Debates of Feb. 5th, 2001

Employment Insurance Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that I had a lot of respect for the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I use the past tense because I lost some of it when he crossed the floor to sit with the Liberal government at which he had previously aimed what I consider just criticisms.

I remember some of his comments, even the last one about the Liberal government's lack of compassion for our young people at the time. He says that this is a positive initiative. I want to put to him a question dealing only with employment insurance, which was one of the major concerns I expressed in my speech. Would he support, like I would, an amendment to put an end to the two tier employment insurance system, one for the older workers and one for the younger ones?

In my speech, I said that unfortunately our young people were the first ones to be hurt by this system. I believe that returning to a fairer system for everyone would encourage more young workers to stay in their ridings or their regions and to even create their own jobs in some cases. I do not want to go on and on about this, I will limit myself only to that one suggestion.

The hon. member would hence be able to follow the agenda and stay true to the criticisms he made while sitting on this side of the House.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, just for the information of the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I will remind him that this is a debate on employment insurance and not on economic development.

With regard to changes to the employment insurance system, I would like my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois to tell us if he has had this experience. During the election campaign, it seems that if one wanted changes to the EI system, one had to vote for the Liberals because they were the only ones who could deliver on that. I remember that the Liberals in all the ridings in our area were telling people that if they voted for them, they would make changes to the employment insurance system.

Did the Liberals use the employment insurance system only to win votes or were they really serious about correcting the problem that was created through changes that hurt employers and employees who contribute to the employment insurance plan?

I would like to know if the member has experienced the same thing I have in Acadie—Bathurst.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have the same opinion of what they were saying. During the election campaign, I watched the news like everyone else. When the Prime Minister was campaigning, in your neck of the woods, I believe, he said this about Bill C-44 “We realized that it had not been a good decision; we ought not to have done so”. He was referring to the cuts to employment insurance eligibility.

The hon. member for Bourassa made a personal commitment to making corrections to the employment insurance legislation. Many people understood this to mean corrections that would improve the bill that had been introduced just before the election.

The result as far as concrete measures are concerned, with the exception of a few lines or phrases, is that nothing substantial has been changed. It is as if there had never been an election. It is as if those words had never been spoken.

That is why in the speech I have just given I said that, on occasion, I am beginning to understand why people are fed up with politics. When a person listens to what is said during election campaigns, particularly by the people across the floor, words that are not respected afterward, not taken any notice of, it is as if nothing has happened at all.

I would say, however, that the voters did a good thing by re-electing a number of opposition MPs, particularly the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, and all the others I have just named, to act as watchdogs over this government. I would have a word of caution for the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for whom I still have considerable respect. When a person crosses the floor of this House, before he does so, he needs to be vigilant about maintaining his opinions, his values, the things he wants changed.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière think that the members for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok and for Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet will vote in favour of the bill in its present form, a bill in which there is nothing that was not already in Bill C-44? Do these members go along with the Prime Minister's trickery, who said “Some major changes are in order and we will make them” whereas, now that the election is behind us, the Prime Minister is forgetting the reality?

Does my colleague agree that during the election campaign the members representing the Gaspé and the Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet ridings came and told us that major, indepth changes were necessary? Today no such changes have been made. How will these members vote at second reading? Since no changes have been made to the bill, this means they now agree with the content of that bill, while they were opposed to it during the election campaign.

What does the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière think these members will do?

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think they will follow the pack, toe the party line and remain silent.

I remember that the Liberal candidate in my riding refused to have any debate. It was the same with the other Liberal candidates in the Quebec City region.

Allow me to make a brief comment. In the ridings of the Quebec City region, with the exception of Bellechasse, the candidates tried to convince voters to vote against the Bloc Quebecois to bring the issue of mergers to the Quebec political arena. This is our second week in the House and these members are no longer talking about mergers. They do not ask questions on this issue and they do not make comments.

We are getting used to this pattern. Once the election is over, the Liberals either remain silent or else they toe the party line.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to draw to your attention that about a year ago I toured the Gaspé. I talked to a lot of people. Those people said to me that they had no interest in the government of Quebec under Mr. Bouchard because Mr. Bouchard's government had no interest in the Gaspé.

As Mr. Bouchard is so closely associated with the Bloc Quebecois, they had no interest in the Bloc Quebecois either. I suggest it is no wonder that the Liberals were elected in the Gaspé in the last election.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard this MP speak of the Gaspé, and I am delighted.

