Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2001

Speech From The Throne

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is truly an expert when it comes to things cultural and things related to the arts.

I was astounded during the election when those reform alliance people wanted to privatize the CBC and strip it of the great unifying effect it has on the country. I was shocked when those members opposite wanted to get rid of small theatre grants, destroy French immersion schools, and strip every cultural venue in our great country that makes us strong. It is a disgrace even to hear them today echo the fact that they were prepared to do that.

Would the hon. member be so kind as to outline the kind of activities that she has been involved in on a personal basis? I know she is a cultural icon in Toronto. What she needs to do for the House is tell us a little about what she does on a very grassroots, personal level to make this an even better country, unlike what the Alliance people—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I cannot imagine where I am going to find the time for the hon. member to do all that, but in 30 seconds or less will she please give the House the short version?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what the arts does for my community in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Every year the Canadian Stage Company, of which I am a former chairman and director, produces Dreams in High Park, which is a venue that provides experience through training for actors and directors. They actually have an opportunity to perform Shakespeare and practise classic theatre. What else does it do? It also makes the park safe. It makes people come out into the community. It makes our community safe and prosperous, so we see another role for it, as Mr. Handling said at the film festival. It works to build our community.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to rise in the House today to provide my reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Before I do so, I want to take a moment to offer my thanks to the residents of Simcoe—Grey for once again establishing their confidence in my party, my Prime Minister and myself in the election this past fall. They have bestowed on me incredible honour and responsibility and I once again take this opportunity to tell them that I do not take that honour and that responsibility lightly.

To my family, friends and supporters, I could not possibly say thank you enough for their help and the confidence that they have shown in me. I take this job very seriously. I tell them from the bottom of my heart that I do appreciate their confidence and I will not let them down. I know that my Liberal colleagues will not let them down either as we focus on the future of this great country to ensure that our generation and future generations enjoy a higher quality of life than those which have proceeded us.

I want to send a special thank you to my wife Sandi and my three children, Amy, Alex and Matthew. Without them, it certainly would have been incredibly difficult. Sandi certainly has done an incredible job in allowing me to come here and represent the constituents of Simcoe—Grey.

I would also be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not offer my thanks and congratulations to you. The citizens in your riding are certainly well served by one of the most effective and honourable men in the House of Commons. I want to offer my sincere appreciation for the help and guidance you have provided to me over the last three and a half years. In my first term of parliament your experience was called on by me on numerous occasions, and you never ceased to direct me in the appropriate way to best serve my constituents. I appreciate that from the bottom of my heart.

To Her Excellency, our Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, I offer my thanks. Her Excellency has provided a vision for Canada that all Canadians can buy into. She has set bold goals and bold visions. She has made a very bold statement as well, that is, that all Canadians will, as they have in the past, come together to make sure that Canada will continue to be the best place in the entire world in which to live. I offer my thanks to her for making such an incredible statement in such a few short minutes.

That is exactly what Canadians will do. We will work together, because that is the type of people we are. We are a caring and compassionate community. We certainly appreciate tolerance and diversity, but we build on our weaknesses to create strengths. We have done it in the past and we will continue to do it under this Liberal government.

As Liberals, as Canadians, we will seize the opportunities. With those opportunities in this ever changing global economy will come challenges. We recognize those challenges on this side of the House. We work very hard with our cabinet colleagues and with the members in the caucus to make sure that Canada overcomes all of those challenges, whether we are dealing with agricultural, cultural or industrial issues, all of the aspects that the House and our committees deal with.

The government has done a very good job of trying to make Canada the best place in the world in which to live. It could not have happened without the 30 million plus Canadians who joined us in that fight. They have joined us in the fight to make sure that the next generation has more advantages and is better positioned to carry forward in this new age economy. This government has been successful. The last election speaks very clearly to that.

Canadians were loud and clear. They told us that they wanted a balanced approach. They told us they wanted government to work with the people, the provinces and the municipalities and to make sure that it is not simply the strong that move forward, to make sure that as the country moves forward as a whole we take the weakest with us as well. The throne speech has done exactly that. It has laid out a course. It has laid out a vision that the country as a whole can buy into to ensure that as we in the country move forward the weakest are not left behind. It is not the Canadian way to leave the weakest behind.

Contrary to what some of my friends in the Alliance might think, it is incredibly important for the federal government to play a key role in the everyday lives of Canadians. There is a need for a strong federal presence in the country, from coast to coast to coast. Through the delivery mechanisms and bureaucracies we have, we are doing that, and we will do a better job.

