Debates of Jan. 31st, 2002

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege. I recognize first the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.

Privilege

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that I must bring this matter to your attention today.

It has been demonstrated that the Minister of National Defence has deliberately misled the House. Hansard has recorded his misleading statement. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has picked up the admission of that misleading statement while the minister was scrummed outside the House after question period yesterday. I have that tape, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit it to you.

The minister has not apologized to the House for his misleading statements nor has he made any attempt to clear the record in this place. I view this conduct to be inconsistent with the standards that the House and the public expect from its members. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defence is in contempt of the House.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2002, the Minister of National Defence, in response to a question in the House, stated that he learned about the involvement of Canadian troops taking prisoners in Afghanistan on Friday, January 25, 2002. The minister said at that time:

Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday. It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.

Yesterday, in response to a follow up question, the minister said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I was first informed about the detention of prisoners and the mission within 24 hours of when it actually occurred.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister knew within 24 hours, then the minister learned of the incident on Monday, January 21 or, at the latest, on Tuesday, January 22.

After question period, during the scrum outside the Chamber, the minister admitted that he indeed misled the House. He said that he regretted giving the House false information. As I said earlier, I have the tape and can make it available.

On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

At page 234 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , it explains that in order for the Speaker to find a prima facie case in a matter involving a deliberate misleading statement, there must be “an admission by someone in authority, such as a minister of the crown or an officer of a department”.

Mr. Speaker, we have two contradictory statements by the minister recorded in Hansard. One was made on Tuesday, January 29 and one was made on Wednesday, January 30. We have videotape showing the minister admitting to misleading the House in regard to these statements.

The evidence that I have presented is prima facie. The records of the House as well as the video records of the media confirm that the minister knowingly misled the House.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my friend on this question of privilege. I believe you will find that there is ample evidence before the House that in the vernacular there has been a clear departure from accuracy and precision in matters of grave importance that have come before the House.

In a time of war members on behalf of their constituent Canadians have a right to expect clear and concise information from ministers of the government. I would argue that in all matters the truth should be laid bare before the House. Surely there are times when the country might accept that for the protection of life and limb certain information must be kept secret, but this is not the case in this instance.

We have before us an after the fact reporting of events in a way that is inconsistent and contradictory. This leaves doubts in the minds of many including perhaps and more important, I would argue, members of our military at a time when they require and rightly fully demand unfettered laser precision instructions and interpretation from their government and from the minister.

This involves neither ignorance nor maladministration. It involves a deliberate passing of misinformation to members of the House of Commons. My friend has recited the facts as they appear in Hansard .

I will review them. On Tuesday we had the minister of defence clearly indicating in response to a question from the Bloc Quebecois when he first knew of the taking of prisoners by Canadian troops. As reported in Hansard :

Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday.

That was January 25.

It required further examination to determine whether in fact Canadians were involved. I informed the Prime Minister and my colleagues in cabinet this morning to that effect.

Yesterday, Wednesday--

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We do not need to go through all the facts several times here. We have heard them from the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough would add anything new to what has been stated on this point, but I do not think we need to go through the whole thing two or three times.

I have heard the offending statements. If he has something else that he felt was offensive, I would be happy to hear it and any argument he may have on those facts; but having heard them, I do not think we need them repeated.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to precedent I also refer the Chair, again with respect to the trust that ministers should have in information placed before them, to The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government by Eugene Forsey and G. C. Eglington. I am sure the Chair is familiar with this publication. It was used extensively by the McGrath commission. At page 19 it reads:

The cornerstone of our constitution is the Sovereign whose government is carried on in Her several realms.

It goes on further to say:

--government is a trust which the Sovereign discharges; it is a trust that cannot be thrown up or ignored in some nihilistic whim.

In the same publication, speaking of responsibilities of ministers, the authors write:

It entails frankness and openness with the sovereign or her personal representative and a proper respect for the royal or vice regal right to warn and advise.

This pertains directly to the information that members of parliament should expect in all statements and information passed by ministers to the House of Commons.

