Andy Scott

[Fredericton High School, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last month during heritage week Fredericton High School held an assembly to mark the week which celebrates our cultural diversity and to learn about our rich history.

Fredericton High School is the largest high school in the British Commonwealth. It wanted to raise a flag for unity. I presented it with a large Canadian flag which had flown over this building and which is now flying proudly among many others in my riding.

I commend the school on its vision for a united Canada and Jack Davies in particular for his initiative in organizing the event. I urge all members of the House to encourage people in their ridings to show their support for the fly a flag for Canada initiative.

On behalf of FHS and in particular the class of 1973, I challenge all high schools in Canada to do the same.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said the first time the member put the question. I draw his attention to the social security review as an example.

There were business, labour, social activists, women's groups, anti-poverty groups and university students. I believe we received 600 briefs from organizations in all parts of Canada. It is probably one of the more comprehensive consultations ever been undertaken in the country.

I simply cannot concur that the government does not consult or that I have not been clear. On many occasions opposition members have challenged the government for consulting too much. I think that answers the question.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the question by the member.

I point out a minor flaw in his preamble in reference to the fact that the government has not been a particularly consultative administration. In question period, although perhaps not coming from the member himself, most of the time the official opposition has challenged that the government consults too much.

My experience as a member of Parliament has been to participate in the social security review which was a significant exercise in consultation. This type of exercise should not be limited to the Prime Minister or to the government. We all have a significant responsibility to consult with our own constituents in terms of the direction the country should take.

In answer to his question, we have had a large number of consultations in Fredericton-York-Sunbury, 14 or 15. We had two consultations on the question of the budget. We had a consultation on health care, two consultations on the social security review and consultations on national defence and national unity following the referendum.

Therefore I challenge the suggestion of the hon. member that the government and this Parliament have not been consultative, quite the contrary. I am quite pleased with the opportunity given to me as a member of Parliament to consult with my constituents and bring their concerns to this place.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill.

The bill authorizes the Minister of Finance as of April 1, 1996 to raise such amounts by way of a loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada as may be required for public works and general purpose. This in essence is the content of Bill C-10. I urge the House to pass the legislation so that regular financing operations for the government may continue.

I will alert you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton East.

Every government must decide where its priorities lie. This government has outlined its priorities in the latest budget. I believe it to be one of the best blueprints for growth and opportunity for the

country since the red book. Traditional Liberal views are what this party is about and Liberalism recognizes that the government plays a part to make sure that the market works well for everyone. The course the government has set leads to equal opportunity, economic equity and national unity, three main themes in the budget speech and in the direction the government is taking.

First, if we look at social reform, the most vulnerable are protected in terms of employment insurance, as we have been assured that the impact of changes will not fall unfairly on workers who are in most need of support. This will ensure that there is equal opportunity for every individual in the country no matter which region they happen to live in.

Who else can make the claim that they represent equal opportunity? The members of the third party certainly cannot. Whether it is the fishery, employment insurance, regional economic development, regardless of what it is, we know where they stand as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned.

The contempt for Atlantic Canadians by the third party was demonstrated by the member for Fraser Valley West who, when asked about commenting that he would run in Nova Scotia in the next election, stated: "I was trying to be nice because I knew it would be in the Atlantic Canadian papers. I did not want to say who the hell would want to run there". This kind of inflammatory divisive statement does nothing to advance the cause of equality in a system for all Canadians.

The announcement of an improvement to Canada's child support system with the particular objective of helping single parents and low income working families is very encouraging. This increased income from families living in poverty has been a particular concern of mine and many of my colleagues since being elected. I am pleased that the government is moving in that direction.

The focus on jobs for youth is good news for New Brunswick and Fredericton-York-Sunbury in particular, as the summer career placement challenge program will double. This is an important change given the number of universities in the area. The emphasis on youth employment is very important and programs such as the youth services corps have served our province and my particular constituency very well.

I welcome our commitment to build on these programs and the invitation to all of us to come up with more creative ideas. For example, we should be considering new ways of creating jobs such as recommending the distribution of work be changed so that the maximum allowable overtime annually by one worker is limited. This would encourage employers to hire more people and benefit the economy by reducing unemployment.

The federal government with the private sector and the provinces could help students pay off their student loans through partnerships whereby the federal contribution could be the pay down on student loans. This would provide students with a lighter debt load and would create jobs for an age group that suffers unusually high rates of unemployment. Also it would contribute to worthwhile projects in all of our communities.

