Debates of Oct. 26th, 1998

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that it is us, the PQ's local branch plant, as he likes to call us, who looked at the situation and made false statements. He should be reminded that, last week, Donald Charette wrote an editorial in Le Soleil in which he said “the first of the two methods, that is the one rightly used by the media, shows that, over the past eight years, the percentage of unemployed who are entitled to a cheque has fallen from 83% to 42%”.

Mr. Charette adds that “the number of those who qualify has significantly decreased, while the fund has increased at the expense of contributors”. He goes on to say that “thousands of people are thus excluded from a program that should protect them and these people probably become prime candidates for social assistance”. Mr. Charette rightly concludes by saying that “if Minister Pettigrew does not have the authority to impose his views, a standing committee of the Senate and the House of Commons will have to look at the issue and restore some justice through redistribution”.

These comments were not made by separatists. They are found in editorials across Canada, from the maritimes to British Columbia. Everyone says that the minister is stealing the employment insurance surplus—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply—

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not done with my comments. It is the minister who made some kind of claim. We did not hear what he said, but I would like to be allowed to conclude my remarks. I listened to him when he had the floor earlier. Now, it is his turn to listen to me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I understand, but five minutes are allocated for two questions and two replies.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I object to the unparliamentary language of the Parti Quebecois member, who is always pushing a very specific agenda that has nothing to do with helping people improve their situation and working with us constructively, because the worse things get, the happier he is.

All these people are trying to prove is that the country is not in very good shape, and he knows it.

According to the opposition member's logic, people who have never worked or paid EI premiums in their life are entitled to EI benefits. The way the member sees it, we should be paying EI benefits to people who have received severance pay. He wants us to pay—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Excuse me, with counsel, I was assured that the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques did not say anything unparliamentary.

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this bundling project and exclusion project affects 29 regions in Canada. It is not only for the Atlantic provinces. It affects Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Northwest Territories and the four Atlantic provinces.

Can the minister assure the House today and all the people in those 29 regions that the EI applications will be continued to be processed after the expiration on November 15?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my intervention earlier, we are presently looking into the findings. The collection of data is being completed. The findings will permit the government to determine the degree to which a disincentive to accept small weeks of work exists. A decision on what action will be required over the long run will be made this fall. But as I said, for the time being my department continues to process claims as if the programs were to be continued. I would like once again to recognize the very good intentions of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche who really tries to do constructive work in this House as this parliament can elevate itself to.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We will be resuming debate with the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but over the last couple of weeks the word “stolen” has crept in from time to time in debate and in question period. It is a very grey area. If the word is used in a way that is not attached to a specific person but is in general, then it is not bad but it is on the cusp. I would feel much more comfortable if we did not get into that grey area. But if anyone were to use that pejorative word directed to another member directly, that would without question be unparliamentary. It is not just the word, it is the form and the context in which the word is used.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

I am very sympathetic to some of the points the hon. member has made. I think he has made an excellent case for some of the flaws in some of the reforms that have occurred under this Liberal government.

I am very concerned and I must criticize the government in the strongest possible terms because here we are three weeks away from the expiry of this program and we have absolutely no evidence at all as to what the impacts are of the program. It is a big program. We have spent somewhere in the range of $230 million so far on the program. Yet we have no evidence and every year we get criticism from the auditor general coming forward saying programs lack clear measurably objectives, there are no ways to measure whether they are effective. Now we are in a situation where the program is coming to an end. My colleagues across the way are arguing that it is a good program. Others like me are saying we just do not know. We do not have any evidence. If we had some evidence it would make it a lot easier to support the member's motion.

We are in a position where the member I trust wants us to support his motion but on the other hand we have absolutely no evidence. I think it is unreasonable to ask us to support it when it is a sizeable amount of money, $230 million to $260 million, somewhere in that range, without any evidence at all.

Having said that, I appreciate the arguments the member has made, but to make a decision to support the motion at this point would be imprudent.

I want to talk about the need for fundamental reform of employment insurance. I am glad that this topic has come up today because I think it needs to be discussed. As members know, the opposition parties have spoken jointly for the need for fundamental reform of employment insurance. We have spoken about the need to have employers and employees get together and run this fund by themselves. We feel it is crazy to allow the government to take this huge employment insurance fund and essentially use it for whatever it wants to use it for. We think it is dangerous to have a pool of capital that large with government using it for whatever mischievous purposes it wants to use it for.