The Chair would surely be familiar with the phrase that trust is the coin of the realm. In all frankness I would submit that based on the behaviour of the minister of defence the House cannot trust the minister. The chief of defence staff cannot trust the minister.

In Erskine May, 22nd edition, under the section of misconduct of members of the House or officers it states at page 111:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

I encourage the Chair to take into the context of this matter not only the statements that were made in the House but statements that were made in the foyer just outside the House in referencing this entire matter.

Finally, I refer to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms , sixth edition. At page 25 under section 92, interfering with members, it states:

A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties--

I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that members of the House of Commons must be able to rely on the information they receive in response to questions placed to ministers. This goes to the very cut and thrust of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons. A high standard has to be met and that standard has not been met by the minister of defence.

In support of my colleague from Portage--Lisgar, I am sure the Chair will want to examine the matter with the gravest seriousness. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there has been a breach of privilege and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the reasons stated by my two colleagues. I would say that I might feel more concerned than anybody else because the answers that were provided to me on Tuesday did not reflect the reality, according to the minister's own statement a few hours and a few days later and according to the Prime Minister's answers.

However, Mr. Speaker, so that we can get to the bottom of this sad affair and sad behaviour, I am asking you to delay your ruling for a few days so that we can question, here in the House, all the people involved in this matter. Our duty is to determine what went on. Right now, I am not at all convinced that the minister is the only one who misled the House. I wonder whether the minister was the only one who acted wrongly, consciously and deliberately, or rather whether he was not acting like someone protecting others.

Is he the only one responsible for this ludicrous situation or is he being a good trooper, covering for others? This is what we have to determine.

I find that not only the minister's answers but also those of the Prime Minister seem wrong. They do not seem to reflect reality. I feel that there is a cover-up here, and that is disturbing.

I respectfully ask you to consider the good reasons stated by my two colleagues but also to delay your ruling so that we can continue to question the minister and those who were in collusion with him in this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point which was omitted but which is quite important, I think.

According to Marleau and Montpetit at page 433, generally in a case such as this one:

--the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.

It cites rulings of March 4, 1988; February 12, 1992; March 27, 1992; and October 6, 1994.

However this case is different. It is not a case of disagreement. The facts are that the minister told the House he knew on Friday that the Canadian forces were involved in arrests in Afghanistan. The fact is that he has since told the House that he actually knew last Monday.

This is becoming a question of privilege that differs totally from the situation where some members think one way and other members think another. The facts are there.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is your responsibility to look into this and to hand down a ruling on the issue. I join with my colleagues in requesting that this problem be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to have it dealt with.

Furthermore, I ask the minister to give the House and the committee all documents pertaining to this matter, so that all the facts can be considered.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc québécois leader said, other ministers could be implicated in this matter. The House must look into this. However, the situation is clear: Friday, the Minister of National Defence said one thing in the House and, later on, he said another thing altogether. It is obvious that he was not telling the truth in the House.

However, our country is facing very unusual and exceptional circumstances. We are involved in an armed conflict. Canadian troops are now in Afghanistan. They have to be able to rely on the support of a minister who is both strong and in command here at home. However, they cannot trust the current minister. He waited eight days to tell anyone that Canadian troops had captured some prisoners.

Our troops must know that the information concerning to their activities is in fact transmitted to senior members of government, since the knowledge—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I am seeking help with the point of procedure now before the House concerning the connection between the Canadian Forces and the minister. It is not important for the point of procedure being discussed today.

I trust the hon. member will discuss only this point of procedure, and nothing else. If he has something more to say on this score, I will hear him.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally accept your instructions. However, I would like to raise the following point. What we have here is a situation where our troops are engaged in a conflict where they are at risk. This situation is absolutely abnormal for the House of Commons.

The House of Commons should always be able to count on the whole truth on the part of a minister. However, in time of crisis, it is all the more important. That is all I wanted to add to the debate at this time.

[The Speaker]

I think I have heard enough on this matter. I listened to the right hon. member because he is a former minister. Every party has had an opportunity to say something except the minister. I think it is time to hear the minister.