A reaffirmation of our continuing commitment to the medicare system is reflected in the conditions set for the Canada health and social transfer. I am very pleased there is a commitment to establishing stable cash transfers from the federal government which will ensure that we are able to enforce national principles.

Our social policy committee of caucus recommended separating cash from tax point revenues. I am delighted the government is headed in that direction.

Many Canadians disagree with the government's direct approach. They would like to talk about Canadian institutions like the Senate and find ways of improving them. Canadians want their country to do well. They want the various levels of government to be efficient and to fulfil their respective roles. They want the federation to be modernized. That is the direction we are headed in.

I am pleased with the emphasis the government has placed on technology, as Fredericton-York-Sunbury has been identified in many ways as a forward moving, high technology region. The high tech park in Fredericton is well on its way in our community. Our universities are information centres which offer much opportunity for growth, whether it is distance education at UNB or the dissemination of information to seniors through third age centre programs at St. Thomas. When we talk about technology and creating jobs, it is good news for our region.

As for national unity, it is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of concern to all Canadians. It has been the government's position not to beat around the bush, by promising to involve every citizen of this country in the debate. As long as there is talk of yet another referendum in Quebec will, this government will discharge its responsibility in ensuring that everyone is acting above board, that the rules of the game are fair, that the consequences and implications are made clear and that, wherever they live, Canadians can have their say on the future of their country.

Culture is an important component of identity. We are committed to strengthening such programs as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board. A country sharing a vision of itself is a country united.

At an upcoming first ministers' conference, we will have an opportunity to redefine the national economic development goal so as to determine our respective responsibilities as governments. Combined with the governments' commitment to cultural institu-

tions, this approach clearly shows that those in power fully intend to keep our country united, and I commend them for that.

I state again that I believe the budget was a reaffirmation of traditional Liberal values, addressing economic opportunity, social justice and national unity. I hope we can all recognize the importance of an unwavering commitment to this agenda so that we can keep the opportunities it creates alive for ourselves and for our children. I urge all members to support this bill.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for the questions.

The first questions put were: Where are the amendments? What are they going to look like? I am a bit astonished, at this point, that anybody would not know what these amendments are going to be. I have a hard time distinguishing between the bill that is going to be and the bill that is in terms of my speaking on it. We have talked about these amendments so much. We have to fix the gap. We have to fix the divisor. We have to fix the intensity rule. I do not know how much clearer I can be.

As the member is a member on the committee, I think he knows exactly what I am speaking about. We will have an enjoyable three weeks attending to these things.

As far as confidence in whether or not these changes are going to be made, the member will recall how much resistance there was to two-tiered UI in the green book during the social security review. It is gone. The member will recall how much resistance there was to experience rating which is having one's premiums based on the likelihood of one drawing unemployment insurance. I am sure the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup realizes how bad it would be for his region and my region if that were to happen, notwithstanding the fact that the Reform critic on HRD is quoted in a New Brunswick paper this morning as saying that is exactly what we should be doing, restoring this back to original insurance principles, which I can only say would be absolutely devastating to Atlantic Canada, period.

We are going to be delivering the programs that create jobs in the communities to the communities. In my case, there is a human resource development office in Fredericton that will be making the decisions. I am sure that taking these decisions out of Ottawa and larger centres and giving them to the communities is exactly the kind of progress we want. It was suggested during the social security review that we need to bring more flexibility into the system.

A significant number of times during the social security review people came before us and said: "The biggest problem with the program is that you have to be getting income benefits in order to get employment benefits". We have changed that. Now people will be eligible for employment benefits even if they are not drawing income benefits. That is another reason why we cannot support this motion.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time with the hon. member for St. Boniface. My first comments respond to the last couple of interventions from the other side.

There was reference to the social security review and a trip members of the HRD committee made to Bathurst one Saturday afternoon following the social security review. I remind the hon. member for Lévis that at the time many of the representations from Bathurst asked us to convert the measure for eligibility for unemployment insurance from weeks to hours.

It is a very well received change in most corners, business, labour and seasonal workers. I am surprised that recollection fails the hon. member, that he was not aware of how important that change is to the seasonal industries and to our region.

