. That is what being Canadian is all about.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my distinguished colleague is totally disconnected from human reality in this country. She must surely live in a posh neighbourhood, and she probably does not meet her voters in the places where she should.

In 1997, Quebec paid $475 million more than it received. Federalists can no longer use the argument they relied on in 1980, when they tried to scare people by saying “We cannot separate from the rest of Canada, or else we will lose access to the unemployment insurance program”.

The hon. member spoke about poverty. I would like to know what she thinks of the people in my riding who work as volunteer firefighters. These people clean fire trucks, hoses, etc., on a volunteer basis. The fifteen or so volunteer firefighters in Black Lake spend hours of their free time doing that work and maintaining a volunteer firefighters unit in the community.

When they fight a fire, they are paid $14 or $15 per hour. There is a volunteer fireman who helped fight 12 fires. He suffered a shortfall of $1,534. Because he earned $526, the government knocked $1,534 off his benefits. This is a volunteer fireman who does volunteer work and who contributed $1,534 to the $20 billion accumulated surplus. Is this what we mean by poverty?

This government is taxing poor people to death in order to lower its deficit. EI contributions are too high, given the benefits paid by the government to the unemployed.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to sit across from the Bloc Quebecois and listen to this.

Quebec derives many things from Canada because it is a Canadian province. It willingly take everything from us. When the ice storm happened, and the flooding, it took all the things that Guelph—Wellington brought to it. It took them gladly.

But here Bloc members sit. They mock and they laugh. They do not represent all of Canada here. If they truly believed what they are saying they would not sit as members of parliament because they do not represent Canada. They should be representing provincially if that is what they believe. But they do not believe that. They take everything from Canada—

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that I was elected democratically in the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, just like the Liberal member opposite, and I must represent—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a point of debate and both sides have their oars in the water. We have a minute and a bit left for questions and comments.