Debates of Feb. 7th, 2002

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent the people of Elk Island and, I suppose, the majority of Canadians when I stand in the House to discuss budget issues and demand from the government a proper and transparent accounting of the way the government spends taxpayers' money.

We all know that the government has a number of important functions. Undoubtedly one of the most important is to provide for the personal security of its citizens. That would extend into areas like health care. We need to have a fiscal regime in which business thrives, because that is the true development of our standard of living in this country. We also need to have a fiscal regime that will protect the value of Canadians' savings, of retirees and others. In the last eight years the Liberal government has done a dismally poor job of this. I do not want to be involved in too much hyperbole here, but I honestly do not think the government could have done worse if it had planned to do a bad job.

I base that on some very important principles. First and most important, to me at least, is the fact that there is no better time to pay down the principal value of a debt than when we have good times, especially nowadays when interest rates are very low. In the last three or four years the government has missed a tremendously wide open, golden opportunity to reduce our debt and thereby substantially reduce our interest payments. We know that the government has done some work in this area, but it could have done so much more.

We are talking about some of the measures taking place, here a billion, there a billion, with a little bit for the military, a little bit for homeland security. We are talking about $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion in different categories. For example, we want to give more money to our armed forces. That pales in comparison to the $40 billion a year spent on interest. I cannot emphasize strongly enough or often enough the missed opportunity. The Liberals had the opportunity, but it has now slipped away from us. In our present circumstances we are forced to pay attention to the security needs of the country. Our surpluses will be gone next year. The capacity to reduce the debt has evaporated. The opportunity was there and it was missed.

This reminds me of a story I heard many years ago about a guy who was mountain climbing. He was on a shelf in the mountains and unfortunately his rope slipped out of his hand. He knew that he had only one opportunity to grab the rope and that was the next time it swung back toward him. With nothing beneath him, he leaped for the rope, caught it, swung himself out and back and got back on the ledge with the rope in his hand. Had he missed that opportunity, he would have been stuck on that ledge with the rope hanging out there beyond his reach and that is where he would have stayed until being rescued who knows how many days or weeks later. That is like the government. It has missed an opportunity to substantially reduce the debt.

I want to address some of the issues in the bill before us today, Bill C-49. Interestingly, the bill was introduced in the House on Tuesday. The first debate on it was held yesterday. Here we are, two days after it was introduced. The bill is only 50 or 60 pages long, but I am quite certain that there are some negative things in the bill which I have not identified simply because of the lack of time. Other duties of course keep us busy as well.

One of the first things in the bill is the issue of air transport security. I fly frequently as do most members of parliament. I have really wondered about enhanced security at the airport. Sure, now we have to turn our computers on. Every day when I walk into the airport through security I am asked to show that my solar powered calculator works. That is supposed to somehow enhance security.

My little one inch blade that I had on my nail clipper was taken away. I was told that was very dangerous for a law abiding Canadian citizen to have. Frankly, when that happened, my mouth said to the security personnel that they could have it. I appreciated what they were trying to do, but in my head I was wondering how was this flight safer?

Now if we have hijackers on board we will just have to tackle them with our bare hands. Of course we have other devices which we will not tell them about.

The culture on airplanes has changed. We have had a number of instances of passengers becoming unruly and in some instances seeking to do harm to the plane and all its passengers. Passengers are now taking action. No longer are passengers docile, sitting there and obeying, and hoping the plane may be allowed to land safely. We know that is no longer a certain possibility so passengers are thinking quite differently.

One of the things that we promoted was the bringing on board of armed air marshals. We said that very soon in the aftermath of September 11. Eventually the government caught up with it and this is now being done.

We are talking about Bill C-49, the budget implementation bill, and this really disturbs me. The federal government wants to put greater security enhancements for air travel but it is proposing to ding the passengers for that cost.

There would be a new $12 or $24 tax depending on the destination and other different factors that are built into the bill. As an aside, let us proudly announce to Canadians that it includes the GST. The actual bill reads that the amount of the tax would be $11.22 but when the GST is added to this security tax, it would come to $12. The announced $12 or $24 would actually include the GST. Let us congratulate the government for doing that at least. It is about the most I can say.