I can cite numerous examples within my own riding. There is Human Resources Development Canada, without doubt one of the hardest working bureaucracies we have in government today. I take this opportunity to thank the dedicated men and women who have been delivering the programs that have made a difference in the lives of people in my riding. My hat is off to those people, because despite the scurrilous accusations that have been made in the House and outside the House toward some of those individuals, the federal government has made an incredible difference through these bureaucracies, with the support of Canadians throughout our great country.

One of the things that touched my heart in the throne speech, perhaps because I have three children of my own, is the focus on a national children's agenda. I was moved when the Governor General talked about the new challenge for Canadians. “Seize this challenge” was the statement. We were told to come together and make sure that there are new opportunities for our young people, not simply for those in the upper or middle economic classes but for all young people. When I hear those kinds of things, I get terribly excited. I think we can make another big difference in this coming 37th parliament.

A lot has been done. I am looking across the floor and people are nodding. These people recognize that the government has done an incredible job with the young people of the country. I certainly appreciate the fact that they are acknowledging that.

Whether we talk about Canada's national child benefit program, the $2.2 billion investment signed in September 2000, or the extending of parental leave for new parents, the Liberal government has made a big difference.

However, what is very clear in the throne speech is that there is still a lot of work to be done and a long way to go to make sure that things gets better. That is the government's responsibility: to make sure that as we move forward as a society the weakest are not left behind. I have heard the Prime Minister say that we will not leave the weakest behind. I have heard cabinet ministers say it. I have heard my colleagues say it when I have visited their ridings and they have visited mine. We will make sure that this is a country founded on one country moving forward, not on parts of a country moving forward.

The throne speech also touched on a variety of other topics, many of which will play a very critical role in the development of my riding.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, having visited it in the past, my riding has an economy made up of three separate and distinct things: agriculture, tourism and industry. I was extremely pleased to see that all three areas were touched on in the throne speech because that provides an opportunity for municipal councils, non-profit organizations, agricultural groups and private sector companies to know in just what direction the government is heading.

The government has clearly outlined a path for positive growth. It does not hoard negativity. it does not use fear mongering. Rather it lays out a vision for Canada of which I know everyone in the House is extremely proud.

Some questions have been raised in the House over the last couple of days about how the throne speech will position the Canadian economy in relation to the downturn in the U.S. economy.

I would be remiss if I did not thank our finance minister for the wonderful job he has done in ensuring that our youngest Canadians have an incredible foundation, a secure foundation, which is a complete change from seven or eight years ago. Based on that foundation, Canada will move forward. It will be a global leader, not only economically but, unlike my friends in the reform alliance party, it will be a leader socially as well.

I tip my hat to the Governor General, the Prime Minister, my colleagues, the newly elected members and to you, Mr. Speaker. I will enjoy working closely with them to make sure the 37th parliament is the best parliament in Canadian history and that we achieve the results to which the Liberal government is committed: a stronger and more united Canada.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side seemed to dwell on the economy and stated that things were going very well in his riding. I am very happy to hear that things are fine in his riding and that Canadians are in good hands. His riding is fortunate to be represented by him.

He gave a very nice speech using flowery words. We would all like to see those things happen, but there are clouds hanging over the economic scene and throwing cold water on the projections they have made.

We have seen the tug-of-war between ministers taking place on that side of the House. It is a cause of concern for us, especially on the question of international trade. I heard the Minister for International Trade talk about Canada following WTO rules and Canada needing a rules based system because that is where our prosperity lies.

Then another minister throws cold water on Canada's stand of following a rules based system, which will have a long term impact. We can see the war beginning in Brazil.

He mentioned that in his riding the economy is doing well but there are clouds on the horizon. I would like him to comment on the tug-of-war that is taking place on his side of the House.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that there are clouds on my horizon. As I look across and see the Canadian Alliance it is always cloudy. It is always gloom and doom. That is not the reality in the country. It is not about negativity; it is about being realistic.

Canada is very well positioned to weather any economic storm. When one looks at the economy and what has been achieved in the last seven years, it is an absolute economic miracle. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Financial Times .

I see my colleagues in the reform alliance getting upset because they do not have a plan to deal with these kinds of issues. They do not want to talk about positive growth, what has been done to reduce debt or the most massive tax reduction strategy in Canadian history. They do not want to talk about an incredible shoring up of our social programs. They want to talk about gloom and doom in the U.S. There are times when I am not totally positive whether I am debating with members of parliament or congressmen.

