moved that Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, 1997 (premiums and Employment Insurance Account) be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-299, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act as regards the premium rate setting and the employment insurance account, which was tabled in this House in December 1997.

Let me first remind members of the context in which this bill was introduced, along with five other bills on employment insurance that were introduced by Bloc Quebecois members, namely the hon. members for Frontenac—Mégantic, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Québec, Repentigny, and Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Since 1990, the federal government has imposed four employment insurance reforms to fight the deficit. The federal obsession with the elimination of the deficit at any cost was prevalent under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. With each of these reforms, the government changed the rules with the obvious goals of excluding claimants, of reducing the amount of benefits, and of shortening the period during which these benefits are paid.

It can, therefore, be stated clearly and unequivocally that the deficit is being overcome at the expense of the unemployed. Even if the federal budget is balanced, moreover, the government is sticking with the same policies and showing no hesitation in o misappropriating the surplus in the fund for its own use.

Ten years ago, in 1989 before these reforms were introduced, four out of five unemployed people were entitled to benefits. A drop from 80% to 20% may well be impressive, but mostly it is disgusting, that now two out of five unemployed people draw benefits. At the same time, the government is getting its hands on the sizeable surplus in the employment insurance fund. At the moment, this surplus is estimated at close to $20 billion, and it is expected to exceed $25 billion by the end of 1999. I will come back to the matter of the surplus later on in my speech.

Bill C-299 was therefore introduced in December of 1997, in order to improve two aspects of employment insurance, the setting of contribution rates and the employment insurance account. The first clause therefore addresses the way decisions are made on premium levels. At present, it is the governor in council who does so, on the recommendation of the Minister of Human Resources Development. Judging from past experience, hon. members will agree with me that this is not very reassuring.

Going back over the events of last fall, we had to keep on asking questions of the two ministers until December, before finding out what would be happening to the contribution rate in the coming year.

How is it the government has so much power to determine contribution levels, when, since 1990, it has not contributed a cent to the employment insurance fund?

The money in this fund comes entirely from workers and employers. It is absurd that they have no say in contribution levels and have no choice but to pay, without a word, but smiling all the while.

Therefore the amendment we propose to clause 1 of our bill is intended to give full powers to the Employment Insurance Commission to establish contributions. It must be said that this commission is tripartite and comprises representatives of employers, workers and the government. Initially, the commission would have the power to establish levels of contributions.

To make the process more transparent, since at the moment it is particularly obscure, Bill C-299 provides that every two years the Commission will hold at least one session to hear the observations of parties interested in making their opinions on the establishment of contribution levels known.

Within 60 days of the session, the commission must publish an opinion in at least five major francophone papers and five major anglophone papers.

This bill therefore makes the process much more transparent and much more democratic, because it will enable interested members of the public and organizations to have their observations on contribution rates heard.

This provision gives power back to those who should have it: the contributors, employees and employers. This is all the more important because the government is using the premiums as it pleases.

The premiums paid by workers are currently set at $2.55 per $100, while those paid by the employers are at $3.57. Of that $6.12, the government is spending $1.28 for purposes not related to employment insurance.

This looks a lot more like a tax on employment than an insurance in case of a loss of employment. The government is deliberately altering the basic purpose of the employment insurance fund. This type of behaviour is not acceptable in a country that prides itself on being the best in the world.

The second part of the bill seeks to separate the employment insurance account from the government operations account.

This is why clause 2 of Bill C-299 provides that:

—on September 1, in each and every, there shall be credited to the employment insurance account and charged to the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal to the amount calculated in accordance with the following formula:

A - B

Members will no doubt want to know what A and B stand for.

—where A represents all amounts paid into the consolidated revenue fund or obtained by it pursuant to this act in the preceding financial year; and

B represents the total amounts used by the consolidated revenue fund to meet its obligations under this act that have been credited to the employment insurance account in the preceding financial year.

The result of this amendment would be that, on September 1 of each year, we would know exactly where we stood with the EI fund.

Right now, even though these surpluses are close to $20 billion for 1998, they could be said to be virtual, because they are part of the consolidated revenue fund.

Amending the legislation in this manner would create a separate account for the EI fund. This surplus should obviously be used exclusively for the purpose of administering the EI regime.

What is so shocking right now is that the EI surplus is melting away like snow on a warm day, particularly when we recall the repeated assurances of the Minister of Finance that the EI surpluses were a good thing because they represented a hedge against periods of lower employment.