Similarly, another comment was made with regard to the need to defend the interests of the less fortunate in society. I bring to the attention of the members of the Bloc that for those people who would earn less than $26,000, the outcome of the changes even before the amendments that have been promised is an increase of 11 per cent in benefits.

I think it is very important to recognize that while there are things that need to be amended in the bill, which I will speak to, let us not forget that by throwing out the bill, withdrawing the bill, an awful lot of good things will go with it. For that reason I cannot support their motion.

I remind the House what those changes need to be so that the record is clear in terms of some of the commitments that have been made, some of the statements by colleagues particularly from Atlantic Canada and Quebec. We need to fix what has become known as the gap, basically the way benefits are calculated.

As the bill presently reads, that calculation would be done on the basis of the last 14, 16 or 18 consecutive weeks. If you work in a pattern that sees spaces between periods of work all of those spaces would have the effect of decreasing benefits unduly, and that change needs to be made. I look forward to participating in the committee's hearings to make some suggestions as to how that might be done.

The divisor is an instrument that would allow the government to separate the measure of eligibility from the measure of calculation of benefits. That can be a good thing if it is used to allow people easier access to unemployment insurance in some instances while at the same time protecting the system from the possibility that some people would assume that access is their ultimate objective.

We have to be careful to make sure the divisor is not so great as to have a negative impact on the rate of benefits as a result of those calculations. It is very important that be attended to. Originally the discussion was around a divisor of 20. That would mean that if someone were eligible for unemployment insurance with what would be the hourly equivalent of 12 weeks of work, that would be divided by 20 and the result would be a very low rate of benefits. However, if the divisor were small enough-I will be participating in the discussion with the committee on that as well-it could be a helpful tool to allow people easier access to the system.

The final point is the intensity rule. It is very important to recognize the difference of the intensity rule as it is applied to people with low incomes as against the intensity rule as it is applied to people with high incomes.

In order to explain this it is necessary to understand the two principal objectives of the new employment insurance program. The first objective is to insure people against the loss of work or income replacement in the case of loss of work. The second objective is to offer income support or an income supplement in various areas where people simply cannot put together enough work, time or wages to sustain a family over the course of an entire year. Those two objectives are fundamental to unemployment insurance.

The income supplement objective has been hijacked by many people who apply the rules which allow the income supplement at very high income levels. People who are making $60,000 and $70,000 are the exception. I would want to be accused of using those exceptions to beat up on people who are blameless. However, there are people who have taken the annual supplement component of the UI program and who are using it to give themselves supplements. Very often they are not individuals. Very often they are businesses. Very often they are governments and large organizations which use that possibility to supplement incomes which do not require a supplement.

It is very important to understand the two functions of the unemployment insurance program. We can challenge the annual use of the system by people with high incomes. I doubt there are many Canadians who would disagree with that sentiment.

Despite the fact there are changes which need to be made, and I have every confidence they will be made, I want the House to know why it would be wrong to withdraw the bill at this time. There are many things in the bill which will help the people who need help, whether in the Atlantic region, in Quebec or any place with seasonal industries such as tourism, the resource area or in construction.

Before I get into that subject I thank the former minister, the present minister, the HRD committee and its members from all sides of the House. It has been a very vigorous debate, one which has flushed out beyond most people's expectations. In my constituency we have had forums going back almost two years on the issue. It is very important to Atlantic Canada. It is very important to my riding. I am thankful that so many people in my constituency have been engaged in the debate.

What are the good things in the bill we cannot afford to withdraw? The shift from weeks to hours; anyone familiar with seasonal industries will realize that when those industries work they work long hours. Consequently if a person works 70 hours a week, in this system that is worth two weeks. That is very important.

It is important that everyone recognize that to withdraw the bill would be to withdraw a provision which would allow 270,000 people three more weeks. On average in Atlantic Canada it would mean two more weeks. It would also make the system available to half a million Canadians who cannot now get into the system.

On the low income protection, if a person makes less than $26,000, with the new legislation they could claim up to 80 per cent. It is very important to recognize that provision would be gone with the withdrawal of the bill.

The high income clawback is a good thing. It takes out of the system all of those people who are making large amounts of money. They are the exception, but they are there. There are people working year round at minimum wage, paying premiums so the money can be given over to people making much more money on an annual basis. I believe that is wrong.

The employment provisions contained in the bill will take 39 programs to 5 and make them much more flexible. They will be administered by local communities which is another improvement.