The new member representing the Gaspé, whom we have not yet heard speak, should draw on his energy and his influence to speak in support of the Gaspé.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate, but before begin I would like to point out that I will be splitting my time with the very learned member for the riding of St. John's East.

Before I begin, I would like to thank all those in my riding who gave me this opportunity to again represent the riding of Fundy—Royal. This is my second term in the House of Commons and I would once again like to thank the voters in my riding for giving me the responsibility of representing them here.

When I approach this bill and think about what we are talking about, one of the things we are looking at doing is strengthening the economy as a whole throughout the country.

Before entering public life, I was a debt and deficit activist. I used to say about the debt that we were mortgaging the future for younger generations and we needed to get our fiscal house in order. It is the minimum that we owe our future citizens. I also believed fundamentally that the best way for us to grow an economy was to ensure that our tax rates were competitive with those of our trading nations, primarily our American cousins.

We could look at free trade. Our trade with the Americans in 1988 was $90 billion. Today we trade over $320 billion each and every year. Those are the basics of our economic fundamentals.

We have a situation where we will have a February pass where we actually may not even see a budget, despite the fact that we could be on the eve of facing some form of a recession. The Americans are actually looking at a perspective where they may be lowering taxes en masse, and we will not be following suit.

I prefaced my comments with those remarks before talking about the EI bill because they are what drove my politics for the most part. The Progressive Conservatives believe in a market economy, but we do not believe in a market society.

To illustrate that, when the Liberal government chose to select its restraint measures, instead of actually looking at reducing spending on massive made in Ottawa programs, where do we see the bulk of its cuts, its draconian measures in terms of what took place?

It attacked the provinces with respect to gutting health care and post-secondary education by 35% in the budget of 1995. Post-secondary education and health care are fundamental priorities of our society, yet the government chose to attack those fundamental planks.

It also chose to attack the poor. I campaigned in 1997 and if I were to review my remarks in the course of that campaign, I am sure I would have commented on the fact that there was at least a $5 billion surplus in the EI fund at that time.

Those are draconian taxes that tax every new job created. The chief actuary at the time, Bernard Dussault, mentioned to us and the public that the EI fund would be sustainable at around $2.40 per $100 insurable earnings. Today I believe it is around $1.75.

I am talking about the tax cut side of this matter because that money belongs in the pockets of Canadians. I am proud to say that I learned a lot over the course of my mandate. The other side of the equation is that 75% of the individuals who collected EI in the year that the Liberals made these draconian cuts earned less than $10,000. They attacked individuals who earned less than $10,000 per year. That is essentially the cause and effect of that initiative. It was wrong.

I say that as a devout fiscal Conservative who wants to get our fiscal house to ensure that we pay down the debt for future generations and lower taxes. This is not in any way socialist propaganda, as I heard a Reform member say in the past. This is not a regional subsidy in terms of EI.

If we talk to individuals in the northern regions of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick or even in my riding of Fundy—Royal, we see that there are pockets where seasonal work in winter has a cumulative effect on seasonal communities.

I am very proud to have been in the coalition of Progressive Conservatives, social moderates, fiscal conservatives and some individuals who spoke out on the particular issue.

I compliment the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst for bringing the issue forward. I compliment Jean Dubé, the former member for Madawaska—Restigouche who is running in a byelection today. I wish him well as the polls close in about two and a half hours from now.

Above all, I compliment Angela Vautour. Angela Vautour raised the profile of the EI seasonal worker and these draconian cuts in terms of the intensity measure. She actually brought the issue before Canadians. I almost call it the Angela Vautour bill.

Her efforts, the efforts within the Bloc in defending its seasonal communities and the efforts within our Conservative caucus in terms of the members for New Brunswick Southwest and for St. John's East, formed a coalition that guilted the government into action. Only on the eve of an election did it actually have the guts to go forward and do it.

This was an ill-advised bill, particularly concerning issues relating to women. The intensity rule actually attacked how we have our children. A woman may have two children, but if she did not work the number of weeks or hours necessary between the two pregnancies, she would not be eligible for EI to start off with. Moreover, she would be cut from her previous benefits because of the intensity rule. The legislation was anti-women and anti-family.