We are saying let us take that fund, let us hive it off, let us let employers and employees run the fund. Let us let them set the benefits and set the premiums.

If I were one of the people on that board the first thing I would do is argue for experience rating. Government members may recall that the Minister of Finance asked Professor Jack Mintz to produce a report on taxation on business in this country.

One of the things he talked about was the need for reform of employment insurance premiums. He talked about experience rating which has substantial merit. Essentially what this is, if we use the model of the United States, is an insurance scheme that would penalize all those companies that lay people off more than their industry average.

Let us talk about areas where we have a lot of seasonal work such as in New Brunswick where the mover of this motion comes from. In a situation where we have a lot of seasonal industries, such as the forestry industry, a pulp and paper outfit that lays people off more than other pulp and paper companies in that region would see its premiums go up. This would then create disincentive to lay people off.

There was an excellent documentary on television a few years ago about how experience rating works and works extraordinarily well in the state of Maine. They used the local Wal-Mart store as an example where a number of people are hired on just before Christmas but instead of letting them go after Christmas it keeps them on and gets them to stock shelves, do painting or fix up the store in various ways. If these people were let go then it would have to face higher premiums. There is a real positive incentive to keep people on.

It is time this government started to explore some of these more fundamental reforms which would go a long way to solving some of the perverse incentives or disincentives we have in our employment insurance system today. I really believe it is time to look at that.

I also want to talk about the other big employment insurance problem we have today. As members know, we have a situation where we have about a $7 billion overpayment currently sitting in the employment insurance fund, a fund that in my judgment and in the judgment of workers and employers belongs to the people who contributed the money in the first place. I am talking here about workers and employers.

We now have the government speculating that it may decide to take that money and spend it. I submit that money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the workers, to the employers, to small businesses and to businesses in general, 95% of which are small businesses. I condemn this government for talking about taking that money.

To me it is unconscionable that the government would sit there for a number of years and allow that fund to balance its budget and then, when workers have balanced the budget, to say as thanks that it is going to take that $7 billion overpayment that comes in every year and keep it for itself. That is unbelievable.

I asked the government why it does not just obey the law and do what the law is saying it should do which is to reduce the premiums and give it back to workers and small business. A $350 rebate in the form of lower premiums to somebody who is making $39,000 a year is helpful, especially with Christmas coming up. Five hundred dollars a year per employee going back to a small business is helpful. It allows those people to withstand this economic downturn the minister has been talking about.

Why do we not just be fair? What is wrong with that? Why do we not just give people back the money we have taken from them? Not only are the four opposition parties in agreement on this issue, we also know that the provinces agree with this. We also know businesses and labour agree with this. Is it not time that the government yielded and forgot about its foolhardy pride and did the right and fair thing by giving the money back? It is unconscionable that this government is contemplating a $7 billion raid on the EI fund.

The minister says the government is not just going to take the money, it is going to have a debate on it. What a joke. When we had the minister before the finance committee recently to give his economic statement he was making an argument about having this big debate. I said if there were really going to be a debate then why is the $7 billion overpayment already showing up in the projections for next year. I also asked him why he has already taken for granted that the $7 billion will go into the government coffers. He had no answer.

I submit, if this money really does belong to the government instead of to the workers, why does the government pay interest on that fund? Why does it pay interest if it is just to itself? Is the government paying interest to itself? I do not think so. It is paying it because it understands intuitively that the money does not belong to it. It belongs to workers and to employers. Therefore, the government has a moral obligation to give that money back.

Government members cannot continue to say “We are going to have a debate. We have decided that we know better than workers and employers how to use that money and, therefore, we are going to confiscate it”. That is so fundamentally wrong.

It points to the increasing arrogance that we see from this government. It seems like no law is unbridgeable by this government whether it is pepper-spraying students or whether it is taking $7 billion from employers and employees. It points to a very ugly trend that we see in this government.

I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in condemning the government for what it is proposing to do and ask for a more fundamental debate about employment insurance, one in which we will have the chance to hold this government accountable for its confiscation of the hard-earned premiums of workers and employers.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I too come from a riding that is very hard hit by unemployment. I see the negative impact and the ramifications that high unemployment has.