However, it is a wrong decision for aircraft security to tax only people who are flying. By far the most people who were killed on September 11 were not in airplanes. There were a number of them in the airplanes themselves that went down on that fateful day but most of the people who died in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not in airplanes. It is in the public interest to have air security.

It is a wrongheaded idea for the government to target a tax with a fixed rate to provide for this air security. First, it does not distribute the price to those who are actually benefiting from it, and second, it is a tremendous disincentive to fly. This tax would have a great impact on our aircraft companies which are already suffering in these tough economic times and added security risks.

I will use the example of travelling between Edmonton and Calgary. If one drives within the speed limit, and of course I always do, this is about a three hour trip. From the time I leave my house, go to the airport and take the one hour or one hour and a half that I need to go through the security lineups and the check-in lineups because everything is so very slow these days, I could be over halfway to Calgary if I stay in my car and drive.

Now, taxes have been added. The cost has become prohibitive, not because of the cost of providing the service, but rather because of the cost of the taxes that are involved.

It is justifiable, to a degree, to charge air travellers for the cost of running airports and we do not worry about that too much. In the example I gave I picked a typical airfare ticket of approximately $119. In the particular airport I chose, a $100 ticket has now attached to it $150.12 worth of taxes and fees. In other words, the taxes are in excess of the ticket itself. We then add a security fee of $24 and believe it or not, a ticket where the value of the travel was $119, has attached to it $174 of taxes, fees and the security fee. That is a total of 146% of the value of the ticket before taxes. That is atrocious.

Every small community that enjoys travel, and I am thinking of places in Alberta between Grand Prairie and Edmonton, will be included in the fee because these are listed airports. It will add tremendously to the cost to the point where these businesses will not make any money because they will be unable to attract the clientele to use their business.

WestJest put out a press release yesterday. This is a very innovative young airline in our country. I should not do any free advertising for it, but I was on the Internet last night trying to get some stuff out of our national airline, Air Canada. Its website frustrated me to no end. It insisted that before it answered any question, I had to enter an e-mail. When I tried to enter my e-mail, after five or six characters it stopped accepting them. I tried to enter without my e-mail and it said “Sorry, your e-mail is invalid. You have to enter an e-mail”. I said forget it.

In contrast, WestJet has a website which is easy to use. It is the most user friendly site I have ever used. I have used it quite a bit because it is so easy to book a ticket. It has electronic tickets; it is great.

The press release put out by WestJet's CEO, Mr. Beddoe, stated that this boost in the price of airline tickets by $12 for a one way trip and $24 for a two way trip was enough to convince many people that it was better to drive 300 to 400 kilometres than to fly. He said it would be inevitable that many of the small cities that were served by WestJet would probably lose the only air service they had. That is shameful, just because of a tax.

The government, in previous times, used taxes in trying to prevent people from smoking. I talked about this before. The $12.75 cost of cigarettes has $16.69 worth of taxes. That is a tax of 130.9% on the price of the product. The government claims that is sufficient to cause people to stop smoking in some numbers. If a 130.9% tax for cigarettes would cause people to stop smoking, what would a 146% tax on flying do? It would probably stop people from flying and as a result we would end up with less service.

It does not have to be this way. Different airlines have asked that instead of making this a flat fee to simply make it a percentage of the ticket. That would be fair. It would be in proportion to the cost of the product.

The Liberals keep saying that they are in favour of a progressive tax, not the regressive one that taxes the little guy or the poor people inordinately in disproportion. They are doing just that in this particular case.

I would like to mention a few other things. One of the other items that the bill would do is make some income tax amendments. There is one shortcoming that I wish would have been here. During our finance committee hearings we had a number of people make presentations who asked to have the capital tax removed. It is a huge business disincentive. It prevents corporations from settling down in Canada to make this their business home because of this excessive tax. The costing of this would have been manageable within the budget parameters.

