Antoine Dubé

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions since the beginning of this debate, I have had the opportunity to speak after the hon. member for Malpeque when he had the chance or misfortune of speaking after the hon. member for Mercier. I listened to what he had to say.

I believe the member for Malpeque has a reading and concentration problem. It is truly incredible to hear him say that what the member for Mercier proposes will be terrible, that it will take us back to the previously existing situation, when we were losing a billion dollars because people voluntarily quit their jobs.

The member has a right to say what he thinks, but if he had listened carefully, if he had concentrated all his attention to the debate instead of being distracted by his parliamentary secretary, perhaps he would have understood that the member for Mercier was essentially stressing the fact that, in the March 26 letter he wrote at the time, his leader, the current Prime Minister, voiced his outrage at the Conservative government's plan to recognize fewer valid reasons for voluntarily leaving a job, including sexual harassment and harassment or abuse at any management level.

The member forgot about that, saying-and this is what is so incredible-that these are words and things of the past. The member is effectively telling his leader that the kind of commitment he made on March 26, 1993 is a thing of the past, that it is not proper. I hope the Prime Minister is listening and will remember the comments of the member for Malpeque.

This is incredible. We are essentially repeating today the views expressed by the current Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. Now, a member of his party is telling him that these views do not make sense, that Canadians would not accept them. But the Prime Minister was elected to this House on the basis of his views, as were the other members here, including the member for Malpeque. It is difficult to believe what we hear these days, given what happened with the GST. The Prime Minister keeps referring to his red book, but he has a tendency to not recognize comments he made in the past, such as when he talked about scrapping the GST.

However, in this case, he cannot claim not to have made these comments about UI reform. They are in a letter bearing his signature. I have a copy of it, and I could table it if the House gave its consent. But I am sure that it is not necessary. The Prime Minister surely remembers this letter, which he wrote when he was Leader of the Opposition.

In the same vein, the hon. member for Malpeque adds that opposition members only propose negative things. They have a negative point of view. Let me remind the member of a small paragraph in a letter written by the current Prime Minister:

I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern regarding this attack against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent superficial amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures-

Unfair. These measures were unfair three years ago, but they have now become fair. This is a simple reminder to the member for Malpeque.

The most recent figures on unemployment, which were released this morning, tell us that the unemployment rate has gone up in Canada, including in Quebec. The national rate is currently 9.4 per cent, compared to 9.3 per cent last month. In Quebec, the rate went from 10.9 per cent last month to 11.1 per cent now. Unemployment is on the rise.

And if unemployment is on the rise, it means there will be more jobless and more unemployment insurance claims. But what does the government want to do? It wants to reduce unemployment insurance benefits. Is this a satisfactory solution? It makes no sense at all. They should in fact be increased, accessibility improved.

In her amendment, the member for Mercier proposes to go back to an earlier system predating even the Conservative proposal, because the Liberals did not think it was fair at the time. It is normal to ask for something. As things stand now, with the system changing from weeks to hours, people will be forced to hold down more than one job in order to reach the required number of hours. They will have two part time jobs. We will then see impossible situations where an employee with two part time jobs will be told by one of his employers: "I would like you to work a few more hours for me. I need you". If he agrees, he loses the other job. It becomes a voluntary separation. Consequently his future rights to benefits will suffer.

Does the member find this normal? When we told him this in committee, I recall that he shook his head. We raised another objection. Someone receiving benefits and subsequently incarcerated, for one reason or another that is not important, obviously loses his benefits while he is in jail. But when he gets out of jail, his rights have not suffered, because he picks up where he left off and is entitled to receive UI benefits, unlike the fellow who left one of his two McJobs. Is that fair?

I appeal to hon. members across the way. Is that fair? That someone just out of jail has more rights than someone forced to leave a job by one of his two employers. The member for Malpeque is not reading the amendments or his bill properly.

That is why we would have liked more time. I am certain the majority of the members opposite have not read all 190 clauses in this bill. If they were to read them carefully, they would be against them, as we are. I invite them to reread the Prime Minister's letter of March 26, 1993. Then they would understand.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I liked the speech made by my colleague from Malpeque, because it really spurs me on. Being gagged can lead to yawning and dozing off, but the previous speaker really gets us cracking, because for someone who was disappointed by the arguments heard so far he really used some very poor counterarguments. Let us dwell a little on what he said.

First of all, I have been a member of the human resources development committee ever since the Liberal Party was elected, along with the hon. member for Mercier and also my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the last three speakers. Two years and a half ago, we travelled throughout the country and the hon. member for Malpeque says that he listened carefully to the views expressed during the last phase, that is consideration of the bill since it was introduced in the House. Let us see what he has to say. We ask for clause 3 to be deleted, because we think that it does not provide for a better role for the commission to play than it has now. So, we want clause 3 to be deleted.