I received a letter from an owner-operator of a quick service restaurant who told me that he has to pay EI premiums on employees' hours from day one, yet these young people cannot claim EI. That creates a surplus in the fund that the employer cannot ask for in return. I see this as just another problem that is created by this whole system.

Many times I have had the opportunity to say that the Reform Party is not a national party or a true national party. When the hon. member says that he is not prepared to support the motion put forth by my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, once more I see that Reformers are ignoring the maritimes and the Atlantic provinces.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, all I can say to my hon. friend is that he cannot have it both ways. We just had the member for Madawaska—Restigouche say that this program affects the entire country. Now he is saying it is all about maritimers. He cannot have it both ways.

As a matter of fact, I would submit that the Reform Party is a national party. I was in Nova Scotia this weekend, talking to people there. In fact, I see the hon. member down the way whose riding I was in. I talked to people there and I can say they are profoundly unhappy with the choices of the traditional parties, which is why I was invited to go there.

If bigger social programs were the solution to the problems of the people in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians, people in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, then those people would be extraordinarily well off. I do not think it has worked that way.

We need a new program to create jobs. The best social program in the world is a permanent, good job, not tinkering with the current system.

My friend should consider that perhaps after 30 years the way he and his party have gone simply has not worked. Maybe it is time for a new approach for all Canadians, in particular for the people of Atlantic Canada.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's debate. We are talking about the surpluses we have had in the EI account for the last several years. However, the thing that seems to be missing is that the history of the plan has been deficits. There were years in which there were deficits and during those periods the Canadian taxpayer had to top up the fund.

In other words, they were not the workers and the businesses that he is talking about. In fact, the average taxpayer had to reach into their pockets and pay money into that program.

When the member says “Give that money back to whom it belongs”, has he taken into account the reality that taxpayers have paid money to support the plan over the years?

Secondly, in my province of Ontario the premier and his party are making a lot of the fact that Ontario has a net outflow to support the employment insurance system. He thinks this is a bad thing. I suppose within his own province he can also find shifts between industries. In my riding, General Motors, for instance, argues that it only gets 60 cents on the dollar in the employment insurance program.

In his province of Alberta, does the member also support the idea that we should balkanize the plan and try to make it sustainable within provincial boundaries, or is there a realization that there is more to this country than just individual provincial concerns?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the first point I would make is that employers and employees have kicked in $19 billion more than they have drawn out in employment insurance benefits.

I would argue that of course we need to hide this fund off so that we are not in a situation where either the government has to kick money in or employers have to kick money in to bail out the government. The fact is that this government pays $711 million in interest on the fund as it is right now. I do not think that helps anybody, certainly not taxpayers in general.

The second point I would make is that we believe that employers and employees should set the benefits and the premiums. That is the way to handle this problem and that would not balkanize Canadians. I would argue that it would probably go a long way in de-politicizing EI and would make the program a lot more effective.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to the motion presented by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I congratulate on his choice of topic.

I cannot say the same for the Minister of Human Resources Development, a technocrat who basically lets the federal bureaucracy order him around.

A pilot project to correct a glaring oversight in the EI reform was introduced in March 1997, a mere two months after the reform first took effect. The reform took effect January 1, 1997 and in March the government realized there was a glaring oversight. No one in the government had anticipated it. A pilot project, which will end on November 15 of this year, was put in place.

Basically, this pilot project allows an individual who has been employed for 20 weeks at $450 a week and six small weeks at $60 a week, to receive benefits of $245 a week. Without the pilot project, he would receive $198 a week. This is not a huge salary. The annual salary of someone earning $450 a week is $23,400. If he works full time, members can imagine the impact of $50 a week less on his budget.

There are now only three weeks to go in the pilot project and the minister is still unable to tell us if his department has evaluated the situation properly, if it will extend the pilot project, terminate it or come up with something else.

This is wrong, because it is not the day after November 15 that this is going to hit people. It is already happening. People are already busy calculating how much they are going to have to manage on for the winter, and they do not know today whether the program will counteract the negative effect of the small weeks, whether it will have a heavy impact on their budgets.

That is what we want to say in today's motion. We want to tell the government “Everybody is saying the surplus in the EI fund is excessive”. They say there is a $20 billion surplus in the fund. The present pilot project costs between $100 and $125 million yearly, more or less. It takes about one-half of 1% of the $20 billion surplus to ensure people have the minimum income required for them and their families to be able to survive.