Our finance committee recommended it to the finance minister and it was one of the things he chose not to do. The capital tax remains and the disincentive to businesses operating in the country remains. It is a shortcoming of the budget and one I regret. The government should have done a lot better than that.

The bill talks about the ability of apprentice students to deduct from taxable income some amount of the cost of purchasing their tools. This part of the bill is so restrictive that all it does is give the Liberals something to crow about.

I have been a member of parliament for over eight years. There has been a member every session for as long as I can remember who has had a private member's bill to make a mechanic's tools tax deductible. It is a huge expense to mechanics. It is required for them to earn their income, and they are discriminated against because they cannot deduct that expense from their income.

I remember the member for Lakeland having a private member's bill as well as one of the Bloc members. Finally, a Liberal member came up with a bill after some prorogations later. It passed in the House that a mechanic's tools should be tax deductible.

What does the government do? It puts it in the budget but with restrictions. It applies only to apprentice students. Mechanics who are operating from day to day who have finished their apprenticeship training are not eligible. It has a $1,000 deductible. In other words, the first $1,000 is not deductible. It is only the amount of those expenses that exceed $1,000. An apprentice student in training needs to have that deduction on the first $1,000 not just on the amount by which it exceeds $1,000. It is also limited to 5% of income. As soon as apprentices make more than $20,000 a year, which means they are still on the poverty line, then that limit goes up. If, for example, they make $30,000 a year, then they would only be able to claim that amount over $1,500.

In summary, I would like to say that changes that the bill would bring in our income tax and fiscal considerations are woefully inadequate.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen attentively to my hon. colleague across the way. He has been a long time member of the finance committee. I was surprised when he made reference to the fact the bill was proceeding so quickly and that he did not have an opportunity to review it. I know when it gets to committee, he will have another opportunity to look at in more detail, analyze it and, I am sure, make a contribution, as he has in the past.

I would like to make some reference to the comments that he made with respect to the debt and debt repayment. He must at least acknowledge that there has been a $36 billion payment over the last four years. The debt to GDP ratio was 71% when we came to government. Next year it will be below 50%. We have made substantial payments with respect to our debt.

I acknowledge, quite frankly, that we pay an extraordinary amount of money in interest to our debt, so we must continue that debt repayment. In fact, the recent announcement would allow us, in this fiscal year, to put more money against that debt, so I am very happy about that.

The member spent his time talking about what it is that we did not do. Could the hon. member articulate for the House, and for Canadians, what amount he would actually pay down in debt and where he would find that money to pay down the debt? I hope that he would not be cutting programs that amount to millions of dollars when debt repayment requires billions of dollars.

I am looking for some specifics. It is easy to stand and talk about what we are not doing, but it is important to point where this money is coming from and what programs the member would cut to make that greater debt payment that he talks about.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the timing of the bill, all I said was that the bill was about 60 or 70 pages long and that I only had an opportunity to speed-read it once. There must be some things in there that I did not catch, but, yes, I have been sort of geared up to this for most of the time.

With respect to the actual debt, I will acknowledge, and I need to give some encouragement to the government, it could have spent the extra money but it indeed paid down some debt. However, there is a great curiosity here. The debt under the Liberal government, from 1993 to 1997, rose from $508 billion to $583 billion. That is the amount by which it increased. One could say that the Liberals inherited the deficit from the previous Conservative government. It does indeed take time to reduce the deficit and stop borrowing.

Members will recall that in the 1993 campaign we put forward plans for a balanced budget in three years. Eventually the government did it. Our planning proved to be accurate. We looked at the fiscal possibilities and it was possible. All the government did was put out a bunch of rhetoric about all the different areas where it would cut and it made up some that it thought would have the greatest political impact. It was not true. It actually did what we proposed and the world did not crash. There was a lot of panic there.

I would say that the amount by which the debt has been reduced happens to be $36 billion and that, interestingly, is exactly the amount of overpayments into the EI fund.

Some people think that the government has been capable of good fiscal management. However, instead of treating the EI fund fairly as a balanced fund, according to the actuarial requirements, it kept the money. It took $30 billion out of the pension fund of government employees. I would like to know where that money went. How come the debt did not go down another $30 billion on that account?