Finally, the macro impact of this change in our region is significant, even though I support many of the provisions. Having said that, we have a transition fund which will allow us to make the adjustment. Generally speaking, it would be a genuine shame, subject to the amendments that I talked about, for our region to have this bill withdrawn.

[Measurand Inc., February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Measurand Inc., a company from my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury that has been awarded a contract for a research and development project in strategic areas which will contribute to the advancement of new and enhanced space technology in Canada. The contract is part of the Space Technology Atlantic Initiative, a program jointly funded by the Canadian Space Agency and New Brunswick Canada Co-Operation Agreement on Economic Development.

Once again Fredericton is leading the way in the new economy. Measurand will be developing a high tech sensor actuator system that has numerous and varied space and terrestrial applications including tele-operations, robotics, smart structures, container level measurement and many others.

I wish Measurand the best of luck. With success stories in the high tech industry like Measurand, Fredericton, New Brunswick is fast becoming the silicon valley of the east.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the issue of Quebec's veto over amendments to the Canadian Constitution and why we in this House should finally recognize that reality.

During the referendum campaign many Canadians were concerned about a possible yes vote but recognized the right of Quebecers to determine their own destiny.

Unfortunately, some on the yes side in the campaign characterized this respect of the Quebecois right to self-determination as ambivalence. When the rhetoric about indifference on the part of the rest of Canada escalated, Canadians were pushed into proving their commitment to a united Canada, a commitment I might add, that I never believed to be in question.

This expression is part of a larger package that the Prime Minister has put forward in the form of a resolution. It is a resolution that will recognize Quebec's distinct society. It offers a veto to Quebec as well as to other regions of the country over constitutional amendments and clarifies the roles and responsibilities with respect to labour force training and to the delivery of programs.

The Prime Minister is right to make this commitment and it is timely because Canada is changing. It was changing before the referendum, it was changing during the referendum and it will continue to change. This is natural. We all need to realize that there cannot always be a sense of finality on every issue. A country lives, changes and evolves. This is natural and progressive, if sometimes inconvenient.

In this case it is not wise to look for a specific date when this debate will be resolved. It will not, nor should it be. It is a healthy, modern and necessary progression that will continue over time.

This perspective is markedly different from those of the official opposition and the third party. Their obvious political agenda is to continue to raise the stakes and make demands within confining time frames to advance their own interests at the expense of our country. This disappoints me.

We on this side are driven by a genuine concern for Canada. I believe that it is testimony to our strength as a nation that we can move forward with the determination that we do in the face of these two parties, one that wants out of Canada and one that is ambivalent about our united country.

As part of the larger package, formal recognition of Quebec's distinct society is long overdue. We are expressing a characteristic of Canada that is on the positive side of the ledger as well as a historical fact. Canada is unique internationally in its multicultural nature, historic recognition of our aboriginal underpinnings and of our more recent two founding nations. We also have the capacity to constantly evolve through the different phases of these relationships.

Quebec's right to a veto has long been supported by this party. We have gone even further in offering a similar veto to the Atlantic region, Ontario, the west, and have recently offered a veto to the province of B.C. These regional vetoes are a reflection of this government's commitment to reach a broad consensus on issues concerning the Constitution.

In offering B.C. a veto, the Prime Minister has taken a leadership role in promoting flexibility and accountability in government. Since it was clear that B.C. was feeling misunderstood and unappreciated, the Prime Minister acted quickly and listened to its concerns. This is an important step in our evolution in recognizing this right as a fact just as Quebec's distinct society is a fact.

The leader of the third party on the other hand did not take advantage of an opportunity to propose a veto in committee. He did not even once in the House call for a veto for British Columbia. Those who view the third party as representatives of the west's interests may want to look at this obvious neglect to perhaps recognize that it is the governing party and our caucus that is listening and responding to every region in the country. I would like to congratulate my colleagues from B.C. who effectively represented their constituents and enabled this important amendment to be made to the original proposal.

There are some who say that the government has not gone far enough in passing a resolution. What they fail to point out is the very real impact several resolutions have had in the past, such as the official languages resolution of 1968, the resolution reaffirming linguistic duality in 1973, and the resolution regarding the language of work in the federal public service.

Coming from New Brunswick I am very aware of the impact of all these resolutions, not only on the country but also on how the country operates inside my province. Those that would have us believe that Ottawa is simply throwing Quebec a bone but avoiding dealing with the issue with any degree of seriousness have questionable motives themselves.