We are facing a situation where a government is accumulating a surplus at the expense of those who earn the least, because the $20 billion surplus was built up while the small weeks projects were in place.

The ministerial greediness behind this method of calculation is obvious, that of the Minister of Finance in particular. The Minister of Human Resources Development does not seem in the least anxious to defend his people. Instead, he seems totally dependent on what the Minister of Finance decides on his behalf.

This government still wants to take another $100 million on top of the $20 billion; always a little bit more, but Canada's social protection is being destroyed and that is where the danger lies. This is a situation that needs to be remedied. This pilot project has been in place for two years. It has been in operation, and there are masses of public servants to evaluate it. We are three weeks away from the end of the pilot project. The member for Madawaska—Restigouche wants to know from the minister “Will the project be extended or not?” He is unable to give us an answer.

He says that officials will continue to calculate things as they have been doing. It is this sort of attitude and behaviour I find unacceptable.

These people are not administering their own money, they are administering money workers and employers pay into the employment insurance plan. The issue is the fact that people must no longer be forced to beg to collect their own money. Behind this motion is the question of dignity. This is why it is vital the government look very seriously at this problem.

I would like to remind the Liberal members particularly those from the maritimes, of something. They are going to have to vote this evening. When you vote on this motion, remember the people like Francis LeBlanc and Doug Young who, here in this House, defended the government's unacceptable positions, on the very issue of unemployment insurance reform. Today, they no longer sit here, because they were sent a very clear message by the population.

I think it would be doing a favour to the current Liberal members, especially those from the maritimes, but those from everywhere else in Canada too, because the small weeks plan exists for everyone. Its impact is felt not only in regions where there are seasonal workers. Its impact is felt in Montreal, in the west and throughout Canada.

This evening we will have to decide whether the plan will continue. We will have to decide whether it will continue and be incorporated in the law. These two decisions will have to be made at the end of the day. All members in this House will have to vote. They will have to decide whether the person I referred to earlier, who earns $450 a week during 20 weeks, should be entitled to keep receiving this $50 or have his or her benefits cut by $50.

People like us make a decent income; we make good money, we can get by. But after a vote has been taken and we have left this House, we must remember that voting against this motion means taking $50 a week from workers who earn $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 a year.

Even if the government were ultimately to extend the program, the citizens, workers and employers of this country deserve a minimum of respect. This government must absolutely wake up and put forward a proposal, saying “We agree to extend the small weeks program, at least until the consequences are known. We cannot tell if it is really effective, but we do know a few things”.

We know it costs between $100 million and $125 million a year to operate, out of a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund. We also know that it helps low income workers. Seasonal workers are the ones who are affected the most. We know that poverty has increased tremendously across Canada in recent years. The middle class is disappearing.

It is over the EI system that the federal government has the greatest control. The provinces are not necessarily the ones that should act on this. Money should be put back into transfer payments, but there are actions that could taken directly from here. The decision can be made to put an end to this escalating poverty, to at least let people retain their same level of income Most particularly, they can be allowed to retain their dignity.

Do you know what dignity means? It means that, when a worker earns a salary and is entitled to insurance, at the end of the day, that insurance program will be respected, and the rules will not be changed part way through.

Everyone who worked in seasonal employment this summer was covered by a system that included this program. For weeks we have been asking the government, particularly the Liberal minister—and clearly he is not a spokesperson for the Parti Quebecois, nor are we, but he is I am sure the spokesperson for all of the bureaucrats in his department—to tell us whether he is capable of putting on the table positions like those set out this morning.

He has said that the calculations would continue as before but that he could not tell us whether the program would be extended, whether the legislation would be changed. He cannot tell us anything. What point is there in having a Minister of Human Resources Development if he is incapable of managing his main area of responsibility, employment insurance?

Canada is at a point in time when thought must be given to stimulating the economy and ensuring that consumption will continue. The federal government has a tool available to it. Now that there are problems with international demand and we can no longer be sure there will be a market in Asia for our products, let us at least use the tools we have available to us, let us cut employment insurance contributions, let us give people a program that at least gives families a decent income.

The minister will never again have to give the answer he gave this morning on television, when a CBC reporter from the east coast asked when he would be going to New Brunswick. The minister's response: “I tried to go there in June, but I have not found the time yet”.