The government used it for phoney things like firearms registration. It is doubtful that it would have any effect on the reduction of crime at all. There are $3 billion overpayments just counting errors. There was the $1 billion boondoggle in HRDC. It goes on and on. There are indeed areas where good fiscal and prudent management could result in a great deal more money available for debt reduction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on December 10, 2001.

I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his speech yesterday after this bill was introduced. My colleague dubbed the Minister of Finance Mr. Flip-flop. I looked that term up in the dictionary and I find it applies to someone who says one thing one day and the opposite the next.

I am disappointed because last December 10, in bringing down his budget, the Minister of Finance committed to putting all of the foreseeable surplus into the foundations that were going to be set up to get the economy back on its feet. As my colleague said, we are obliged to conclude that the minister has changed his mind; he no longer has any idea how much of a surplus there will be in the budget. He is changing the rules.

As hon. members are aware, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development and infrastructures. My speech will address three elements of this bill: the one setting a security tax for air passengers, the one relating to employment insurance, and the one relating to the $2 billion Canadian strategic infrastructure fund.

I come from what is considered an remote area. As my Canadian Alliance colleague has said, it makes no sense. People living in the regions are finding it harder and harder to travel by air. I think that air service is essential to such communities. It enables people to get from point to point quickly. WIth the imposition of this air security tax, airline ticket prices will make another jump. They have gone up 9.3% since 1993.

At the present time, it costs me about $900 for a round trip between Bagotville and Ottawa. I am now going to have to pay more. Do hon. members think that ordinary people with ordinary incomes will be able to afford it? This tax is anti-region.

What is this government up to? It tells us there will no longer be any competition. We used to have a regional carrier, Air Alma. This small company connected Alma to several other regions of Quebec. It kept going for 23 years but had to shut down before the holidays. It could no longer compete with Air Canada. In my region we are served by Air Nova, a subsidiary of Air Canada.

This measure will kill competition in the Canadian skies, particularly in Quebec. As for small carriers, which could, directly or indirectly, take pride in having a head office in the regions, which were the pride and joy of our regions—like Air Alma back home—we will lose them because of this government, which did not come to their help and will now impose this tax.

In Quebec, 20 airports will be affected by that measure, compared to only 16 in Ontario. Moreover, these are all regional airports. I say that this is an anti-region tax. It is about time the government realized that the regions are fed up.

The government will have to respect our rights. We pay taxes and we also pay to ensure our security and mobility. That mobility must exist in both directions, that is for people coming to the regions and for people travelling from the regions to major centres. It has to exist both ways.

The government will have to be more open-minded. I think that the Minister of Transport did not do his job. He will have to review his position and, finally, allow our regions to develop through this means. This is just a beginning.

I also want to talk about employment insurance. The measure proposed in Bill C-49 to help parents whose children are temporarily hospitalized is wonderful. We have been asking for such a measure for a number of years.

The Minister of Finance should have endorsed the 17 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, which said that a reform of the employment insurance program is really in order. As the Canadian Alliance member said, the employment insurance fund does not belong to the government.

Today, the newspapers reported that the surplus was an astonishing $43 billion. You and I do not pay EI premiums, Mr. Speaker. Most contributors to the fund do not earn more than $39,000—they are average wage earners. They represent companies, SMBs, small SMBs. That is who we are talking about in my riding. These are the people contributing to the fund.

We know that, right now, despite what the Minister of Finance is saying, although he is beginning to get it, we are experiencing an economic downturn in response to the events of September 11 in the United States. Measures are going to have to be taken if we are to get the economy back on its feet.

There was a way this could have been done. It would have been good if the surplus had been used to help our workers. I suggest that, with the huge surplus, they be given a premium holiday. This would not be permanent. It would be temporary and would help get the economy going again. This could have been done. What did the minister do?

That is what is serious. Before the holidays, the government party admitted that the fund was a virtual one. Again, I consulted Le Petit Robert . Something which is virtual is something that does not exist. It is in the imagination. Does this mean that the money in this fund was taken and put somewhere else?