I will tell Canadians that Canada is very well positioned to lead the way in this new age technology globally. We will do it. We will continue based on the track record and on the historical evidence the government put forward today. I am proud to say that I will be part of that parliament.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey mentioned that it was important for young people to have faith in their country and to have something to look forward to. I wonder if he sees that going beyond just the opportunity for cultural endeavours, which I agree is equally important, but also to educational opportunities.

I also think it is important to have faith in a democratic system that allows the people of Canada to express their disagreements with the Government of Canada and to have the right to express by open demonstrations their beliefs that not everything the government is doing is okay.

This leads me to the issue of free trade not being mentioned a great deal within the budget. We have seen a situation where we agree that trade is important, but free trade seems to be open season on labour rights, environmental rights or human rights within the different countries.

I am specifically referring to Canada talking about trade agreements but not making any stipulation that the countries with which it will trade will ensure that human rights violations are not taking place and that environmental standards are met.

Just to give an insight into this matter, I have a list in front of me of 77 Columbian trade unionists who have been assassinated over the last year by paramilitaries. I wonder if Canada is making sure that those countries it trades with are treating their people fairly as well?

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious by the member's statements that she is truly concerned about not only the plight of young people here in Canada but those abroad as well. There were many topics touched on in her comments. I might have to relegate myself to one.

She spoke about the opportunity for youth. I would like to provide an example of where we can really make a difference with youth but not simply on the cultural side of things.

There is a program under Youth Service Canada and delivered through Human Resources Development Canada. It has made an incredible difference in the lives of young people in my riding. It has provided them with the necessary lifestyle skills and the necessary job skills to secure full time permanent employment in our society. Those young people have become productive and happy members of society. In that regard, I think the government has done an incredible job in making sure we deal with the problems our young people face.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.

At the start of my third mandate, I am very pleased to rise for the first time in this House. As a member elected with the support of 60% of the people, as a sovereignist and an MP, I want to say that there are pressing social concerns. I am not saying that those who voted for me were all sovereignists, but I know they supported someone they knew to be one.

So, members will not be surprised that my attention is drawn particularly in the throne speech to the section on celebrating Canadian citizenship. One sentence struck me considerably, and I quote it:

Canada was born of a noble vision and an act of will.

Noble, people might think so, but I would say a pragmatic vision in which four provinces decided to form an organization that suited them. However, in their act of will, they made a serious mistake, namely, and among others, giving the federal government spending power.

This creature born of the provinces has worked systematically to become the government of all the people living in Canada. Today, in the throne speech, we have a specific example in which the government regularly and systematically denies the responsibilities of the provinces and the very foundations of our society.

At the outset, there were two founding peoples. Even here, in parliament, we have doors symbolizing this. Today, the federal government is categorically denying this fact by its action and its vision.

In addition, it swept away not only the protection of Quebec society but all of the French fact within the country. As regards the proportion of francophones, we need only compare the situation as it was in 1867 with the situation today to see that there is an operation underway to assimilate francophone communities. Today, the government refers to them as “sustainable francophone communities”, which means there are some that are not.

We should refrain from boasting too much. Many signs point to the fact that we are not in an ideal society. I think this will only be possible when it is recognized that there are two nations in Canada, that Quebecers have a right to their sovereignty, and that the Canadian federalism is not the best way to foster better relations between these two nations. That is my response to the very basis of what the federal government wants to do.

At the same time, there is a profound lack of vision in this throne speech. There is no mention of the challenges of the future or the kind of Canada we want in the next 20 years.

Why have we not been given more details, in a transparent way, on what to expect in the next 20 years? We will have a free trade area that will include the three Americas. We will probably have a common currency. And we will have, willy-nilly, an even stronger emergence of nationalism.

We do not need vast political spaces in order to develop markets. Canada became a large political entity when, because of protectionism, large countries were necessary in order to develop sizeable markets.

Today, with free trade, this is no longer the case. Small political entities can set up democratic organisations capable of acting rapidly and efficiently. We see that particularly in Europe.

This Speech from the Throne lacks vision. It contains some sort of grocery list of things that the government would like to do in the short term. I think that, ultimately, when history judges this Prime Minister's governments, this will probably be the main criticism.