Why? Here is the first argument about clause 3. What does the clause say?

(1)The Commission shall monitor and assess how individuals, communities and the economy are adjusting-

We wanted to know the real impact of the legislation, not the way people are adjusting to it, because that is the whole issue here. The main hypothesis behind the reform proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development is that individuals should adjust to the cuts and the commission will assess how they are adjusting. But what we wanted to find out is the real impact these cuts have on the regional and local economy. This is outside the mandate of the commission.

The hon. member says he is disappointed by our amendments. For the member's information and others' as well, let me point out that, at report stage, the opposition cannot move amendments that can incur expenditures. This means that, under the parliamentary rules presently in force, this type of amendment must be proposed by the government in order to be admissible.

The best evidence of this is the fact that, in committee, three members proposed amendments; I do not remember the name of their ridings, but they proposed three amendments. Because they implied financial changes, these amendments could not be proposed during clause by clause consideration of the bill; they had to be submitted in this House, by the government.

One must be careful before criticizing the opposition's behaviour. One must understand the rules. The opposition respects the rules. This is why we did not propose amendments that would have had financial implications. If it had been possible for us to do so, we would have proposed several amendments of this type. For example, there is the $2 billion cut resulting from the reform. We would have seen to it that the reform had no impact at all, in other words that there would have been no $2 billion cut. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not understand that.

There is also the consequence of reducing maximum insurable earnings. There are people, employees as well as businesses, who will benefit from this $900 million gift, since there is, by lowering

insurable earnings from $42,430 to $39,000, a loss of $900 million to the government. It must be said, though, that the target group used to benefit in the past from $200 million in unemployment insurance benefits.

For the time I have left, I will dwell on a significant point raised by the hon. member. Speaking of rights of appeal, it is said that Part II on employment services has a collective rather than an individual scope. I believe this is misunderstanding the problem. It must be remembered that the unemployment insurance claimants who will be affected are individuals.

I will give you an example of what exists presently in employment services. We, in the opposition, have deplored it. We spoke at length about it in committee, and I believe the member was there. We said that in the program SEA, which helps people set up their own businesses, there is presently no right of appeal. I will give you a concrete example in my riding.

We have two employment centres in my riding, two centres which presently administer this program, which, by the way, was put in the new bill, under the same form. They changed its name, but it is essentially the same program. In the past, two people who knew each other decided to set up a business together. One went to one employment centre and the other went to the other for himself because the service is provided on an individual basis, even though they wanted to start a new company together. The first one's application was accepted while the other's was rejected. When the latter learned it, he mentioned to the employment service officer that his friend's application had been accepted, but the answer he got was that the decisions concerning that part of the program cannot be appealed.

The hon. member for Malpeque argues that it is collective and so on. Those are workers who, after losing their job, go to an employment centre to receive their benefits. After unsuccessfully looking for a job, they come to the conclusion that it is difficult for them because of their age or for other reasons. They then think of starting a company, so they devise a business plan that allows them to get benefits for a longer period.

After that, there is an assessment by a public servant or a committee but the decision cannot be appealed. In this specific case that occurred in my riding, the individuals could not even be heard. The decision was made by a committee without the individuals being able to argue before the committee.

If there is one thing I want as a Quebecer and I wish for all Canadians, it is that in all government programs, a person never be subjected to a decision made by one person or even by a committee without having the right to appeal. I think that by denying that right of appeal in Part II of the bill, the government is not showing the will to improve the system for the people.

Why are the appeal procedures important? According to the unemployment action groups, when a case goes to arbitration,

three out of four decisions are in favour of the recipient. Let me repeat something that can never be said often enough: this bill is intended to seek out UI cheaters. As the Minister of Human Resources Development told the committee the other day, "It is dreadful".

The figures the opposition has asked for and obtained tell us that, in 1991-92, 130,000 people were found guilty of defrauding the system in Canada, while the figure for 1995-96 was 116,000. That means there was a decrease of 14,000. This is not a growing problem, but a lessening one. What premise is the new unemployment insurance reform based on? Certqinly not on this.

Let us look at recovery. Of the $272 million recovered in 1995-1996, that is last year, only $93 million were recovered from individual cheaters. The remaining $179 million were due to honest mistakes on the part of claimants or of the Human Resources Development Department. Mistakes.

While it is still possible, we should change the spirit of the reform to make it not a hunt for so-called cheaters or potential cheaters, but a hunt for mistakes and delays.

This brings to mind the guaranteed income dupplement paid to some seniors. We know that there have been delays again this year. Last Friday, the minister apologized for the problems caused by this situation. Meanwhile, the government reduces the number of employment centres and increases the number of computer terminals.