Is there some additional information on this? Very briefly, the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out the gravity of the situation and the way it has cast negative aspersions on our troops. Today is a day we should be congratulating the JTF2 for the great work they have done for the country. Instead we have this fiasco.

[The Speaker]

I am trying to deal with the procedural point. I think we are ready to hear from the minister on this now.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that at no time have I intended to mislead the House. I have the highest respect for the House and its members and I have always operated in a very straightforward fashion.

The question I answered on Tuesday from the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois I answered in the context of a photograph I had seen on Friday for the first time. When I saw the photograph for the first time I did not connect it with a briefing I had received the previous Monday and the operation our troops had been involved in the day before.

I do receive daily briefings on a number of matters. I was in Mexico City on that day on a bilateral visit with our counterparts in the Mexican government. I was briefed on that occasion. I did not instantly go to phone the Prime Minister. He and I had discussed the matter the week before at a joint meeting of the foreign affairs and SCONDVA committees. We had discussed it in terms of the policy issue and how we would conduct ourselves should we get into a situation involving the taking of prisoners. It is based on the longstanding procedure of following international and Canadian law and the turning over of troops to our allies, in this case the United States, as I clearly indicated when I appeared before the foreign affairs and defence committees.

Furthermore, I waited until I returned home to seek further clarity on a number of aspects of this. There was at the same time a growing controversy about how the United States was handling the prisoners and determining their status. I returned home on Thursday night to Ottawa. On Friday afternoon for the first time I saw a photograph which at first I thought was not connected to what I had been briefed on earlier in the week. Subsequently in discussions with the chief of defence staff and deputy chief of defence staff I learned it was indeed connected. I want to make it clear that they have been absolutely excellent in their briefing of me and in providing me the information in a timely and concise fashion.

Subsequently through further discussion with them I realized there was a connection between the photograph and the briefing on Monday. However the photograph brought to me a new clarity and understanding about the mission they had briefed me on previously, so when I got up in the House and responded to the matter on Friday I believed I was seeing something that was new and in a different context from the briefing I had received earlier in the week.

It was in that light that I gave the answer I did on Tuesday to the question from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Subsequently on Wednesday I made it quite clear that I had received appropriate briefings from the chief of defence staff the previous week.

Again, at no time did I intend to mislead the House. I was answering with what I believed to be the correct information, and I will continue to conduct myself in that fashion in the House.

[The Speaker]

There are two members rising. I am prepared to take this matter under advisement and consider it. I do not want to get into an argument here. I want to hear only something on procedure if that is what is coming up. Otherwise I am not going to hear any more.

The hon. member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not speak about procedure; he spoke about the answer he gave me Tuesday, a wrong answer.

[The Speaker]

The minister answered in connection with the process raised in the House by the hon. members for Portage—Lisgar and Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

It is important that he be allowed to defend himself against allegations made by other members. That is all he did. But now is not the time to give answers on that. I ask hon. members to stick to the point of procedure.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as an element of procedure, and also to provide clarification for your ruling, as the minister has I imagine, I will just point out that I made no mention whatsoever in the question I asked of any photo.

In order to provide the context as the minister has done, I too was in Mexico when the minister was there. He was surrounded by key members of his military staff, discussing continental defence in light of the September 11 events. Even with the slight jet lag from the time difference between Mexico and here, I was capable of differentiating in my question between a matter of fact and a photograph.

In order to put things clearly in context, I would point out to the Chair that there was a special debate Monday night. The minister was aware of all these facts and had had several days to reflect on his memory lapse. So, he either deliberately misled the House or he is totally clueless, and whichever is the case, these are not ministerial qualities.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want you to have the full information before you make a decision on the issue. I would like some clarification from the minister with respect to his comments. What does seeing the photographs have to do with the whole issue, other than that is what caused him to get caught in his deception?

Can the minister explain it? I do not understand and I am sure Canadians do not understand.