A person who is afraid to meet people and does not feel capable of explaining to them why decisions are made, should no longer be minister.

This evening, when all the members vote on the motion, they should also show their courage. I think it is important that they think about all the people in their ridings who will be affected. Those members who do not understand the impact can call the people in their ridings to find out. They can call the community groups in their ridings to find out whether people will be going to soup kitchens because of the choice that will be made this evening.

I invite all members to give this some thought before they vote. A positive result would put a stop to the bureaucratic machinery and give workers back the dignity they deserve.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by the Progressive Conservatives. Our caucus is pleased to support the motion for a variety of reasons. We are critical that the motion does not go nearly far enough. We would much rather debate the EI Act and argue for its reform. It is clearly dysfunctional and broken.

The EI system is supposed to provide income maintenance for unemployed workers. It is pretty straightforward. That is the deal. That is the pact most working people understand. When they have something deducted from their paycheques for a specific reason, there is a reasonable expectation that they should be allowed to collect income maintenance should they find themselves unfortunate enough to become unemployed.

We approve of other designated uses. We find there is merit to the motion. We believe the small weeks pilot project was necessary and that it had to take place. Obviously too many people were being penalized by the divisor rule which was put in place with the Liberal amendments to the EI system.

The divisor rule is patently unfair in that it brings down the benefit for the unemployed worker by averaging all the weeks leading up to the layoff and not just the weeks in which they worked. In other words, dead weeks or small earning weeks were being folded into the package which brought down the average. Not only do less than 40% of unemployed people qualify for any benefit at all, but those who are lucky enough to qualify for some benefit get less money and for a shorter period of time.

The hon. Minister for Human Resources Development tried to argue that those figures were not accurate. He referred to an analysis on employment insurance benefit coverage recently commissioned and released by HRDC. Holding the report as proof he made the argument that 78% of all unemployed workers actually qualified for EI. Nobody believes that. The media do not believe it. Recent editorials do not believe it. It simply is not true.

The minister made the allegation that opposition critics in this area were reading the report too selectively, misquoting and taking things out of context. In actual fact the minister is taking things out of context. The report clearly states as a summary of the study that the regular EI beneficiaries to unemployment ratio or the BU ratio—some people call it the BS ratio—had declined by almost 50% in the 1990s, falling from a level of 83% in 1989 to 42% in 1997.

That is the figure we hear most commonly quoted in the media and in our own criticisms. Critics from labour and all different groups say that approximately 40% of unemployed workers qualify for EI. Clearly the system is dysfunctional and broken. It is no wonder there is a huge surplus. It is not hard to develop a surplus when nobody qualifies any more and the few people who do qualify are getting reduced benefits and for a shorter period of time.

With that huge surplus—and I am glad other speakers raised it as an issue—we are hearing all kinds of creative ideas on how to spend money that clearly is not theirs to spend. Some people argue we should be spending it on health and social programs. Some of the premiers of the provinces are even saying that. Some people say we should use it for deficit reduction, which is what the Minister of Finance has used the surplus for. Almost unbelievably the Business Council on National Issues is calling for tax cuts.

In some sort of perverse version of Sherwood Forest we have the BCNI advocating that we rob from the poor to give the rich yet another tax cut. It is almost incomprehensible. Shear perversity is what I call it. Fortunately that idea has not caught on in any meaningful way.

Then we have people advocating that we should be cutting premiums with the surplus. A common theme in the business community is that it should be returned to business and employees through premium cuts.

Except for my caucus no one seems to be raising the issue of increasing the benefits and lowering the bar for eligibility so that more people qualify. What could be more simple? The money is deducted from our paycheques every week. To use it for anything but income maintenance would be a breach of trust at the very least and out and out theft in the worst case scenario. To take money from a person's cheque for a specific purpose and to use it for something completely different is fundamentally wrong.

As we talk about the $20 billion surplus, an almost inconceivable amount of money in most people's minds, obviously it should be used to provide income maintenance. It should be put it in the pockets of working people when they find themselves unfortunate enough to be unemployed. They will spend the money in the community. It has the multiplier effect and residual benefits.

Another point has not come up. Many of the changes to EI were quite insignificant when we look at the bigger picture of how few people qualify. One of the changes that went by almost unnoticed was that of people serving their apprenticeship training in a community college. There is now a two week waiting period.