Corrections are long overdue. They are on the floor of the House of Commons today because of work of opposition members, primarily the Bloc and the New Democrats. Principally the member for Acadie—Bathurst for the New Democrats put his shoulder to the wheel on this issue.

I pay tribute to two members who are not here. They left a very lasting legacy and will help families in their own communities for years to come. I compliment Jean Dubé and Angela Vautour for the work they did on behalf of Canadians.

With those comments, I will entertain any questions and answers members may have, but I will also issue a challenge.

I would like to hear the members for Madawaska—Restigouche and Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. They have a responsibility to express their opinion of this bill. These two Liberal members must speak to this bill.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am sorry to the member opposite. He will have to make do with me in response to his speech.

As we know, both the employer and the employee pay employment insurance premiums. Is it not true that if we cut the EI premiums to the auto giants, one of the major employers in the country, it will be a windfall profit worth millions of dollars to them?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, lowering EI premiums for the employee and the employer provides more stimulus in our economy. As any economist who studied this issue has always maintained that payroll taxes are one of the largest deterrents of economic growth in our economy.

Companies may actually make money and profits, one of the things Progressive Conservatives think is good and actually grows the economy. Liberals would rather stifle the economy and shame on them for taking that perspective. Lowering premiums for the employer and the employee is the right thing to do. Almost every major economist will categorically subscribe to that perspective.

Given that the surplus is almost $9 billion on an annual basis, there is more than enough money in that process. That money belongs to the taxpayers. Through tax cuts that money should be put back in their pockets where it belongs to repair the draconian damage that Doug Young and the Liberals did in 1995.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from New Brunswick, the province which neighbours the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. We already know that the Progressive Conservatives will support the waiver of the two week rule when it comes to labour training. We thank the Conservative Party for its support of that initiative.

We already heard the member from Mississauga admit that EI funds come from employers and employees and not from government. It comes from the businesses and the workers. The member from Mississauga clearly stated that the money was used for purposes other than labour training or income security.

Would he comment on the revelation of the longstanding member from the Liberal Party as to why the Liberal government was able to get away with using funds other than for the purposes they were intended?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the Liberals were able to get away with it is was that there has not been a political party in the House over the last seven years that has the critical mass and strength to be able to hold the government accountable.

I remember the first leader that made an issue of the EI surplus and hammered it day in and day out, the Hon. Jean J. Charest. He actually hit that issue time and time again. Once the surplus started to evolve and build, he started pointing out the fact that the money belonged in the pockets of Canadians through lower premiums and that there was no need for the government to make the draconian cuts which it actually did at that time.

With respect to the comment of using the money for other purposes, I think it is a breach of trust. It is disingenuous to the taxpayers. It is a shame, and we should be lowering taxes in that regard.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague from the PC Party. He said that his leader, Mr. Charest, fought about the employment insurance surplus. With all due respect, it seems to be that every time they speak about employment insurance they talk about the premium.

Before bringing down the premium, would he agree with me that the real thing to do is to resolve the problem of employment insurance for people who do not qualify for it and then look at the surplus and the premium?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of the amount of money that is involved from a surplus perspective is nearly $10 million annually. The government is misusing or misappropriating so much money in terms of its intent about how it is collecting it that both can be done exactly at the same time. There is no reason to wait in that regard. There is clearly enough room to be able to move in both directions.

The New Democrats and the Conservatives at some point will say enough is enough in terms of the benefits. The cuts that I am resisting relate to those made in 1996 that attacked people making less than $10,000 per year.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to say a few words in this debate.

We on this side of the House have been calling for four years for changes to the employment insurance system. The first set of major changes brought in by the Liberal government about four years ago had the effect of making life very miserable for a number of my constituents. It also had the effect of making life very miserable for people in Atlantic Canada generally who happened to live for the most part in a seasonal economy.

When the unemployment insurance system became the employment insurance system, the new rules forced many people in Atlantic Canada to become mobile. The new rules forced many seasonal workers to move because it became much more difficult to qualify for employment insurance benefits. When they did qualify it was for fewer benefits for a shorter period of time.

This caused quite a great deal of difficulty for Atlantic Canadians. Seasonal workers were penalized for the intensity rule, which dropped their rate of benefit every year because they happened to be repeat users of the system.