Of course the Bloc members will not accept the seriousness of the resolution because in admitting that Canada can work they make themselves redundant. It is all too easy to point a finger at Ottawa for not doing enough when in fact it is offering exactly those changes that Quebec has rightfully sought in the past.

Is the attitude of Bloc members one that really takes Quebec's interest to heart, the interests of all Quebecers regardless of what language they speak? I think we know the answer to that question.

Canada is not made up only of Ottawa and Quebec. In looking beyond Quebec there are a number of different realities that must be reconciled. In the eastern provinces we find loyal strongholds in regions rich with history. In the western provinces we find many new Canadians with rich multicultural influences and traditions. The ability to bring these regions together is the challenge, a challenge to which I am certain we will be able to rise.

For all of those who are narrowly defining regional interests I ask simply: What region will be better off with a fractured country? There is no region in Canada that will benefit from the secession of Quebec. It is obvious which political party will benefit and that is what disappoints me.

This debate must continue. The Prime Minister has opened the door for Canadians to speak to and of their country, not in a highly structured and regimented way but to simply open the door to opportunity much in the same way as the rally did on October 27.

We must recognize that we need to move forward and not become mired in the past. Canada building should be our focus, not tearing Canada apart. This debate is about values, the values of fairness and acceptance that are integral to the successful resolution of the question.

I would like to mention a forum that was held in my riding two Sundays ago. The topic of discussion was Canadian unity. Many individuals took the time to come and express their views on the subject. I want to commend everyone who helped make it happen and mention a few of their suggestions.

The idea of generating more dialogue among Canadians inside and outside Quebec was brought out often, as well as having our educational system teach more about each other's histories and traditions. One individual felt that information is too filtered by the media and by politicians and someone else mentioned the need for everyone to better appreciate our economic interdependence.

I would like to thank the member for Brome-Missisquoi who took the time to visit Fredericton and participate in this public forum. His insights were very useful to the debate and to our understanding. This forum was a logical progression from the rally that was held in Montreal, a rally that was attended by hundreds of constituents from my riding who were willing to drive in a bus for 10 hours each way to express their desire that Quebec stay in Canada.

When I was asked to speak in the House in the first week on this issue I felt that I should hear from my constituents on that weekend first before attempting to express their views. I appreciate their participation and hope I have been able to transmit to the House the level of their commitment to Canada.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to commend the Prime Minister on his integrity and his broad Canadian vision. I am not surprised that he has acted quickly on this issue. I support him fully. I feel more Canadian because we have expressed a reality that makes Canada a great country. It is my great pleasure to support the resolution and I close by paraphrasing Lord Acton: "A state which is incompetent to satisfy difference condemns itself". It is not our intention to condemn but to construct.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-111 to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

While the proposals to reform the UI system contained in this bill will impact on all parts of Canada, it is widely recognized that the new system will have a significant impact in the Atlantic provinces.

By referring the bill to the standing committee, members of the House and many other concerned Canadians will have a full opportunity to review and discuss the legislation. For my part, I believe it is important that the special needs of Atlantic Canada be considered and understood and that the capacity of the measures presented in the bill to meet these special needs be understood. The standing committee will offer the appropriate forum to do that.

I am convinced that as Canadians better understand the new approaches being presented and the special employment generating measures contained in the bill, they will recognize that there are substantial advantages to be gained from this legislation, both individually and collectively, for our region. At the same time, the committee offers an opportunity to bring all our unique perspective to this debate to make sure that these changes look after the interests of Atlantic Canada and Atlantic Canadian workers.

In moving the new employment insurance act from the House to the standing committee, and in considering how we can best serve the needs of Canadians, there are a number of points that should be kept in mind by our colleagues in the House, by the members of the committee and by all concerned Canadians affected by this legislation.

To begin with, we should recognize the important role the Minister of Human Resources Development has had in developing this comprehensive new program. In particular, he should be congratulated for having already given Atlantic Canadians his full attention in these matters. He has taken the time to meet with us in the Atlantic Canada caucus. He has met with the provincial premiers. He has met with business and labour leaders from Atlantic Canada. He has met with many others who have asked to have their special needs considered.

There has been no shortage of consultation between Atlantic Canadians and the minister and his officials as they grappled with this very complex situation. I can only say that the minister's office has replaced my wife's phone number on my speed dial as the first call that I make for the last three weeks.