[The Speaker]

It is not a question period. This is a procedural argument. While I know we would like to ask questions of one another at this time, I am not sure it is entirely appropriate.

The time has come for me to take this matter under advisement. We have heard the arguments on both sides. I will get back to the House in due course. I thank in particular the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for their interventions.

I would also like to thank the hon. members for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, Acadie—Bathurst and Lakeland, as well as the minister. I appreciate all of the comments and will get back to the House shortly on this matter.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

Credit Card Charge Adjustment Act

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-427, an act respecting the adjustment of credit card charges in cases where goods or services are not supplied or are defective.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States it is law that when a credit card company signs on a new merchant it is deemed to be a contract with the merchant that shares in the profits of the corporation. The credit card company takes a commission for every sale the company makes. That means that in the United States under the law if the company providing the service fails to deliver, the credit card company has a responsibility to help get the money back for the credit card customer. That law does not exist in Canada.

If implemented, my private member's bill would create an even playing field in Canada by making our law compatible with that of the United States. If companies failed to deliver on goods and services that had been charged to a credit card, the credit card company would have some responsibility in regaining redress and a refund.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House

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

moved:

That the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, tabled on Thursday, May 31, 2001, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to address this motion. It should be remembered that during the campaign leading to the general election in the fall of 2000, everyone had stressed the need for a thorough reform of the employment insurance program, to give it a human side, a side that would truly reflect its objectives as a social safety net, so as to allow people who are out of work to have sufficient income to find another job through the plan.

Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities prepared a unanimous report in which it proposed 17 changes to the employment insurance program. It is important to point out that members of parliament had decided, following the mandate given to them by voters, that it was necessary to propose these changes.

The committee that tabled this unanimous report included members from all parties, in particular Liberal members, who were sending a very clear message to the government on the need to make changes to the employment insurance program.

These members included, for example, the member for Peterborough, the member for Shefford, in Quebec, the members for Whitby—Ajax, Egmont, in Prince Edward Island, Winnipeg South Centre, York South—Weston, and also members like the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, whose riding is adjacent to mine but in New Brunswick and who is also facing a very difficult situation on this issue. There was also the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok who, throughout the election campaign, kept saying “I will work very hard to bring about changes to the employment insurance program; if no changes are made, I will have to disown my government”. He has yet to do so. I believe that all these people acted in good faith when they proposed these unanimous changes to the employment insurance program.

Unfortunately, in the fall, after the regulatory period of 150 days, the minister decided to dismiss out of hand all these recommendations. They no longer included anything that was necessary or worthwhile, even though, as we know, the employment insurance fund has generated surpluses of some $40 billion since the Liberals took office.

As a matter of fact, we have had annual surpluses of $6 billion in the last four or five years, while some people have been starving because they have not been getting benefits long enough to survive until they get a new job. In my region alone, out of 17,000 people who get benefits, 3,500 exhaust their benefits.

This means that, for a certain period, they will receive no benefits at all. They will either have to apply for welfare, or withdraw the money they have in a RRSP or other investments, or, even worse, have no income and try to live on loans from friends. This is unacceptable because there are often families involved and those in this predicament are often most in need of these benefits.

This is the situation we are in. Members did understand the issue, but the minister's role is to do whatever she is told by the Minister of Finance. Her role is to gather in as much money as she can for the government. This is how the people opposite fought the deficit. They paid down the debt with the extra $5 or $6 billion a year they stole from the unemployed.

Now that we have surpluses, the only ones who are not getting any return on their investment in the fight against the deficit are the unemployed and those who contribute to EI, that is employees and employers. The government does not contribute a single penny to the plan. That has to be made abundantly clear.

The report contained, for example, a recommendation to eliminate discrimination against younger people. At present, in Canada, young workers must have worked 910 hours to be eligible for employment insurance benefits. However, in regions with a high rate of unemployment, claimants are required to have accumulated only 420 hours of work to be eligible.

As a consequence, young workers are leaving the regions for large urban centres. We are losing workers who were trained in our regions, people who went to school and acquired professional training, especially in areas like tourism and natural resources.