The discrepancy between what the Minister of Finance says and what he does is very troubling. In 1997, 64% of premiums paid into the EI fund went towards paying benefits to unemployed workers. The remaining 36%, approximately $7 billion, was used by the Minister of Finance to eliminate the deficit, pay down the debt and finance the federal government's forays onto provincial turf. According to the 1999 budget, the Minister of Finance will be helping himself to $5 billion from the fund.

Since 1993, employers and employees, the only contributors to this fund, have paid the government's share, have wiped out the $6 billion deficit in the fund, and have built up the surplus of $20 billion. It is clear that the government does not want to change the rules of the game one iota, because the employment insurance fund is a real milk cow for the Minister of Finance.

He has done away with the deficit with the money of the workers and employers, and has started to pay down the debt. He is also using these funds to interfere in education via the millennium scholarships, which have been criticized by Quebec, and is using it as well to interfere in the health system of Quebec and the other provinces. These costly duplications have been funded with this money.

This, then, is the context that justifies Bill C-299. The employment insurance program is based on a consensus among the population that everyone needs to be assured of a decent income when temporarily out of work. This is the very purpose of having such a program.

As we have seen, however, the Liberal government has completely altered the nature of this plan by tightening up the rules for eligibility so that a large number of people are excluded, particularly women, youth and seasonal workers.

The present government is using the fund as if it were an employment tax, as if it were deficit insurance. The employment insurance fund no longer serves workers; it is there to serve the government, and the Minister of Finance in particular.

The purpose of Bill C-299 is, therefore, to give more power to contributors as far as setting premium levels is concerned, and to differentiate between the employment insurance fund and the Treasury. These amendments would add transparency to the program.

I hope, therefore, that all parties in this House will support the bill.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-299, which was introduced by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois.

Bill C-299 would give the Employment Insurance Commission the sole authority to determine the rate of premiums for employers and workers.

The commission would be required to hold hearings every two years as the basis for establishing the rates and it would credit any surplus of premiums over benefits to the EI account and presumably leave that money there.

This proposal is seriously flawed, however, and would not at all serve the interests of workers or the general Canadian public. Let me explain why.

First of all, a totally independent commission would be accountable only to its constituents, in this case workers and employers. As it now stands, the commission makes recommendations to the government which is accountable to all Canadians.

It is precisely because the government is accountable to all Canadians that we have taken steps to ensure that employment insurance offers unemployed Canadians more than just income support.

Under the current system, EI provides for $2.1 billion a year in active employment measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find work.

Under the Bloc's proposed amendments to the act, there would be no assurance that such an active system would have been established or would be maintained by the proposed commission.

Further, neither Bill C-299 nor the later Bloc proposal states whether the proposed commission would be given responsibility for establishing EI benefit levels or for policy and regulation of benefits.

During a recession, increased numbers of unemployed could place greater demands on the fund, necessitating higher premium rates. This would happen at the very time when sound fiscal policy would keep premiums stable rather than raising them.

Surely only a single body responsible for both premiums and benefits and accountable to all Canadians could effectively deal with such a situation.

The fact is that the Employment Insurance Act is set up the way it is for very good reasons. The act sets out the process for determining premium rates and the existing commission is bound by that process.

The commission includes one representative for workers, one for employers and the deputy minister and associate deputy minister of Human Resources Development Canada. It sets premium rates which the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance recommend to the governor in council.

Since 1986 the EI account has been integrated with the accounts of Canada on the advice of the auditor general because it is, after all, the Government of Canada which establishes EI policy and legislation and it is the Government of Canada which makes up any deficit in the account.

Under the current system, accumulated surpluses are used temporarily by the government which credits interest to the account.

Also under the current system, premium rates are set at a level that responds to the needs of workers and employers, but they are also established with the broader perspective of the account's role as an economic stabilizer. In fact, our government has reduced premium rates in each of the past five years from $3.07 per $100 earned in 1994 to $2.55 in 1999.

Our intention is to continue to reduce rates at a gradual pace as long as economic conditions permit.

In the final analysis, the greatest flaw of Bill C-299 lies in what it does not address. The bill is largely beside the point in that it completely ignores the conditions that led up to redesigning the old unemployment insurance program in the first place.

The current employment insurance program is a response to the very different labour market we have today compared to when unemployment insurance was first introduced. Certainly we still need a sound income support program to assist people who find themselves temporarily out of work. However, nowadays we need much more than that.