I do not see too many changes in some of the really important aspects of the unemployment insurance bill. The divisor rule had the effect of lessening the monetary value of the weeks worked and drove down the weekly EI benefit. I do not see too many changes that would reverse that effect.

The net result is that about 35% of unemployed people actually qualify for benefits. Because women of course have a different work pattern than men, about 30% of women actually qualify for benefits. That is causing a great deal of hardship among the workforce generally.

Newfoundland is the hardest hit of the Atlantic provinces with respect to the EI changes. That, combined with the downturn in the fishery, has meant a steady out-migration of people from the province. The population of the province is steadily going down because of many of the draconian measures the government has taken.

The truly sad part of this is that the out-migration was not accidental. It seemed to be a deliberate part of the whole plan. The architects of the new EI system knew that there would be a part of the year when seasonal workers would not be able to qualify for benefits. If they did not qualify for benefits they would be faced with a choice. They would have the choice of digging into their savings, going on welfare or moving to another part of the country.

Some might say so what if they have to move to another part of the country. However, if they happen to be seasonal workers, their wages very often are low. They cannot afford to move their families, lock, stock and barrel, to another part of the country.

The changes brought in by the Liberals in changing the system from UI to EI have cost the province of Newfoundland $1 billion annually. The city of St. John's has been losing $75 million annually. The riding of St. John's East, which is made up of part of the city of St. John's and the rural areas of Conception Bay, is losing about $52 million annually. Neighbouring St. John's West is losing about $56 million annually. Burin—St. George's is losing $80 million a year. A lot of these towns and communities happen to be in a seasonal economy because of the fishery. Newfoundland being on the government side did not seem to help either. In the five ridings outside of St. John's, the EI cuts have had a really devastating effect on the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last fall the government decided to loosen up on some of the EI rules because an election was in the offing, but it failed to pass the EI bill before the writ was dropped. We were supposed to forget then, and we are supposed to forget now, that there has been a massive surplus in the EI account for quite some time. The government could have and should have acted on the unemployment insurance problems in Atlantic Canada long before it did. It did not do so simply because it was leading up to an election, so we have an EI bill before us today that still fails to address the problems of a seasonal economy.

I want to say a few words about women and EI. Earlier I said that about 30% of unemployed Canadian women qualify for benefits these days. That is not my estimate; that is from Statistics Canada as well as the employment insurance commission. Only 30% of unemployed Canadian women actually qualify for benefits.

In the spring budget the Liberals made much of the fact that EI maternity leave would be extended from six months to a full year. Given that only 30% of women qualify for any benefits and given that it is harder to qualify for maternity benefits than it is for regular benefits, only a political party with the gall of the Liberals would boast about improvements to maternity benefits.

There are some good points about the bill and I do not think they should be overlooked. One good point is that the bill raises the income threshold for clawback. There is no clawback for first time claimants and for people who avail themselves of maternity benefits or sick benefits. This is very good and I want to compliment the government on this. People coming off maternity or parental benefits will now have an easier time getting back into the employment insurance system because they will no longer be treated as people with no attachment to the workforce.

Why was all of this not done earlier? Why was this not done this spring when the length of the maternity benefit period was increased? If only 30% of unemployed women qualify for benefits, as I said earlier, all of these improvements are cold comfort to the other 70%.

Also, I do not see any changes in this bill with regard to easing up on the qualifying requirements for regular benefits, nor do I see anything that increases the time during which one can draw regular benefits. This means that there is still a period of the year in which an unemployed person will have no income. The divisor rule, which lowers the monetary value of the weeks worked, is still there and the value of the weekly benefit has not been changed. While the improvements to maternity benefits and the clawback provisions are certainly welcome, for regular benefits the EI system is still nowhere as generous as what it should be.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his remarks. I listened very carefully. Incidentally, I am very fond of his province. I have been down there a number of times. It is probably one of the most beautiful corners in the country or, for that matter, anywhere in the world.

I do sympathize with him on this problem of the migration out that occurs in Newfoundland, because of lack of job opportunities, I suppose. In that context, I would ask the member, then, if it would not be better to allow the rich corporations in central Canada to continue to pay relatively high premiums into the EI fund? With that surplus the federal government can invest in infrastructure in Newfoundland that creates jobs. Is that not a better solution for Newfoundland than reducing premiums?