There is a skills drain because, to be eligible for benefits, young workers must have accumulated 910 hours of work. Worse, most of them never become eligible. Some 75% of unemployed young people who have paid unemployment insurance premiums never receive benefits.

When we meet young people and tell them about this, they utter one single word: robbery.

If a private insurance company were to act that way, its clients would soon leave it and the company would go bankrupt. Why are we faced with the present situation? Because people who pay premiums do not control the system.

Older workers find themselves in the same kind of situation. We had a good example of this last fall, when people from the Trois-Rivières area came to demonstrate. These men and women aged between 50 and 60, who worked for three different companies, said they had paid premiums all their lives and now found themselves unable to claim employment insurance benefits long enough to bridge the gap until they became eligible to benefits from the Régie des rentes du Québec and old age security because the employment insurance system is inadequate.

Let us remember that there used to be a program to help older workers. It has not been around since 1997. It was the Liberals who put an end to the program which made this fund possible. We did not necessarily want the exact same program, but all the members on the committee unanimously said “These are clients for whom we must find solutions. They are human beings, people who have contributed to society, people who, in many cases, have worked for companies for 20, 25 or 30 years. They were very competent in their respective fields, but now they do not necessarily have what it takes to be able to work in another sector. They no longer necessarily have the physical strength required”.

It is all very fine and well to have job retraining programs, but we are not necessarily going to turn a sawmill worker into a computer technician tomorrow, let alone in two or three years. This forces them to do things which they find very difficult, such as enrolling in courses solely to be able to continue receiving benefits, when they know very well that they will not be able to finish the course and find a job.

We have also noticed that, in our society, young people and older workers are less well organized. Getting organized seems to be much easier when it comes to trusts. It seems to be much easier when it comes to tax evasion. There are people who manage very nicely in these areas and the way has been left open for them to continue to do so.

But the screws have been tightened when it comes to the EI program. There are more stringent eligibility criteria, fewer benefit weeks and the end result is what we see. The EI program is not fulfilling its primary role as a social safety net, providing people with an income when they lose their job to tide them over until they find another.

Seasonal workers face the same situation. It is perhaps the worst in their case, at least in my region. We all know about the current difficulties in the softwood lumber industry. Yesterday, for example, we heard that there had been a 15% increase in the number of people applying for EI in all regions of Quebec, primarily because of the softwood lumber situation, but also because of the aftermath of September 11.

As a result, our seasonal workers are now in a situation where they are no longer able to receive their benefit cheques within a reasonable timeframe

Imagine what it would be like if we, as members of parliament, did not receive our paycheque, or if we received it two weeks late. What would the consequences be? How would we react?

When people' s income is between $250 and $300 a week in EI benefits, and this money is taken away from them, it means that their rent money and their grocery money is taken away. And that is not the grocery money for next week either, that is the grocery money for the week at hand. This is happening to people all over Quebec. I am sure that it is the same thing in British Colombia too, because they are experiencing the same crisis in the softwood lumber industry, but with an even more severe impact.

As a result of the government's ineptness, of its inefficiency and because of the fact that the minister was unable to take the steps to predict this increase in applications, it is not the minister who is being deprived of her cheque, but the people in the regions, and this is completely unacceptable.

We had proposed permanent solutions to these problems. It was something on which all members of the House agreed. I think that it needs to be repeated each time. It was not only the Bloc Quebecois' position five years ago, and that of the NDP at that time, or the Conservatives or the Canadian Alliance, but it was also shared by the Liberals on the committee. It took quite some time to come up with this consensus. We even made compromises in order to be sure that the minister would be able to follow up on our recommendations.

All of that to wind up being told by the Liberals “No, we will not be following any of the recommendations tomorrow morning. We will not consider any of it”.

The best answer from the government is in response to the self-employed. In our report it states that 16% of workers are self-employed. These workers have not had any security for a long time. It would be possible to create a program for the self-employed. It could be set up on a voluntary basis in order to reach them, the way we reach fishers, for example.