Indeed, one of the objectives of the new employment insurance program is to reduce regular dependence on EI by giving people the tools they need to get back to work. In today's labour market very few people start a job straight out of high school and keep at it for a lifetime. They now change jobs quite often. Many work short term or on contract. Many are self-employed. Many young people juggle several part time or short term jobs to gain experience and the skills they need to get a job. Many people need different types of help: people with disabilities, young people trying to get their first job, aboriginal people and others trying to adjust to changing working conditions.

Giving people a little income support while keeping them on the economic sidelines will never make a real improvement in their lives. What we have to do is give them the tools they need to get and keep good jobs. That is the purpose of part II of the employment insurance regime, an array of active measures beyond mere income support. Those measures fit into a much broader plan of action.

As I mentioned earlier, through the EI system Canadians invest $2.1 billion a year in active measures to help unemployed Canadians get the skills and experience needed to find employment, be it through wage subsidies, job partnerships, self-employment assistance or earning supplements. Every year hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians benefit from these measures paid through the EI account to get the experience they need to get good jobs. Furthermore, much of these measures are delivered by the provinces and territories in an effort to ensure that they are tailored to meet the needs of Canadians wherever they live and work.

These are the ways in which we can really help the unemployed, ways that work and can address the problems of the unemployed. But it is unclear if such efforts could be maintained through the EI account if parliament adopted the legislation proposed by the hon. member across the way.

So far the new system seems to be working as it should. It is too soon to tell if further amendments to the EI program are required.

For all of the reasons I have just mentioned, the House should oppose the bill proposed by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to my colleague's bill, a private member's bill, brought forward not from the government or a government department, but from a member of the House. As such, I have great respect for members who take advantage and work within this very important opportunity that we as members of parliament have.

I find myself very impressed by the fact that this bill was drafted and entered into the system in 1997. That was before the true magnitude of the concern regarding how government was misusing the EI surplus became a strong issue. This member was very far-sighted. She looked ahead and saw a real issue before a number of other people did and I congratulate her for that.

What she is attempting to do in this bill is, first, to get government hands off the EI money and, second, to separate this money to make it more accountable and transparent in the way it is handled by crediting moneys collected under the Employment Insurance Act to an employment insurance account.

The first point concerns the employment insurance commission setting premium rates and generally having a more independent role in the management of this fund. The government member who just spoke said that this should not be handled by a commission accountable to workers and employees, but by the government which is accountable to all Canadians. Sitting in opposition, I see a woeful lack of accountability on the part of this government to Canadians, so I would oppose his arguments.

One of the concerns that workers and employees have is that the commission is not really accountable to them. It is a body that is not chosen from workers and employees. It has a very strong government influence. The strong hand of government is very evident in the workings of the commission. Far from this commission being accountable to workers and employees, in my opinion it needs to be strengthened in that direction.

If the member wishes to pursue this issue in another bill, since this one is not votable, I would suggest that strengthening the accountability of the commission to the people whose money is involved and who this program is supposed to serve would be important.

I would remind government members that this is supposed to be unemployment insurance. If it is really insurance, surely the insured, the people who pay the premiums and have to live or die with the benefits, should have a say about how their program program that they pay for and which they rely on in times of unemployment should be structured.

For the cabinet to use this program for its own political purposes is not appropriate. It is definitely not appropriate for the government to use the premiums of this insurance program for its own purposes, its own slush fund or pot of money to do with it as it will. That is the second part of the member's bill. It attempts to separate the moneys paid into the employment insurance account from the general revenue of the government. I think even the member would acknowledge that this provision in her bill is not as strong as she would like to see it. I would certainly like to see a stronger provision.

Although it talks about moneys being credited to the employment insurance account, it does not specify explicitly that this account would be separate from the general revenue fund and that government could not spend money from the fund on other purposes. Clarification and strengthening of that provision in light of the government's insistence and anxiety to use these moneys for other purposes would be necessary.

The government speaker talked about the fact that there had been reductions to EI premiums. I would point out that these are minuscule reductions. We have had debates on this before in the House. I do not need to belabour the point.

The chief actuary of the fund says that premiums could be reduced by fully a third and still leave a very prudent, even a very generous surplus in the fund against a time when for some reason there may be more withdrawals from the fund than there presently are. The fund's own actuary is saying that the reductions the government has made are minuscule, that they do not really get the fund to a reasonable level. Of course the government is using the enormous overpayment from Canadian workers for other purposes, and particularly to make itself look good on the deficit side. It is a kind of borrowing from an insurance fund of Canadians for other purposes. That is not the way this fund should be run.