What sort of trickery is this? What would you do tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, if you had a large amount of money set aside for active measures to get the economy back on its feet and were told that actually there was no money, that it was only virtual? You would define criteria to deal with this virtuality.

Today,as the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has pointed out, it is one flip-flop after another when it comes to the forecasts and vision of the Minister of Finance and of this government.

Employment insurance is there for a reason. It belongs to workers and employers. It must be used for them, for their needs and for what they want to do to advance society.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the creation of a separate fund, so that workers and employers will be the ones in charge of it. It belongs to them. I think that this is necessary and we are not going to back down on this issue.

Let us talk about infrastructures and the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund. This is a great victory for the Bloc Quebecois. When the Minister of Finance brought down his budget last December 10, the comments about creating a foundation were that this was a serious matter. Even the auditor general said it made no sense. This was money belonging to everyone, and it was going to be handed over to a corporation made up of friends of the government who would do as they pleased.

I think that they have listened to reason. We said no, parliamentarians need to be answerable for investments made with the taxpayers' money.

We have won a great victory; the government met our expectations. Now the Minister of Finance is saying “There is $2 billion in this fund and it available immediately”. I would be very pleased if this were the case.

I believe I must live in the finest and most beautiful region of Quebec and of Canada, because of all the visits it gets from Liberal ministers. It is incredible, they must really love my region because they come to it so often. We must be such friendly folk, so likeable, that they cannot help but keep thinking about us.

We had a number of visits during the last election campaign. I hardly dared count them because the total was so embarrassing. I said “My goodness, this makes no sense”.

My region was visited by the following ministers among others: Public Works and Government Services, Justice, Finance, Immigration and Industry, and by the President of Treasury Board.

In my region, we have a major project, highway 175. I do not know if hon. members are familiar with it. It is called the Parc des Laurentides highway. At home we have a wildlife preserve. People coming from Quebec City must travel through an extraordinary wildlife preserve before arriving in the Saguenay region, at Laterrière. We have a highway that goes through the Laurentides wildlife preserve and we have a project that was defined by the region.

A number of people say it is after meetings where they were asked what kind of development people wanted so as to be prepared for the third millennium that it was decided they absolutely needed a four lane divided highway in the Parc des Laurentides. The region unanimously supports this project.

Liberal ministers paid quick visits and left. But they did come and say “We will definitely give you the money for your highway, but there is one condition: the Quebec government must make it one of its priorities”. This is what everyone said.

So, we turned to the Quebec government and met Guy Chevrette, whom I want to salute and thank for everything that he has done for Quebec, because he is a friend. This is a man who did a lot for the cause that we are defending, the sovereignty of Quebec, and I salute him.

We went to see the Quebec government and said “This must be included in a memorandum of understanding to show the Government of Canada that we want to go ahead with this project”. So, we went to see Guy Chevrette and also Mme Marois.

This had already begun with Lucien Bouchard, when he was Premier of Quebec and MNA for Jonquière, the riding that I represent at the federal level. At that point, the Quebec government decided to put $260 million on the table. I remind the House that this is a project worth almost $600 million.

They told us “We are contributing $262 million”. Mme Marois approved it immediately, to show that we wanted to move on this. Furthermore, a memorandum of understanding was drafted and sent to the federal government stating “All you have to do is sign; we are ready to move on this”.

This was before Christmas, in September, October and November. The ministers said “We do not have any money” but that they were committed nonetheless. They said “When we do have money, we will do it, because we think it is an important project for your region”. They also said “There will be criteria; it will fall within the criteria of what you have contributed”.

There is at present a program called the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, and this falls within its scope perfectly. Yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister “Who is responsible for infrastructure projects? When will this person sign the agreement on highway 175 in my region?”

There is highway 185 in the Lower St. Lawrence. I remind the House that during the Christmas holidays, there were six deaths on this highway. This is the highway that goes from the Lower St. Lawrence toward Edmundston. There were six deaths. It is an extremely dangerous highway. It is an extension of the Trans-Canada. There is also highway 30.