Children are often mentioned in the throne speech. We are told they will be given priority. We first have to see who is responsible for what. In my opinion, the federal government's responsibility in this matter should be to give money to the provinces to help them manage their education systems properly, and not to create new programs on top of the ones already in place for early childhood development and for children at risk.

Each time the government interferes in education like that, it creates duplication. Of course, this can be very interesting from a visibility point of view. This is probably the main reason why the Speech from the Throne is putting all that forward. However it would have been much more efficient if the government had actually said it was going to use the surplus money it has collected.

The federal government collects much more money in income tax than it needs to fulfil its responsibilities. It would have been much better to use these surpluses to lower income tax or to give the money back through its redistribution of wealth function, so that the provinces could have the money they need.

In Quebec and Canada there are indeed areas where the programs that should be set up are not those announced by the federal government, but those the local governments want.

If federal money went directly to Quebec, the province could in turn give more autonomy to local school boards. That means they could have money to keep the small village school open. For our rural communities this is often a priority, much more so than programs put forth by the federal government.

In this respect, I believe the federal government does not assume its responsibilities. It tries to increase its visibility by intervening in areas outside its jurisdiction.

There is another thing with regards to children. Fundamentally, I find this a major problem. The government keeps talking about programs to help children. On the other hand, for the past five years, we have had an employment insurance scheme that has been creating poverty.

Children are not poor per se. They are poor because their parents are poor. Eligibility rules have been tightened; benefits have been cut; young workers need 910 hours of work to qualify. The same applies to women re-entering the labour market. All these measures have resulted in an increase in child poverty.

Today the government says it is going to issue cheques for children, but their parents will remain trapped. I find this behaviour unacceptable. It cannot continue.

The Speech from the Throne provides for many intrusions in education. It would appear that the federal government is sorry that it does not have a department of education. Now, with globalization, it feels it is important to properly train people. The problem is this is not its responsibility. It belongs to the provinces. The government should accept this fact by withdrawing from taxation sectors and to allow the provinces to deal with this issue more effectively.

I was satisfied with a part of the minister's answer, yesterday, when he said that, on the lumber issue, the priority will be to return to free trade when the agreement expires. I find that in this industry the federal government has been slow to act. It might well, for a lack of time, have to renew part of the current agreements or reach compromises with the Americans, to the detriment of some Canadian regions covered by the current agreement.

Let us not forget that four Canadian provinces are covered by this agreement, but not the others. In the export trade this is very prejudicial, for example to my riding, the Témiscouata area where many sawmills export lumber. Both owners and employees want us to revert to free trade in the lumber industry.

Today, and I will conclude on this, there is concrete evidence that the Speech of the Throne is sometimes devoid of substance. On page 11, it says:

There was a time when losing a job also meant immediate loss of income for workers and their families. And so Canadians created Employment Insurance.

That program generated a surplus of $30 billion. Today, the government is introducing a bill which should be a logical follow-up to this policy statement. However all it does is confirm that the government wants to grab that $30 billion surplus. The government does not want to put the money back into the program even though some young people and some women are not eligible and even though seasonal workers do not have an income throughout their period of unemployment, in spite of the economic prosperity we are experiencing. This is totally unacceptable.

For all these reasons, I think people will understand that we cannot vote in favour of such a Speech from the Throne. This applies to people of Quebec of course, because the speech is a denial of Quebec as such, but it also applies to all those who care for social justice because, in this Speech from the Throne, there is no basis to ensure the proper distribution of wealth that we ought to expect.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just pointed out how people confuse things in the House. I have been here since the beginning of the week and I have been listening carefully to find out what is going on. We have heard some incredible things.

I spent nine years in the Quebec National Assembly. We had some idea of how we were treated. However I am shocked to hear some of the things that are being said here.

The federal government is constantly and increasingly trying to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions—I am here to protect Quebec's interests—but that is also true for all the provinces. The government is trying to create confusion. When we criticize the government for not taking its responsibilities, for example as regards the environment, we are told that this is a provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, when the government should leave the money to the provinces to fulfil their responsibilities, it gets involved. This is truly scandalous.

I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. Two things are confused. The government talks about tax cuts and employment insurance reform. Tax cuts will help the rich get richer, while employment insurance reform will make the poor poorer. These two issues are discussed together.

Let me quickly give an example. Under the most recent tax cut, a person earning $100,000 will save about $2,000 in taxes. If that same person, or his brother, earned $35,000 under the same conditions, he would save seven times less or about $350.