The member also talked about skills training. Most members in the House if not all would agree that with our changing technology and our changing economic circumstances and the information boom in recent years, training and retraining are very important components of workplace effectiveness. These are things that Canadian workers need. There has not been an adequate debate about the extent to which the insurance fund, the insurance against unemployment, should be a legitimate funder of those programs.

I would be interested if the member proposing this bill is so inclined, to hear how she feels the fund should be used in this regard. How would workers and employers themselves feel about not only paying for some of this training and retraining but then having those programs overseen by government?

I am sure the member has had people come to her office, as have I, workers who have taken training or retraining programs under the EI system which are administered and run by government. They are very disappointed in many cases. Some programs give virtually no skills at all. Even though workers diligently perform everything that has been asked of them, they go back into the workforce and find that they have not received any substantial training or benefit, or the training has been for jobs that do not exist. If there is going to be a retraining effort for workers, it should be directed much more by what they themselves feel they need and what the labour force is looking for.

This is a very worthwhile effort on the part of the member. It is a bill which we all know is needed and which is moving in the right direction. I applaud the member and support her efforts wholeheartedly.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-299 presented by the Bloc Quebecois member for Laval Centre.

Bill C-299 proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act in two ways. First, it proposes that the Employment Insurance Commission set the UI premium rates. Second, Bill C-299 would create a separate UI account to ensure the unemployment insurance fund is used to help unemployed workers.

One might ask why these measures are necessary. We would think that the unemployment insurance premiums we all pay are used exclusively to help unemployed workers while they are looking for a job. Unfortunately this is not exactly the case.

For the last five years the unemployment insurance fund has been collecting huge surpluses. That is not necessarily a bad thing, if the money was being spent to help the unemployed. Unfortunately these surpluses have been used by the Liberal government as a slush fund to eliminate the deficit on the backs of the unemployed.

That is why Bill C-299 is important. By having the Employment Insurance Commission set the UI premium rates, we are guaranteeing that political motivations do not become a factor in setting the premium rates.

The NDP would go even further and create an independent UI commission. We recommend that this commission be comprised of one workers representative, one employers representative and a president who would be chosen following consultations with the representatives of workers and employers. The commission should also be comprised of five part time worker commissioners and five part time employer commissioners. It should be gender balanced and reflect the regional diversity of the country.

Having the commission set premiums and creating an independent UI commission are important steps in guaranteeing the integrity of the UI program.

Bill C-299 also proposes the creation of a separate UI account. This addresses the concerns of many Canadians who refuse to accept that the UI fund has become a slush fund for the Liberal government. Unemployment insurance is a trust fund, not a slush fund.

I would like to take this opportunity to read a few comments of working Canadians who oppose the use of the UI surplus for purposes of other than helping Canada's unemployed. These comments were gathered by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who visited 20 cities from coast to coast to coast listening to what Canadians have to say about the changes in the unemployment insurance system and the theft of the UI fund by this government.

A worker from the Acadian Peninsula had this to say about the government's dependence on the UI fund: “The government is wrong when it says that workers become dependent on unemployment insurance. It is rather the Minister of Finance who is dependent on the unemployment insurance fund, because without it, the deficit would still be there, and his budget would show a deficit, not a surplus”.

The government has justified its changes to unemployment insurance by stating that it wants to prevent dependence. It has failed. This government has become so dependent on the UI surplus that it could not have balanced the budget without it. For all of the Minister of Finance's boasting of having balanced the budget, he forgets to mention that were it not for Canadian workers and employers, we would have no budgetary surplus.

Gary White had a very good question when he attended an event during the NDP's UI tour. Mr. White said “If someone steals from a store and gets caught, they are arrested and have a criminal record. How is it that this government can steal the money from the workers' premiums without being investigated?”

I believe this is an excellent question. How can this government take the money of workers and employers out of the UI fund? Since this government clearly has no qualms about balancing the budget on the backs of the unemployed, we need to create a separate UI fund to stop this nonsense.

Currently only 32% of unemployed workers qualify for UI benefits. Over 800,000 unemployed Canadians who have paid into the UI system are unable to get benefits. Meanwhile there is a $20 billion surplus in the UI account.

This insanity has to stop. This government is hurting unemployed Canadians and the small and medium size businesses that they are no longer able to support.