As a journeyman carpenter I served my time as an apprentice. When I went to community college there was no waiting period for the EI to kick in. Now people are laid off from their job to go to school for eight weeks, six weeks or whatever their trade dictates, and there is a two week period where they do not get any income at all. The result has been that many apprentices are simply choosing not to take their in-school component. They are not going to school because they cannot go for two weeks without earnings.

The total savings to the EI system for reinstating this waiting period for students was $10 million per year. The fund is showing a surplus of $500 million per month and the apprenticeship system has been gutted for the sake of $10 million per year. That kind of logic simply was not thought out well and should be reversed immediately.

Actually the building trades unions making this argument have a variety of good recommendations for how we can fix the EI system. One of the things they point to is that all the changes have not even kicked in yet. It will actually get worse in the next year. I guess in the government's mind it will get better because the surplus will be even bigger. One of the changes that will kick in next year is the clawback or the threshold people reach before their EI benefits are clawed back. It used to be $63,000 a year. Those making more than $63,000 a year would start losing their benefits. They would be clawed back. Everybody agreed that was fair, that anyone making $60,000 a year should not be collecting EI and should be able to put some money away.

With this set of changes it was reduced to $48,750. I guess we could argue whether or not that is fair. As of next year it will be $39,000. People making more than $39,000 will have their EI benefits clawed back.

I come from the building trades. A journey person might make $20 or $25 an hour. If they are lucky to get eight or nine months of work in, they might make $39,000 a year. Hopefully they will. However they still have three months without earnings. That $39,000 a year is not a huge amount of money. They are in a very high tax bracket. They do not get to keep the whole $39,000.

I argue that they should not penalized for collecting what is rightfully theirs for the three or four months they need it to span that period of unemployment. It is to everybody's benefit if we can keep people in those occupations during slow times so that they are available when the industry needs them the next spring. Otherwise they will find some other kind of work, leave town or move. It is as simple as that.

My main criticism of the opposition day motion is that I wish it went a lot further so that we could have a substantial debate about EI reform. I can only think the reason it was limited to such a narrow scope was that perhaps they were snookered by the government. Maybe there was some optimism that the Minister of Human Resources Development would see the logic in what they were saying and would announce today that the small weeks program is a good idea, is necessary, and that they should be maintaining it after November 15. Maybe that was the optimism which motivated the people who moved the opposition day motion.

In actual fact I think they have been hoodwinked. The Minister of Human Resources Development just stood and said that they were not interested in extending the small weeks program. He was not interested in jeopardizing the windfall of $7 billion a year that they pull out of the EI program.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest. I would like him to comment on the position the minister took earlier. He said that, as Quebec's sovereignist representatives, all we want to do is raise doubts about the Canadian system. I would like the member, to expose the credibility of this issue, to remind the House that there are national concerns, but there are also social issues.

A few weeks ago, the opposition parties unanimously proposed to the government that management of the employment insurance fund be given to an independent commission. The other opposition parties did not hide behind the fact that we might be sovereignists. They listened to and weighed the merits of this proposal, which received the support of the Canadian Labour Congress, Quebec's labour unions, a number of business associations, and especially representatives of small and medium sized businesses.

Could the hon. member tell the minister that, in this matter, it is not our intention to give the government a hard time, but to ensure that the law works properly and to close the loophole created by the inclusion of small weeks in the calculation of EI benefits?

Could the hon. member tell this House that people today want nothing more than to be sure people will not be getting $200 a week instead of $250, when they need it to live, and that we are awaiting the government's decision to continue the program?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. He is quite right.

I was very disappointed to hear the Minister of Human Resources Development try to trivialize this argument by taking a cheap shot, questioning the motives and the sincerity of the speakers from the Bloc Quebecois. Frankly the minister of HRD represents a riding that has one of the highest unemployment and poverty rates in the country. Representing unemployed people in the province of Quebec should be a huge priority for him. He certainly should not question the sincerity of other representatives from the province of Quebec who are sincerely concerned about the failure of the EI system.