In the government's response, the minister—she has been a minister for many years, and the government has been aware of the situation of self-employed workers for many years—said “There are indeed 16% of self-employed workers. We will have to look into that. We will ask the committee to look into that matter again in the future”. If this is not laughing at people, I wonder what is.

It was decided that people should not qualify. In the end, if they did, it would make it easier for women to qualify for the federal government parental insurance plan, but it is not the case now. This means that many people are afforded much less protection and that has a detrimental effect on the general working conditions.

We have to realize that the Canadian government's position is based on directions received from the IMF and others. We still have documents from last fall in which we can read “Well done Canada, you are tightening things up. Keep up the good work. And above all, do not expand the EI plan”. If at all possible, these people are even further from the real world than the federal government. They do not cut wood or fish for a living; they are not the ones we depend on to feed people and build homes. These people are above all that. They have what they call an economic approach. But economic approaches do not feed people.

We have a responsibility for the distribution of wealth but the present government does not do anything in that regard. It scores a big zero in the fight against poverty. It cannot even use its main tool, employment insurance, to ensure an even distribution of the collective wealth despite the fact that members unanimously said that something had to be done. But no, it remains unequivocally closed.

There was a cabinet shuffle. Many ministerial posts changed hands. In my opinion, two ministers should have been changed: the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Human Resources Development, because she is unable to convince her colleague of the need for a relevant social net and of the possibility to use the EI system to that end; and the Minister of Finance, because his reputation rests on the back of the unemployed, of those who contribute to EI.

Look at how much of the debt was paid back these last few years and look at the surplus in the EI fund. Paradoxically, these amounts are practically identical.

The system is very regressive. If we make $50,000 a year, our contribution is calculated on $39,000, but if we make $28,000, it is calculated on the full amount of our salary. In other words, low earners contribute on a 100% basis to the funding of the system, and their contributions are used as a regressive tax by the government, while those who do not pay any EI premiums—and there are all kinds of people in this situation, including members of parliament—have nothing to do with the funding of the system.

In this regard, the system is unfair. If it is to be used as a payroll tax, all citizens should pay a contribution calculated on 100% of their salary. Then, there would be some critics saying that the system is not so good after all. Members raised all these issues in the unanimous report.

I would also like to raise the issue of parental leave. Quebec has created an excellent program of parental leave which covers all pregnant women who stop working, not only those who contribute to the employment insurance plan, and this, in a more flexible way than the federal program. This Quebec proposal is praised throughout Canada. The minister responsible in Quebec introduced it to the other provincial ministers and they thought it was an excellent program, an excellent plan.

What is missing is the federal government's agreement to contribute its share so that Quebec can put its program in place. This is not complicated, and the law even provides that, if an employer or a province puts an equivalent program in place, the federal government must contribute its share.

But as soon as our good minister decided that federal visibility should be promoted, he decided that the federal government would implement a Canada-wide plan of 52 weeks. Some women would prefer to take a leave at 70% or 75% of their salary for 40 weeks, instead of 52 weeks at 55%. Particularly for low wage earners, 55% of their salary does not represent a high amount. At $7 an hour in Quebec, and less in other provinces, this does not feed the family. At least, if they received 70%, even for fewer weeks, this would allow them to do a number of things.

This program is an integral part of the Quebec government's family policy, which includes daycare for $5 a day. Yet the federal government has not been able to take these recommendations into consideration, even if all members of this House were willing to support parental leave.

I would like to conclude my presentation by repeating that we are experiencing difficult economic times at present. Is the recession going to end or not? There is one very clear manifestation of the situation: 15% more applications for EI in the regions of Quebec. The situation is probably the same in other regions involved with softwood lumber.

This means that, over the coming months, a number of people will start receiving EI benefits. In this period of particular need we have more surplus funds being generated within the EI fund. If this is not scandalous, it is not far from it.

In times of austerity, when hard times put demands on a program that is supposed to be a safety net, an unacceptable amount of surplus is going to continue to build up, and this too I feel is wrong. I think that here, as in other instances “something is rotten in the state of Denmark”.