There are three memoranda of understanding on the table. Why is it that the government cannot start right away? This is the dance of promises, the dance of hesitation and the dance of the unspoken starting all over again. I find it deplorable.

The money is there; the Minister of Finance told us so. But the Deputy Prime Minister said “Wait. I have to establish criteria. I have to draft a bill. I have to say how the program will work and propose this to the Treasury Board”. Enough already. This government needs to stop making promises to people left, right and centre, starting up with its dance of promises over and over and undermining the confidence of those who believe in their projects.

The people in my riding believe in their projects. At the end of February, the mayor of our new large city—we had a municipal amalgamation of six municipalities, creating the large city of Saguenay—will meet with the Prime Minister . He is going to ask him “When are you going to put in some money? Quebec put in money, when are you going to do so?” It is what the folks back home want. I hope that the Prime Minister will meet with him and say “We will put the money in before March 31”.

When Mr. Chevrette asked Quebec's finance minister for more money, he met with all the stakeholders. I know because I was there. The Government of Quebec's ministers invite us to be there when they meet with someone. When the federal Liberal ministers visit our regions, they do not even show any respect for the elected representatives. They do not invite the elected officials of the riding they are visiting. They imply that they have been elected by proxy in regions where they did not win a majority of the votes. Mr. Chevrette invited me and made promises to people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are familiar with the winter works program; I heard about it from my father. This was one of the things my father told us about that used to go on in his day. Winter works were a way of giving the economy a boost when times were tough; it got people working. Road construction is one area in which direct jobs can be created the most rapidly.

Investing $1 billion in roads creates 12,500 direct jobs and an equal number of indirect ones. Imagine what this would mean for my region. We have the highest unemployment rate in Canada, which is not something I am not proud of but there is no denying it. Imagine what this would mean for us; it would practically be the Klondike. It would be a way of countering the exodus of young people, because the equivalent of one busload of them is leaving my region for the major centres. I would like to see the opposite happen. I would like to load up two busloads full of young people from the major centres and bring them to my region.

This is part of what we want to do in our regions. This government comes to our ridings and boasts that it is looking after our resources. In my view, it is taking them away from us. It is using them for its own ends and not making sure that there is some benefit for us.

I call on the Deputy Prime Minister to tell us “Yes, it is true. We are serious. We have the money and we are going to move quickly. We are going to take what is on the table and get the economy going again”. That is what everyone is waiting for in Quebec and in the other provinces of Canada.

I am referring to Quebec but I hear from colleagues in other provinces, and find they have the same problems. Let us not forget that the Minister of Transport for Canada met two years ago with all provincial and territorial ministers of transport. These ministers said “Mr. Minister, our highways are so out of date that we will need a hand from the federal government to get our economy back on its feet and get our highway system back on track”. The Canadian Minister of Transport was presented with an investment plan for $16 billion over the next five years. The Minister of Transport did not have the clout to sell the Minister of Finance on this plan, but now I believe the money is there and I would call upon them to act.

Although people find this comical, if it happens I am going to buy a great big red carpet. I will set it up at the entrance to the Parc des Laurentides, which is in my riding, for the Prime MInister to walk on and I will say “Hooray, this is what we wanted”.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by our colleague on the opposition side of the House.

I have often thought that a worthwhile role for the federal government would be in really improving our national infrastructure in the form of a true Trans-Canada highway, one that would be safe and would be more effective in moving our goods and our people across the country from province to province. The member made mention of this in her speech and talked about the infrastructure program.

I would really like to get a statement from her that implies, even if partially, that there is an advantage to being a Canadian inasmuch as all together we can build this ribbon of highway right across the country, from Atlantic Canada through Quebec and into the rest of the country from thereon west.

I do not know if she is willing to concede that but it is federal money. She seemed to have said that she wanted greater participation in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague. A debate with him in it is always a good one. In Quebec alone, however, we pay $33 billion in federal taxes. I want what is coming to me.