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, no, that is certainly not the way it should be. I believe there should be a general recognition by the federal government of the fact that we either value seasonal workers or we do not. If a province happens to have a seasonal economy as we do in Atlantic Canada, the federal government can and should be looking at making the employment insurance system a lot more generous. If 10 and 42 was too generous, which it probably was, then 10 and 21 is certainly not as generous as it should be.

This is the question we have to ask ourselves when we are talking about employment insurance: do we value a seasonal economy? Do we value the fishery in Atlantic Canada? Do we value loggers in Atlantic Canada? Do we value construction workers in Atlantic Canada? These people make a very valuable contribution to the Canadian economy.

It is not only Atlantic Canada that has a seasonal economy. Parts of Ontario have a seasonal economy as well. I think it is incumbent upon federal government to realize that it has an obligation toward the regions of the country. We should not always be looking to the centre. To think that to make things better in the centre and things will all of a sudden become a whole lot better in Atlantic Canada is the wrong approach.

The hon. members opposite who happen to be representing ridings in Ontario should realize that. Ontario is not the only province in Canada that makes a contribution to this economy. The people of Atlantic Canada make that contribution as well. Fish may not be very appealing to the member opposite, but fish are a very important part of this economy and we have fishermen in Atlantic Canada who need a more generous employment insurance system than what the federal government is providing now.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with what the Liberals have done with the draconian cuts to EI is that they have increased child poverty in this country. They have also increased the number of food banks we have in this country. It is absolutely criminal that this government can get away with that. In my own riding, in Chezzetcook, they opened up another food bank the other day because people simply do not have enough money to buy their own food.

This is what happens when we have a centrally based government that ignores the regions of the country.

Could the hon. member from St. John's East tell us what effect it has in his communities in terms of the children of his riding when parents do not have enough money to clothe or feed their children?

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very good question and a very important one. I believe that food banks are being used today at unprecedented rates, not only in Newfoundland but in a lot of Atlantic Canada.

I was part of a committee on poverty that travelled this country from Newfoundland to Vancouver. We held public meetings and had people come forward and make presentations. One of the things people said to us consistently was that the unemployment insurance system and the changes that the federal government made to the unemployment insurance system had lowered their income levels to such an extent that they depended on food banks on an almost weekly basis. The government should be held to account for that.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Western Arctic and on behalf of my government in favour of these changes to the employment insurance legislation.

I have been with HRDC since 1993, when EI was still UI, as it was known then. It was under the leadership of former Minister Axworthy that the initial discussion on review and reform began. It was an attempt to look at the inequities in the system, at the issues and at the long outdated problems that had occurred within the system and needed to be changed. The ensuing debate was on those issues. Subsequently we went through successive ministers, four to be exact, the most important to date our current minister, who has undertaken to complete the file on the changes for these particular sections.

The changes we are bringing forward under this bill are important and necessary. As members of the House know, this bill was introduced in the House last fall and debated in second reading. That is why we are reintroducing this bill. The changes herein reflect the mandate that Canadians gave us in the last election. They also follow from our government's ongoing monitoring and review of the EI system and our belief in fairness.

There is always an effort made to ensure that the best results come from any reforms or reviews of legislations, programs and services. This monitoring has led us to recognize that some of the changes brought in then have caused unanticipated difficulties, especially some of the impacts that they have had on seasonal workers and parents who take extended absences from the workforce to care for young children.

We want to provide a program that is fair and that Canadians can count on for support when they are out of work or when they are preparing for work. We have continued to monitor the process. By and large we can say that all the core elements of the reforms undertaken in 1996 are working well. However, we also recognize that some improvements need to be made. That is why we are doing this legislation reform.

I see the legislation as good news for families and their children. By eliminating the intensity rule, for example, we will improve the situation of workers and their families who often have to rely on EI more than they would like to because job opportunities may be limited. For many people in situations like this the existing legislation may be perceived to be punitive, especially in regions where jobs are scarce. This is something that is recognized by these changes.

Remember the intensity rule was put in place to discourage the repeat use of EI. Unfortunately, it has not achieved the desired results. Looking at my part of the country, for example, we do not have the same job opportunities as some other areas of the country. In some regions of my riding of Western Arctic, jobs are very scarce or at best very seasonal.

