Mr. Speaker, I would like to react to the comments of my colleagues. Before commenting on what my colleagues said about Bill C-2, I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. As several members across the way have said, thanks to our spirit of co-operation almost all members of the committee recognized the importance of this bill. They also recognized that it was important to pass this bill as quickly as possible in this House and also in the other place.
Having acknowledged this spirit of co-operation in committee, I would also like to clarify certain comments made by my colleagues, especially regarding the motions on Bill C-2 brought forward in the House.
First, Motion No. 4, by my the Bloc Quebecois colleague, proposes to include sickness benefits in the retroactivity period for parents who are going back to work. The government designed this provision after concerns were expressed about the possibility of parents staying at home with their children and going back on the labour market later on.
At present, people are eligible for 15 weeks of sickness benefits. As far as the retroactivity period is concerned, we had promised to introduce Bill C-2 in September. Therefore, a retroactivity cheque will be sent to those eligible as soon as this bill is enacted.
The government is aware of the needs and concerns of Canadians, especially those who are too sick to work. This is why the government has improved access to sickness benefits by reducing from 700 to 600 the number of hours people have to work to be eligible.
Like any member of a government that gives thought to what it does, I, as well as the government and the minister, would like to proceed carefully and understand all aspects of the issue, which is an extremely complex one.
For instance, this system is designed to provide assistance to workers during temporary absences from the labour market. I believe that a decision about the level of support we should offer Canadians who are out of the labour market for an extended period is one which requires a much deeper and comprehensive analysis, one which will probably take in more than the EI system. For instance, assistance is available from the Canada pension plan.
Benefits from workers compensation programs, as well as the taxation system, also play a role. We should therefore approach this problem comprehensively and this is the direction in which the government is headed.
The second motion, which was deemed debatable here in the House, has to do with the clawback provision, which would not apply to fraudulent claims for benefit weeks. The member who moved this amendment in the House is suggesting that we should be more tolerant of those who defraud the EI system. His proposal would mean that Canadians who made honest claims for benefits would be required to give back a portion of their benefits, while those who made fraudulent claims would be exempt from having to do so.
In effect, the member is suggesting that we introduce an incentive for people to defraud the EI system. I cannot believe that this is the intention of the member who moved this amendment, but it is the potential impact of the amendment if ever it were passed. It is obvious that the government cannot go along with such an amendment to Bill C-2, and we therefore reject it.
Third, I would like to dwell on the famous clause 9 discussed earnestly by several members opposite. The purpose is to delete clause 9 of the bill that would change the way the premium rate is set in relation with the role of the EI commission.
Let us look at the facts. What is the bill saying? It is saying that the government wishes to suspend the commission's role in the determination of the premium rate, but contrary to what my hon. colleague of the Canadian Alliance said, it is not a suspension forever. It is a suspension for a period limited to two years in order to allow the government to review the way the rate is set.
Why are we asking for that? It is because we too happen to follow the advice of the auditor general who, as my hon. colleague said, is well accepted and recognized in this House. We are following the advice of the auditor general who indicated that the premium rate determination process was not clear enough. The Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons has also indicated that the mechanism should be reviewed.
It is in the perspective of a review aimed at making the rates fairer that we want to suspend the role of the commission. I repeat that the suspension would be extremely limited and would not exceed a two year period.
The review will deal with rates and premium rate determination. We believe, on the government side, that it is not appropriate to have the commission keep on setting the rates under those conditions. We want to review the system.
Finally, Motion No. 10, which was proposed by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and also addresses clause 9, would fundamentally change the purpose of clause 9. I would like to remind hon. members that clause 9 relates to the role of the commission in fixing the premium rate.
In fact, as I have just said in French, we are suspending the EI commission's role in rate setting for two years to allow time for the government to review how the rate is set.
Once again I will say in answer to my colleague from the Progressive Conservative that it is the auditor general who suggested that rate setting is not clear enough and hon. members on the other side of the House have said it before. The finance committee has also said that it needs to be revised. I remind all members that the finance committee of the House of Commons is made up of all parties present in the House.
These issues need to be addressed in the review. It is not appropriate to ask the commission to continue to set rates in these circumstances. Therefore, we are suspending their rate setting role while we conduct the review.
Finally, I would like to address an extremely important point that was raised by several members of this House, particularly members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, about the fact that Bill C-2 does not respond to the needs of the people of Canada.
The government has already made the commitment at the standing committee of this House to start examining suggestions made to us by witnesses who appeared before the committee and to make some recommendations to the minister.
However, I would like to quote once again the auditor general, who said to us on February 22, while appearing before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts:
—in the next two years—work will be done on how this should be done in the future. So I think the bill buys some time to come up with a better way of calculating the rates paid by the workers and their employers.
We thus have the support of the auditor general.
Before concluding, I have two other quotations. The first is from Mr. Robert Blakely, director of Canadian affairs, building and construction trades department, AFL-CIO, who said “In general, we support the reforms proposed under Bill C-2”.
Another quotation—