As for the rest, it is up to the western MPs to defend their interests. If one fine day we manage to meet each other half way, that will be great, but I defend what is mine. It is up to him what he does about the rest.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties, as well as the member from Don Valley West, concerning the taking of the division of Bill S-14 scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day, and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on S-14 all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday February 19 at the end of government orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on December 10, 2001, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2001

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague, the member for Jonquière. When she said that she represented the most beautiful riding in Quebec, I am sure that she meant after the riding of Charlevoix. After all, this is Quebec we are talking about.

My colleague referred to the EI fund. We know that there is a phenomenal surplus in the EI fund and that this surplus is generated by revenues from contributions by employees and employers. The federal government does not contribute one cent to the EI fund.

Unfortunately, the federal government is appropriating this money to pay for different programs and to pay down its debt, when we know that it is the workers who contributed to it. This is a tax in disguise that they have taken directly from the workers and that is added to their federal and provincial taxes. It is an indirect tax that workers pay and that is accumulated in the EI fund. The EI fund is for insurance in case they lose their job.

During the election campaign, members toured right across Quebec, as the member for Jonquière mentioned. The Minister of National Revenue, who comes from Charlevoix, visited the North Shore in Charlevoix, to say that the government was mistaken, that the Prime Minister was sorry and that he would fix the situation and give the money back to workers.

As for infrastructure, the same applies. There are highways that need building, such as highways 138 and 389. I think that there needs to be consultations and planning for improved results.

Following the 17 unanimous recommendations from the committee studying EI, following the debate here in the House of Commons, should the government not take the resolutions and follow the recommendations put forward by the Bloc Quebecois? In order to solve this whole problem, there needs to be a fund that is truly independent, managed by those who contribute to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is true that his riding is extremely beautiful. But so is mine.

His question is a very important one. I forgot to say so in my speech and I thank the member for jogging my memory. It is really a form of tax in disguise that the government is imposing on workers right now. This is serious—I do not know if I am allowed say this—because taking money from someone's pocket is stealing. I have said it quietly but I hope that those listening heard me anyway.

It is true that we will need a thorough reform of the employment insurance program, to make it an independent fund managed by those who contribute to it, workers and employers, for their own purposes. This is an insurance.

When we take out insurance, we know the conditions that apply and we know how much we will get. Right now, workers are taking out insurance, but they do not know the conditions that apply, they do not know what will happen to them. They are at the mercy of people who do not put money in the fund. This is an aberration.

This is not the only aberration with this government, but it has a critical impact on regional development. It is workers in our regions who contribute the most. They are among those who pay contributions. It is not high income earners who contribute.

So, the government will have to listen and give credit where credit is due. It will have to give back to workers and employers the money taken from the employment insurance fund, in order to launch structuring projects for Quebec regions.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the discussion seems to be on the EI account, I think it is important to point out a couple of facts.

I am sure the hon. member understands that it was the auditor general who required the EI fund to flow into the consolidated revenue fund because ultimately the government backstops the employment insurance account. If there is a deficit, government revenue will pay those benefits for Canadians. A separate fund would not guarantee that money would be there if and when benefits were needed.

Could the hon. member absolutely guarantee each and every Canadian that when they require benefits and there is a deficit in the fund that they will get those benefits? Who will pay out those benefits? If the government is going to pay out those benefits, the auditor general requires the government to include those moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. We cannot have it both ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, some people have a warped mind. We are not reading the same thing. This is not what the auditor general said. He said that the employment insurance fund should be used for the purpose for which it was established.

That fund was created to provide insurance. Therefore, if someone needs it, he should be able to get it. The auditor general did not say “You have no right to take what belongs to other people”. If he had said that, I would not have believed him. I think that the auditor general is very credible and that he is telling the truth. I do not agree with what the hon. member just said.

Moreover, we always say that there must be a reserve in that fund, for hard times. We are not dreamers. Bloc Quebecois members have both feet on the ground. We always say that there must be a reserve to avoid unfortunate situations in the future, because should the fund not survive if it becomes an independent fund, workers would be adversely affected. We are realistic people and we take reality into consideration.

So, as regards what the hon. member just said, I think he will have to reread the auditor general's report.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.