Action must be taken to remedy the situation. This is why I hope that today, in connection with this motion, the hon. members I have listed, and particularly those representing the Maritimes and resource regions—including the Liberals—will rise up to say “Yes, the report did make a lot of sense and the House of Commons ought to send a clear message to the government”.

All committee members from all parties agreed these changes were appropriate. The government has decided not to follow up on the recommendations.

What would be needed is a clear position to be taken by all members of the House of Commons saying “We are going to support our colleagues on the committee; we are going to pass the message on again to the government but this time it will be even stronger, even more forceful. We will say that yes, our colleagues were right; yes, during the election campaign we were given the mandate to correct the employment insurance system. We have heeded what our constituents told us, and today it is not only the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development that is calling unanimously for this report to be concurred in, it is the entire House”.

If the members opposite and the members of all the other parties here in the House do not do this, I think that we will have failed to act on a clear and logical mandate. If anyone voted in favour of the unanimous report in committee and does not want the report approved, there is a problem. Something happened. Person were convinced by their constituents that changes were needed but, as time went on, they allowed themselves to be persuaded by their government that it was no longer acceptable and desirable.

Nor must we forget that the economic downturn has also been making itself felt in the central regions since the events of September 11. Right now, many people are unhappy with the delays. We are also hearing from the Coalition sur l'assurance-emploi du Bas-Saint-Laurent, from the Gaspé, the North Shore, Lac-Saint-Jean, and from people in New Brunswick, who are saying “If need be, we will come to Ottawa in the spring and tell them that this is ridiculous. When our benefits have run out, we will be good and mad and we will tell the people who told us they would change the legislation that that is what they must do, or pay the political price in the next election”.

Two weeks ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development came to Rivière-du-Loup. She announced two programs which were interesting but very limited in terms of those who could benefit by increasing their number of weeks of benefits.

During the press conference, a seasonal worker from the area said “Madam Minister, last year, I benefited from a program like that for four or five weeks. This year, the program does not exist. Can you not come up with a decent permanent solution so that I, as a seasonal worker who works very hard, might be able to have enough money coming in throughout my period of unemployment to be able to provide for my family?”

What members need to decide today is whether or not they will adopt this report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague who proposed the motion for concurrence in the report. I agree with him and all the members. He is committed to the cause of workers in Quebec and he is also aware of the situation in New Brunswick.

I would like to add a comment. This situation is not restricted to Quebec and New Brunswick, it exists all across Canada as I have often said. Whether it happens in Vancouver, the Gaspé Peninsula or the Acadian Peninsula, an employee losing his or her job is a person without employment and income.

I would like my colleague to tell us, from a Canada-wide perspective, what he thinks of the fact that the government made cuts to a federal program where it has accumulated surpluses, something it brags about, at the expense of workers who have lost their jobs. The minister even acted against the recommendations of the committee itself and of the Liberal committee members, who were in favour of the report.

What is the member's opinion about what the minister has done?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my colleague, and I would like to provide him with an example.

People who work all of the time and never experience any periods of unemployment may forget that there are people who are unemployed. We are living in difficult times. People in the airline industry have become unemployed. All of a sudden they have realized what that means, that in the end, they will receive benefits for 35, 40 or a maximum of 45 weeks, when they have been contributing for 10, 12 or 15 years.

They have also realized just how much this misappropriation of the EI fund we have been talking about will have an impact on them. They have realized that they were making contributions for a program that, instead of being put toward benefits, were being used to eliminate the government's deficit. This is happening across Canada.

What angers people the most, generally in all parts of the population, is that the $42.8 billion surplus, which the EI fund will have accumulated by year's end from employers' and employees' contributions, will not be put toward the EI program. What is even worse is that the government could have predicted this recession. It did not, and it spent all of this money.

So who is paying the price for this mistake today? Not the federal government, but the people who contributed to the program and who need this money during this recessionary period. It is appalling and it is unacceptable.

We lowered taxes.