Not everyone is in the same situation across the country. Take for example the individuals employed in the transportation industry, the ferry workers and the longshoremen of the Northwest Territories. These men and women ensure the transportation of vital goods to many small communities in the western Arctic. Many people would not know but we do not have a complete highway system. We do not have 100% of the transportation grid in our area, neither does Nunavut and some parts of the northern areas of provinces. These jobs are at best very seasonal. These men and women, try as they might, cannot always work year around. The weather simply makes it impossible. Should they be penalized by the intensity rule?

The same is true in a number of other industries in northern communities, such as commercial fisheries. Our communities also depend on firefighters to prevent and extinguish forest fires. Sometimes they work in very remote locations and sometimes they go abroad and assist because they developed the expertise and are asked to make a contribution nationally and internationally outside of our region. Nonetheless, their work is seasonal work. Should these workers be penalized by the intensity rule?

Oil and gas workers, as well as mining industry workers, are other groups who are a vital part of the communities of the Northwest Territories. This work is highly seasonal for the very fact that we do not have permanent roads. We depend on winter roads which have a very short window of opportunity because of the environment. We are not allowed to continue with the transportation of goods once the ground softens. This really has an impact on the livelihood of many of those people. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality of our weather, climate and winter prevents this. The intensity rule has caused hardship for many people in circumstances like this.

We all agree that the emphasis should be on encouraging people to gain long term employment. I know that is what people in the north want to do. That is the long term strategic goal of the north, to become self-sustaining. With the opportunity of now having two diamond mines in full swing, we anticipate camps that have 800 people.

All the same, many of the people who transport fuel and goods are seasonal workers because of the very nature of the climate and circumstances that our environment entails in the north. It is not a government device. We report the weather but we do not create the environment that makes the weather. That is the way it is. Once again, while they would like to work year around, the reality is their circumstances prevent it.

We have to be realistic and we are. We want a system that is fair to all Canadians including those whose incomes depend on seasonal employment. We can do that by eliminating the intensity rule and backdating the change to October 1, 2000, as the legislation proposes.

I know all members want this. We want to restore the basic rate of 55% for everyone. This is good news. I also see good news in the proposed legislation for those individuals and their families whose income includes special benefits under EI. By this, I mean benefits paid under EI for maternity or parental leave or in cases of illness.

Under the current system special benefits can be subject to the clawback. Under the legislation before us, that will no longer be the case. When Bill C-2 is passed, people collecting maternity, parental or sickness benefits, will no longer have to repay their benefits.

First time claimants will also get a break from the clawback. A first time claimant has often paid premiums for many years without ever drawing on their benefits. At the same time, the government proposes to raise the income level at which the clawback kicks in for repeat claimants, from $39,000 to $48,750 net income.

After the legislation is passed, only higher income Canadians who have repeatedly received EI will face the prospect of paying back their benefits.

I note the legislation proposes we make this repayment adjustment apply starting from taxation year 2000. In other words, the change will provide benefit for all of 2000 and from that time forward.

The bill also proposes changes that will help parents of young children to more easily qualify for regular benefits after they have re-entered the labour force. If the bill is adopted, parents would require the same number of hours as other workers to qualify for regular benefits, between 420 and 700 hours depending on the unemployment rate where they live.

The new rules will recognize the strong workforce attachments these parents had prior to taking an extended period away from work to raise their young children. For example, we have heard about women who felt they had been penalized for taking time away from work to care for their children and that existing regulations did not give them adequate credit for past participation in the labour force.

The throne speech gave a flavour of the kind of care, and previous budgets have also indicated the care, that we give to young children, to families and to the youth of the country. This is a reflection and an extension of that. We want all young children to have a good start. Any legislation that we have put forward has dealt with early intervention and prevention programs. We will ensure that there is compatibility between these changes and the results that we desire.

We are extending the look back period used to determine eligibility for EI regular benefits by four years to make sure re-entrant parents are not treated unfairly. This is an important amendment for my constituents.

Members of the House may not be aware that the Northwest Territories and its neighbour Nunavut have one of the highest birth rates in Canada. In 1999 the birth rate for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut combined was 22.7 births for every 1,000 residents. This compares to an average of 11.2 births for every 1,000 residents in Canada as a whole.

The changes will benefit many people in my riding and neighbouring ridings in the north. I see this as another positive change for Canadian families, particularly in light of the new extended parental benefits. It will remove the penalty these parents, and especially women, could face when applying for EI after an extended absence.