Women have also been hard hit by the government UI cuts. Fewer women qualify for maternity benefits. Only 11% of women under 25 who lose their jobs qualify for benefits. Eleven percent. Why is that? Where is the equity in that?

This government's changes in UI are hurting women, as well as young people, as well as seasonal workers. The government's changes in UI are hurting entire communities.

My riding of Dartmouth, for example, has lost $20 million a year in UI benefit payments. Nova Scotia has lost $716 million between 1993 and 1997. That is a lot of money taken out of our economy, taken out of small and medium size businesses and taken out of unemployed workers' pockets.

The unemployment insurance program needs to be reformed to respond to the realities of the current labour market. Bill C-299 is a first step in ensuring that the unemployment insurance fund addresses the preoccupation of Canadian workers.

I strongly urge members of this House to support this very important initiative put forward by the member for Laval Centre.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-299.

Payroll taxes are one of the most significant impediments to job growth in Canada. By directly increasing the cost of labour, we ultimately decrease the demand for labour. That is one of the reasons Canada's unemployment rate continues to be stubbornly high.

This government has stubbornly clung to unrealistically high EI premiums in order to pay down the deficit. While we laud the efforts to pay down the deficit, effectively the government through its policies, by paying down the deficit, by raising and maintaining unnecessarily high taxes and at the same time cutting spending on programs like the EI, has put the government in the black and perversely Canadians in the red.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

An hon. member

You cannot pay down the deficit.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

An hon. member from the Reform Party is saying that the government has not paid down the deficit. Perhaps as a member of the House of Commons finance committee he should consider that there is a difference between deficit and debt. I think the member means the government has not paid down the debt. The member does not understand the difference between deficit and debt, but that is all right. I guess one does not have to understand economics to be in the House of Commons or on the finance committee.

The employment insurance issue is fundamental for a number of reasons. First, labour market flexibility is extraordinarily important in the new economy. I commend the hon. member for this piece of legislation. It has the potential by creating a new independent commission to set rates separate from politics and separate from the finance minister and the government in power. Labour and management in small business can set rates which best reflect the realities of the market in a particular area of the country at a particular time. That is very important.

Labour market flexibility depends largely on employment insurance programs and training. One of the failures of the government in terms of the slashing of EI benefits has been its complete abdication of responsibility for training. There has been an offloading to the provinces in the area of training.

It is fundamentally wrong that in order to qualify for training someone actually has to be on employment insurance and in order to get employment insurance has to be laid off. Many small and medium size companies across the country would like to have their employees participate in training but currently they do not benefit from it. The training components are failing on a national level and the cuts to EI have been a significant part of that.

The commission should have the ability to determine both the premiums rates and the nature of programs. I feel an autonomous commission could better determine how premiums could be spent through the programs.

One of the shifts I would like to see in EI is from almost pure income support to a focus on training. We could develop a mandate that recognizes the importance not just of income support but also of training such that people are able to access the levers of the new economy and of an economy that will be changing at an ever-increasing pace in the future.

The issue of seasonal work is another issue the government has largely ignored. It has punished Canadians who are involved in seasonal work. Many sectors in Atlantic Canada, including agriculture, the fisheries and small business, have over a period of years developed along the lines of seasonal employment. The government cut EI premiums, particularly challenging those involved in seasonal employment, without providing any structural alternative to those programs for those people.

Seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada were hit extraordinarily hard. I heard the hon. member for Dartmouth say earlier that there was a $716 million loss to Nova Scotians. I would posit that loss was largely felt by those involved in seasonal employment: people working for farms in the Annapolis Valley, people working in the fisheries, people working for small business. Small businesses, farms, fish processors and other employees bore the brunt of those cuts.

Did the government create a new agency or co-ordinating body to help co-ordinate seasonal work such that seasonal workers like people involved in agriculture in the summer could potentially participate in forestry work in the winter? No, it did not do anything. It effectively cut the money but did not replace it with vision or with a commitment to new and visionary programs and better government. Instead it reduced the size of government.

It is not all about the size of government. Sometimes we have to talk about the role of government and the effectiveness of government. One of the areas in which the government could have played a more active role and could still play a more active role in is the creation of a pilot program in Atlantic Canada aimed at creating an agency that effectively co-ordinates seasonal workers so that those employed in such sectors as agriculture in the summer could have an opportunity to participate in other types of seasonal work like the forestry in the winter.