I ask the hon. member: Could he tell me if he has figured this out? I would like him to explain this to me. Why is the government creating confusion? Is it to fool people or is it because it does not really know the different impact of these two issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Champlain mentioned a major concern about the current system and the way the federal government wants to achieve equity.

I would like to add that if a worker earning $100,000 is eligible to EI he pays premiums on the first $39,000. He does not pay any premium on his income over $39,000, while workers earning $39,000 pay premiums on 100% of their income. This is the money that was used to eliminate the deficit.

When there is a tax cut, we tell high income workers:“We have eliminated the deficit on the back of workers who earn less than you and now we can give you a rebate”. This is unacceptable in my opinion.

It does not mean that we do not need to cut taxes or to put money back into the taxpayers' pockets. What we see however is a very unfair approach for those who need a better EI system to achieve equity.

Seasonal workers earning $15,000, $18,000 or $20,000 a year, and their families, do not necessarily need a tax reduction more than they need EI benefits that will give them the money they need while they are unemployed. That would be the right way to achieve equity in our society.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today. Before I begin, I would like to thank the people of Jonquière for renewing their confidence in me this past November 27. I can assure them that I am going to focus all my energies, as I have in the past, on meeting their needs. My thanks to the people of Jonquière, Lac Kénogami, Shipshaw, Larouche and Laterrière.

I am pleased to speak today in response to the Speech from the Throne. I witnessed the throne speech masquerade this past Tuesday, and today I have just witnessed another with the introduction of the bill on employment insurance reform.

Canadians and Quebecers will no longer be fooled. This is the last time the government will manage to pull the wool over their eyes.

We had an election this past November. The Prime Minister took everyone by surprise, calling an election after only three and one-half years in office. No one expected the government, with its boasts about its surplus, its so-called good management and its claims to have settled all the problems of Canadian society, to call an election. Unfortunately it did.

What was there on the legislative agenda on wich to build a campaign? The government said it was going to share the wealth between the poorest and the wealthiest. I attempted to discuss this matter of the distribution of wealth with the Liberal candidates in my region, but none had any idea what this was all about. They all realized that the government was lying by telling the public that the wealth was going to be distributed between the richest and the poorest.

I think that the Prime Minister called an election because he knew that the leader of the Canadian Alliance was not ready to go out on the hustings. We can no longer be taken in by this sort of arrogance from a party that walks all over the working class and the disadvantaged.

In my riding of Jonquière, many workers are soon going to lose their jobs with large companies, such as Abitibi Consolidated Inc.—not to name names—which have decided to modernize their operations, which will lay off 250 workers aged 55 or older. They are called older workers.

In the three and a half years I have been in Ottawa, I have put questions to the Minister of Human Resources Development. There used to be a program for older worker adjustment known as POWA to help older workers. This program made it possible for them to look forward to a decent retirement, to head into retirement with benefits under the EI plan. They had, after all, paid premiums throughout their working lives, without ever reaping the benefit. For three and a half years, the minister has been telling us that these people should take job retraining, be mobile and change their line of work.

Most of these people do not have much education. In my region at that time, it was easy to get a job. Right after second or third year high school, young people went to work in the factory and were sure of staying there until they retired. The situation has changed today.

Now they ask them to do it, but they have no money for these people. However there is money in the employment insurance fund. This year alone there is a surplus of $6 billion in this fund.

What is the government doing with the employment insurance fund? In the latest bill it has tabled, it is returning 8% of the $6 billion to the contributors. Only four out of ten will get benefits. What is it doing with the remaining 92% of the fund?

As far as I know, we do not contribute because our salaries are above $39,000. The Government of Canada does not contribute a cent to the EI fund. Only workers and employers contribute. Why does the government give itself the right to dictate the rules and why has it the power to decide who will and who will not draw benefits?

In the coming years, I think there will be real problems, as the result of what is happening in Ottawa. These problems will arise because there is no respect for the legitimacy of the ordinary people, people who manage to provide decent social conditions for themselves with the little they earn, but when they pay insurance, they cannot draw on it.

The bill the Minister of Human Resources Development has just tabled is no different from the one tabled before the election. I think we will do a real job on them, in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We will make them abide by their promise.

I saw the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the Minister of Public Works come to my area with the Minister of Regional Development and say to the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean “We will listen to you and we will amend the act. Rest assured of that and vote for us. If you vote massively, we will satisfy you all”.