There are numbers of ways the changes in Bill C-2 will benefit unemployed Canadian workers and their families. The bottom line is that by addressing some very real concerns which have been brought to our attention, concerns of my constituents and of the government itself, we are moving to ensure that northerners and all Canadian families are treated fairly under EI, and that they have more money to meet the needs of their families.

However the bill is not the end of our work to ensure fairness under EI. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that we are committed to an ongoing process of review, that we will continue to monitor and access how EI is working and to ensure that the EI system does the job we want it to do. That is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the legislation for northerners and all Canadians.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill on employment insurance. I was listening to a woman in parliament talk about fairness and fair treatment, words that are to be found in Bill C-2. As we know, the treatment women are subjected to in order to qualify is totally unfair.

When the minister tells us this reform was necessary, I quite agree with her. However, when one looks at the bill with respect to parental leave, about which the minister was boasting in terms of what the government is doing, it is like putting one's head in the sand. This means that women are not eligible for employment insurance.

When one requires that women work 600 hours while in some regions where unemployment is high, men or women only have to work 420 hours in order to qualify for regular benefits, when one boasts about the parental leave bill, that means that one is not looking at how many women will qualify for parental leave.

The government says that 42% of pregnant women are eligible for maternity leave. It is fine to boast about doubling the number of weeks and hours that a woman will be able to spend at home with her child, but it remains that she has to qualify and to be able to afford it. With 55% of a precarious salary, a woman will not be able to afford to stay at home for two years to care for her child.

When the minister talks about fair treatment, I do not believe it concerning women, for several reasons. As we know, women are the ones in precarious jobs. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, 10 years ago 70% of women had access to employment insurance. Nowadays, it is the reverse: 70% of women are excluded.

I dare the minister to tell me this is treating women fairly.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I think members understand that these are very specific reforms. These changes are not a panacea to all the woes, problems, hardships and challenges that face women. There are many other opportunities that we have to look at.

Some members in the House cannot distinguish between the issue of guaranteed income and a specific program like employment insurance. We need to have a different set of discussions on whether or not there are other issues we have to look at to perhaps enhance the economic well-being of women. It is a fact that women are benefiting from our economy as a whole. There were 31,000 new jobs created for women in December. Employment for women increased by 1.1 million jobs since 1993.

No, we cannot resolve all the issues because these are specific reforms. Look at the benefit repayment clawback, the re-entrance provision and the retroactive fishing regulations which ensure that women in the fishing industry can access the same parental benefits as other women. This is progress and the hon. member should recognize that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some details from the Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

In 1989, when my predecessor, Doug Young, was in opposition, he said that he encouraged all New Brunswickers to fight any changes to the unemployment insurance system with vigour because they would spell disaster for New Brunswick.

In February 1993, the leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada, said that we should attack the economy, not the most vulnerable people in our society.

Today, the minister is telling us that minister Axworthy did what he had to do, which was to reform the employment insurance plan.

Could she tell me the difference? When she was a member of an opposition party, that party was fighting any changes proposed by the Conservative government to the unemployment insurance plan. Now that the Liberals are in power, it is apparently all right to steal $32 billion from workers. Could she explain that to me?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should reflect on the fortunes of his party and consider the whole issue of reform and review. That is where the reform needs to be.

It is undeniable that we are living in a world of change. We have high technology, mechanization, digitalization and a shift from a resource based economy to a high tech, innovative economy. We have challenges to face and one of the challenges is adjusting to change.

The hon. member's comments serve to remind many Canadians that his party is unwilling to change, unwilling to meet the challenges and unwilling to make tough decisions in the short term for long term gain. I think that is what it is all about. The hon. member should consider those comments.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, between 1993 and 1997, I sat on the human resources development committee and the secretary of state was performing about the same duties as today.

Since very few changes were made compared to what people requested throughout the consultation process and since the secretary of state is very much aware of the situation, how does she explain the fact that the eligibility rule has not been modified?

The House has to realize that no changes whatsoever were made to the eligibility rule. The changes only affect those who are already eligible to employment insurance benefits. There is nothing in this bill for those who could not previously qualify for employment insurance.

The secretary of state has read the reports prepared by the committee that even travelled to my region. How can she justify and support this bill that does not include any of the suggestions concerning the eligibility issue?