The minister has consistently shown a personal willingness to consider various and often directly conflicting points of view with an open mind and has demonstrated a capacity to understand and integrate them. It is my personal impression that he has shown a great deal of integrity in dealing with these issues and that he realizes there is a special concern for unemployed people in Atlantic Canada.

I would like to identify some of the very specific benefits of the new EI bill. First, the new bill will give broader coverage. According to the department as many as 500,000 more people will have access to employment insurance than had access to unemployment insurance. That is a huge improvement that comes as a result of the shift from weeks of work to hours of work as the measure to establish eligibility for benefits.

Atlantic Canadians have a short season where people can find large numbers of hours of work. Therefore, it is very important that all of those hours receive credit when establishing eligibility for benefits. By using hours rather than weeks, all of those hours will count in establishing the minimum requirement for benefits and also in establishing the duration of benefits. That is a big improvement.

We also have low income protection so that those people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find enough work in the course of a year to establish an income that would sustain a family can get relief. This new legislation on the threshold of the child tax credit offers the opportunity for up to 80 per cent in replacement income which is another significant improvement over the unemployment insurance program of the past.

Also, there is going to be a clawback on the high income side. I am very supportive of this. Employment insurance is designed to meet two needs, to serve two purposes. First, if one loses a job, employment insurance is designed to give income while one seeks employment. A second function is performed by employment insurance. It sustains a workforce in many communities-and many of them are in Atlantic Canada-where there is not sufficient income through employment to keep a family year round. Through the employment insurance program incomes have been supplemented to keep that labour force in place and keep those communities alive.

The argument for income supplements cannot be applied to high incomes. It does not serve that function. Therefore I am very supportive of a graduated clawback and I am pleased to see it in the new bill.

The employment benefits that are unrelated to the income benefits of which there will be five replacing 39 will be locally administered. The department in Ottawa will not be deciding on a whole series of programs, budgeting for those programs and then sending the package, in my case, to the local office in Fredericton. Rather it will be determined what are the criteria for those five programs and the local office can decide which of those five programs makes the most sense in my community and in my region. That is a big improvement. It will mean a lot more flexibility for the local office.

Another important point is that by distinguishing between eligibility for income benefits and eligibility for employment related benefits, many people who were ineligible for benefits in the past will be eligible if they have been on employment insurance over the last three years or the last five years in the case of maternity benefits. This is a big improvement.

In the past people would exhaust their benefits while they were in a training program, or in some other kind of a program and they would no longer be eligible. Now they will be eligible for the duration of that program.

In many cases the workers exhaust their benefits before their seasonal jobs start again. If someone is working in a park, in the woods or in a fish plant and draws a certain duration of benefits those benefits are exhausted but the fish plant does not open again for three weeks, four weeks and in some case ten weeks. Those people will now be eligible for the employment benefits in the package. They will have the opportunity to receive other kinds of programs that will allow them to supplement their incomes and therefore not have to go on income assistance.

Probably most important is that all members will have the opportunity to speak to additional improvements to this legislation. That is why I believe it is going to committee before second reading, so we can express to the committee the needs of Atlantic Canadians. I would like to speak specifically to the question of consecutive weeks as the method by which the rate of benefit is calculated.

I would make the suggestion to the committee when the bill gets there that all the weeks where work is involved should be considered when establishing the rate or the income level against which the benefit should apply. It is very important to recognize that in Atlantic Canada very often work comes in pieces. There are spaces in between those pieces of work. People could work in the spring, have the summer off and then work again in the fall. All of that work should be considered. Otherwise many people will be paying premiums on employment that will not be factored in when calculating income to establish benefits. That is very important. I hope the committee will be sensitive to this issue. I understand the minister made reference to it when introducing the bill. I see that as a good sign. I hope the committee will take it under consideration and make that improvement in the bill.

[Committees Of The House, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of reference received from the House dated November 8, 1995, I have the honour to report on behalf of the chairman, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, Bill C-95, an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and repeal certain acts, with amendments.

Your committee referred the bill to a subcommittee. According to the standing committee's resolution dated November 7, 1995, and in anticipation of the order of the House, the report from the subcommittee was deemed adopted as the seventh report from the standing committee during yesterday's meeting.

Copies of the relevant minutes of proceedings and evidence of the subcommittee and the standing committee are also tabled.