I can see today that this was only cheap talk to get votes. No, ordinary people will not be deceived again.

I also want to talk about the Speech from the Throne, which completely ignores the status of women. Last spring we had the women's march. Women marched on Ottawa. I marched with them. They came to make demands. There is no mention of those demands in the Speech from the Throne.

Where is the chairwoman of the Fédération des femmes du Québec, Françoise David? Why has she not come to Ottawa to berate the government, which does not care about women? Most of these women are single parents. I will not tolerate this any more as a woman and as a citizen of Quebec and Canada.

This government's arrogance must come to an end. I cannot see how I can do anything but vote against this Speech from the Throne.

This morning I listened to the fine speech by the Minister of the Environment. As members know, I was the Bloc Quebecois environment critic during the last parliament. I would always tell the minister in committee and elsewhere “By gosh, you make good speeches; but you never deliver”. People always say “Ah, he is very good at delivering good speeches”. Today I listened very carefully to the minister. Things have not changed at all. The government is still infringing on provincial jurisdictions.

In Quebec municipalities are the creatures of the provincial government. Municipalities come under the municipalities act. Now the federal government is creating programs that are directly geared to these municipalities.

What will the government do with endangered species? We opposed the bill during the last session. It could not be passed by the House because, again, the government wanted to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

Habitat is a provincial jurisdiction. We all know that birds and endangered species go together. The federal government has its own jurisdictions, its parks, but it does not act. It wants to tell others what to do.

It is sometimes difficult to look at one's self. It is easier to tell people “Do as we say, but not as we do”. The government is very good at governing in an arrogant manner by telling others to do as it says, but to ignore what it does.

In the next three, four or five years, I will keep a very close eye on this government. I am currently concerned with regional development, which is another interesting issue. The government will have to stop creating in the regions needs that do not meet the expectations just because it wants visibility. Enough is enough. We are entitled to a tax refund. We pay federal taxes and the time will come when this government will have to meet our needs with our taxes. This is just the beginning. I will vote against the throne speech.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Jonquière for raising the important issue about the state of the employment insurance system and how it is failing Canadian workers in every respect.

The hon. member pointed out something that is very important and I am glad she did. She pointed out that the federal government does not pay into the employment insurance fund anymore. It stopped doing that in the late 1980s. Only employers and employees contribute to the fund. Where then does the government get the right to use the surplus for anything other than income maintenance for employees, which is what it was designed to do?

Would the hon. member not agree that if we deduct something from people's paycheques, tell them that it is for a specific purpose and then use it for something completely different, that it is, in the very best light, a breach of trust? In the worst light, it is out and out fraud. An absolute fraud is being committed on working people because they are paying faithfully into an employment insurance program but are being denied benefits. No wonder there is a surplus, no one qualifies anymore. Less than 40% of unemployed people, less than 25% of women and less than 15% of youth qualify even though they have to pay into the program because it is mandatory.

In my own riding, the third poorest riding in the country, the changes to EI cost $20.8 million a year in benefits that would have come into the riding. Can members imagine what they would do if a company wanted to move into their riding with a $20.8 million payroll? They would pave the streets with gold to do that.

I would ask the hon. member to tell us the situation in her riding and the impact the cuts to employment insurance have had on the unemployed people in Jonquière.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member of the New Democratic Party. All ridings are having to cope with an extremely serious problem relating to employment insurance.

We have a saying in our area “Piquer, c'est voler”. That means if a person goes into another's pocket and takes his money it that is considered stealing until proven otherwise.

What this government is doing at the present time in the matter of employment insurance is dipping directly into the workers' pockets. This is a serious matter, and I will respond to the member's question.

We are a heavily unionized region. I believe that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is the most unionized area of Canada and of Quebec.

Before the last federal election, there was a movement in our area that rallied together hundreds and hundreds of workers who took to the streets to protest the employment insurance bill. They even told the minister of revenue, who is also the minister responsible for regional development, “Hit the road back across the Parc des Laurentides; you are not wanted here”. He had to pack up his bags and head back home.

We had great plans for the construction of the Alcan plant at Alma, where hundreds of thousands of workers were employed. Now these people have no work and they will end up on employment insurance. There are no measures whatsoever to help them, no structured programs that will let these workers gain some benefit from what is rightfully theirs or to allow them to be directed into employment.

All of this needs looking into. If I had any more time, there is much more I could say.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)