It would be able to effectively take those people who have been treated shoddily by the draconian cuts to the program and provide them with a sense of hope and a sense of opportunity by helping them focus their efforts on participating in the economy.

There are people with mortgages in my constituency who are trying to raise families, in many cases two or three children. They have effectively seen their incomes halved by the changes the government made to EI. They are struggling with $6,000 or $7,000 per year or less. That is a reality. That exists in many areas of Canada, not just in inner cities but in poor rural communities. It is a significant challenge.

We as a party have a fundamental belief in the free market economy, but a free market economy is not sustainable unless all members of society have access to the levers of that economy and equality of opportunity. If the EI program were properly structured, it could help provide access to those levers.

The creation of a separate commission would be a great step forward. Ultimately the decision making powers would be with those people affected most by the EI fund. We would assert that the employers and the employees are the correct proprietors of that fund. It would deny governments of any political stripe the opportunity to use the fund for politically motivated purposes.

At a time when there will be change in the workplace and change in the economy it would provide, for instance, opportunities for the EI fund to be focused on new and exciting areas, including providing Canadians with an opportunity to train and retrain throughout their lives. Those are the types of changes that are necessary.

I am not confident the government will make those types of changes. As long as it keeps EI premiums unnecessarily and offensively high and reduces benefits significantly without replacing them with any type of vision for the future, I do not think the government will ever engage in creative policy development focused on achieving the full potential of the EI program.

I would hope all members of the House consider the legislation very carefully and its potential in the long term. The government has taken $19 billion from the EI fund over the past several years to pad its own books. The past is the past. It is hard to change that now, but we do have an opportunity where we are emerging into a post-deficit situation where we can focus on doing the right thing.

Bill C-299 would be one of the first steps toward making the right decisions in the future to ensure that all Canadians and employers and employees benefit from the good public policy that we developed.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The member from the PC Party chided me for not knowing the difference between debt and deficit. It is my contention that he is the one who does not understand. He and members on the Liberal side frequently talk about paying off the deficit.

By definition it cannot be done. The deficit is an amount that one borrows. The best one can do is to reduce the amount of borrowing or to stop borrowing. One cannot pay off a deficit since it is intangible. It is simply the amount borrowed.

I objected to the use of the terminology because many people do not understand it. It confuses them into thinking that we are paying off or have paid off the debt which still stands at close to $600 billion. I just wanted to correct that point.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, these five minutes are very important to me.

First, I want to express my gratitude that all the parties in this House considered it worthwhile to intervene on Bill C-299. The people who had the time to watch us on television saw very clearly where the heart of this House lies.

When I face you, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it lies to the right in this House.

I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill who recognized my perception. I would like to say to her, and to all the members sharing this emotion—and most of them are on this side, although I am sure there are some on the other side too—that it was not hard to be perceptive. Everyone knows that the past often foretells the future.

I heard my colleague from Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia praise the absolutely extraordinary reductions in contributions. I would remind him that these reductions boasted about by the Minister of Finance and so extraordinarily praised by him, came nowhere near to satisfying employers and workers. They did not satisfy the auditor general any more. They were not enough.

That money could have been given back to workers and employers to be reinvested in businesses because, as we know, they need these funds in the context of globalization. However, that was not done.

Everyone agrees that the poor were totally ignored in the last federal budget. The government ignored the unemployed and the needy. Yesterday, I was sitting on our committee and the Minister of Human Resources Development came to testify. He had no choice but to recognize there was nothing in that budget for handicapped children. Where is the compassion? Where is the heart? I wonder.

Right now, unemployment is going down somewhat in Canada. This is great, but that trend does not at all reflect the surge in the economy. This has been the case for several years. The economy is doing well, but the unemployment rate has not come down as much as it should have.

Unemployment is on the decrease and the poor are still with us, and in some cases their poverty is the direct result of EI cuts. While 80% of unemployed workers used to qualify for benefits, now only 40% do. One might well wonder what became of the other 40%.

Were they coddled for all these years? Did they receive government handouts? I do not think so.

My riding could be described as relatively well off, but even it has its young people who have no jobs, or who manage to find only insignificant jobs that will never give them the required number of hours. It is high time this government gave a signal to the Canadian public.

I will give it an opportunity. Despite my years, I am still a bit naïve. I will give it an opportunity. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House to make Bill C-299 votable. We must show compassion as well as reason.

I therefore call for unanimous consent.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Laval Centre has requested unanimous consent of the House to have her bill made votable. Is there unanimous consent?

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

2:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)