The hon. member raised another interesting point which I wish I had time to comment on. He is quite right that all four opposition parties joined together in their demand for an independent fund. We want the EI fund to be unique and fully separate from general revenues. This is the only way we can be sure that future finance ministers are not tempted to put their hand in the cookie jar and grab money that clearly is not theirs to use it for purposes not designated by the fund. It is something on which we should keep the pressure. The general public understands why this is necessary. Business, labour and all four opposition parties will continue to call for that.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the question is for the member for Winnipeg Centre.

However, while I am on my feet I would like to congratulate the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for presenting this motion today and express my incredulity at Reform members and the fact that they dare to state in the House that they would not support this motion. Give your head a shake, boys. Give your head a shake. Think about it.

This motion is not about trying to find EI for someone who is not working. This motion is not about some type of giveaway. This motion is about bundling of weeks for people who already work, to allow them to actually benefit from the EI program. That is the type of thing we are supposed to support in this House as the Parliament of Canada, to look out for those people who need some assistance.

I would like to qualify a few statistics and take the fishery as an example. Less than one year ago there were 34,000 workers out of work in the east coast fishery. Seventy-three per cent of them had no high school education and 67%—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time has run out. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on a quick response.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, in reaction to the comments made by the member, he is being critical of the Reform Party for failing to vote in favour of this motion. Frankly the motion as I pointed out really does not go to the heart of the issue. Perhaps that is the reservation some of the members of the Reform Party have with the motion.

I wish it went much further in calling for substantial EI reform. I wish the Progressive Conservatives had taken the opportunity with this opposition day motion to call for an independent fund. Then I think they would get unanimity on the opposition side.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for putting forth the motion before us today. Also, I want to inform you, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi.

When the last round of employment insurance changes was being proposed by this government, I spoke out against aspects of the legislation that would penalize people who want to work, but this government did not listen. My party pointed out then that the effect of some parts of Bill C-12, the Employment Insurance Act, would encourage some to say no to part time work because they would be worse off if they said yes.

Today there are less than 40% of the unemployed who qualify, whereas before under the other system 80% were eligible. Everyone in this House should stop and think about those men and women who have children they want to feed, educate and care for and they do not have any money for food or clothes.

I was at the finance committee meeting in Saint John, New Brunswick last Monday, a week ago today, on the prebudget debate. A gentleman had flown in from Newfoundland. I never heard such a heart-rending report in my life about what was happening in Newfoundland and how those people were suffering.

One of my colleagues from Nova Scotia started to speak about the fishermen. It is a serious matter and I get very disturbed when I hear someone from the Reform Party say that it was my party that did this to the Atlantic region.

Let me say this. My riding of Saint John, New Brunswick had one of the lowest unemployment rates that we had had in many years. Things were great. The shipyard was going full blast. Do we have a national shipbuilding policy now? No. The shipyard in Quebec is down. The shipyard in Saint John is down. Most of the shipyards in all of Atlantic Canada are down.

There has to be some compassion on the government side. The government has to start thinking about those people. It really hurts when I men come to my office. Never in the 25 years that I have been involved both locally and here in Ottawa up until this past year has a man come to my office crying “Please, I will sweep the streets. I do not care what it is. I just want to look after my children”.

The Progressive Conservative Party tried to improve the EI legislation in the Senate in the last parliament. Our amendments were rejected by the Liberal majority in the Senate.

It has been pointed out that a Progressive Conservative senator proposed in May 1996 that weeks with less than 15 hours of insurable earnings should not be counted as weeks of work when calculating an individual's EI benefit rate. The senator argued that otherwise claimants could end up with lower benefits if they worked just a few hours in one week thereby discouraging these individuals to take part time work.

A year later this disincentive to work in the EI legislation was confirmed. Pilot projects were launched to look into addressing the “small weeks issue”.

When this government engaged in its so-called social policy review in 1994, I spoke in the House about the need to reform our social safety net. Canada's income security programs had been designed at a time when unemployment was a brief condition between jobs, when the one income, two parent family was the rule and when child poverty was not measured.

I spoke back then about the need for reforms that would reorient passive income support programs to an active investment in people, reforms that would remove barriers that prevent many from becoming active members of the labour force and reforms that would replace disjointed programs with a coherent system. Instead of adhering to these principles, some of the EI reforms proposed and passed by this Liberal government actually discourage people to go to work.

I have pointed out before and I say again that there are people in parts of Atlantic Canada who are considered frequent users of EI. It is not because they are lazy or because they are abusing the system. It is because some parts of the economy are highly seasonal. I know there are people both on the opposition and government sides that do not understand about the seasonal system. That is why they need programs that will allow them to adjust and move with the changing times. These people do not need programs that cut them off at the knees. They are people who want to work.

Employment insurance as helpful as it is does not bring the same return both financially and spiritually that a job does. That is why we have proposed the motion we are debating today. That is why we are urging that this House on both sides, everyone, be allowed to consider amending the EI act, allow workers either to eliminate small weeks of work from the calculation of benefits or bundle those small weeks together.

Good public policy encourages work, self-sufficiency, fairness and dignity. The small weeks provision in the EI act does not do this.

During the 1994 social policy review, I also spoke out against raising taxes. I said then and I maintain today that the challenge is to use money already in the system to make programs as flexible as possible so recipients can receive the benefits that help them become self-reliant and meet their needs.

That is also why I have been asking the government to lower the excessive EI premiums since 1996. The government is gouging the Canadian workers who are already overtaxed and it is stifling job creation.

The Minister of Finance has been overtaxing Canadian workers and employers through excessive employment insurance premiums to pad his deficit numbers. He has said as much. I hope all of my colleagues on the government side remember when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance stated that these high taxes make us lose jobs, that jobs cannot be created, that people in the business community will not expand when they have high taxes.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and their colleagues want to use the surplus in the fund to pay for programs that the fund is not meant to finance. The money in the EI fund is designed to provide temporary income support to unemployed Canadians. That money belongs to Canadian workers and their employers. It does not belong to the finance minister or any other minister of this government.

In February 1994 the finance minister told Canadians in his first budget that, as I have stated, payroll taxes are a barrier to jobs. They truly are. All Canadians know that there have been about 40 tax hikes since this government came to power.

My little daughter-in-law said to me the other day “Mother, I do not know what has happened. I always put money away at the end of the month for Lindsay's and Matthew's education but we do not have any money any more”. I said “Dear, it is because of the taxes you have to pay. It is because of what they have done to you”.

It is difficult. Back when the finance minister talked about the barrier to jobs that payroll taxes were, his context was a set of employment insurance benefit cuts proposed by the Liberals that were supposed to allow for lower EI premiums, not a cash grab at the expense of Canadians to fund projects unrelated to the objectives of the EI legislation, for short term political gain.

We are really concerned. We are concerned about what is happening with the EI fund. The auditor general has stated himself that he has concerns about what is happening with this government. I hope the government does not fire him. Every time someone speaks out, they are gone the next week.

Responsible governments recognize when bad public policy decisions hurt Canadians and they take action to correct their mistakes. I urge this government to recognize the mistakes that are there. I urge this government and all members of the Liberal government to do the right thing for those people out there. Have the needed compassion. Reach out to those people who need help. Do not hurt them any more. The government is taking away their dignity. We want to give them their dignity back. Do not make them plead.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's very impassioned plea for the people in Atlantic Canada. I must say I was somewhat moved by it.

I wonder if she is aware of the fact that payroll taxes in Canada are one of the lowest in the industrialized world. The way she talked about them made it sound like they were about the highest. In fact, they are one of the lowest, which makes us a competitive place in which to do business.

My province of Ontario has a premier who has pointed to the EI system as being an unfair transfer from the province of Ontario essentially to Atlantic Canada. He is saying “We already pay money through a transfer payments mechanism, through equalization grants. We do not understand why we should have to pay more money through the EI system to support places like Atlantic Canada”.

Can the member comment on the compassion of the premier of Ontario?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is a national issue, not a provincial issue.

I say to the hon. member that everybody in this House needs to have a history lesson on the role played by Atlantic Canada, particularly my city which is Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, in building this whole country from coast to coast. Everybody, particularly our friends out west and those in Ontario, need to travel this country to find out exactly what our people are like. Two weeks ago a person from Vancouver came to me and told me that my city was the nicest city in the whole of Canada.

As far as Atlantic Canadians go, we get hurt when we hear people from Ontario and out west refer to us as Atlantica and a drag on society. All our people want is their dignity. If we had a government that was going to look at keeping those adjustments in place then we could tell Atlantic Canadians that this government also cares for them.

I am asking members to speak to the minister. I am asking members to speak out for our people. I am asking members on the government side to fight for our people to make sure they have their dignity.