Our goal should be to eliminate errors, to improve the system so that people do not get penalized. I also believe that we should go back five or six years and remedy to errors done by the Department of Human Resources Development in three cases out of four by giving refunds.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have let the hon. member speak have his say, but he mentioned that we, the members of the opposition, had not made a positive contribution to the work of the committee and that we had not proposed any amendment. I wish to get things straight. We proposed some 15 amendments, which were all rejected except the amendment I proposed, which dealt with a single word.

I wanted to get things straight in order to avoid leaving the impression-

[Employment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I called last week the week of the gag. We have just be notified that there will be a time limiting motion once again, to be announced Monday. So, here we are headed for a second week of the gag.

This current week, however, has been the week of problems relating to keeping or not keeping one's word. Without going into great length, I would like to take a few seconds to read certain paragraphs of a letter by the present Prime Minister. As I have already read it out in the House, I will not read it all, but some parts of this letter, written to the Mouvement Action-Chômage when he was Leader of the Opposition, merit rereading.

On March 26, 1993, he wrote as follows:

Thank you for your fax indicating your opposition to the legislative measures taken by the government to change unemployment insurance.

You have my assurance that the Liberal Party shares your concerns about this attack on the unemployed, and we also do not believe that the recent superficial amendments change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures in any way.

Skipping several paragraphs, he goes on to say in the second-last paragraph:

Liberals are appalled by these measures. By reducing benefits and penalising even more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs, the government shows it cares very little about the victims of the current economic crisis. Instead of addressing the problem at its core, the government picks on the unemployed. Besides, these measures will have disturbing consequences because they will discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable labour conditions.

Finally, rest assured that Liberals will continue to demand that the government withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your position on this issue.

Since then, he has heard plenty of "positions on this issue".

It started in the human resources development committee. During six weeks of conducting hearings across the country, we heard a good many positions. We also witnessed a good many demonstrations. Let me only recall what happened in Montreal. I do not say that I approve, but at some point, people get fed up. We have said this repeatedly. Last week, they wanted to gag us, now they want to do it again. It will not work. We will be heard.

In summary, after the hearings held by the committee, the Liberals decided to wait until after the referendum in Quebec. They waited all that time. Then in December, after the referendum, they came out with a special step called a pre-study, they eliminated second reading, supposedly to give the committee more time. What was done in committee? It was just before the holidays, not a proper time to look at a bill. Not only that, people did not have much time to present submissions. There were many submissions. Therefore, the committee started examining them.

However, the government came up with the most brilliant idea. It decided to have a speech from the throne. It wanted to make something new out of old stuff. It wanted to reintroduce, and in fact did reintroduce some ten bills, under new numbers. Bill C-12 is the same as Bill C-111, as it was called before. So, during that time, we waited again, because the throne speech put an end to the session and the committee's proceedings. We resumed work hurriedly after the throne speech.

Last week, the committee began clause by clause study. We got as far as clause 2. The government wanted to limit study of each clause to five minutes. In the group of motions dealing with clause 2, we ask that the whole clause be deleted. What is in that clause? All the definitions. Take the first one for example: "affidavit". It is an addition, it did not exist before and people did not know exactly what it meant.

But there is worse than that; because I have very little time, I will read a clause we wanted to examine more thoroughly. At the bottom of page 3, it says:

(3) A document or other communication under this Act or the regulations may be in electronic form.

We are talking about electronics. But what did we hear this morning? For the second year in a row, people are waiting for old age security payments. Last year, about 50,000 people have seen their payments delayed. The minister admitted it this morning. This year, the same thing happened again. Now they would like the unemployment insurance reform to bring a similar system.

Frankly, I think we were right to voice our concerns in committee. For the second time, the government gagged the committee. Its imposed time allocation on a very important bill to bring it back to the House as quickly as possible. Now, we were just told that after a day and half of debate, there will be time allocation, the same system used in the case of the rail strike. This government is going to be known as the gag government, because there are no precedents, except once under the Conservatives. Before them, this had never happened in the history of Parliament.

There is another clause I would like to talk about and on which we had proposed an amendment, which is to strike the two clauses denying people the opportunity to appeal decisions relating to the unemployment insurance bill. We find that is very important.

As an example, so that our listeners can understand, we wanted to correct the bill so that anyone could challenge a government decision under any program. Why did we want to do that? It is because the Mouvement action-chômage, in Quebec city, among others, told me that, when a decision of the unemployment insurance commission was challenged, the claimant was found to be right in 75 per cent of cases, and the government itself admits that.

I will show the House a report we asked for in which the minister makes alarmist comments about the increase in fraud cases. So what does the report say? In 1991-92, 130,081 people were charged with and convicted of unemployment insurance fraud. By 1995-96, that figure had fallen to 116,603.

Some may say: "Wow, that is a lot of people". True, that is a lot of people, but the figure applies to all of Canada. The total is not so high considering that some 3 million benefit claims are submitted in a year-which does not mean 3 million unemployed. Some claims may be for a short period only. Out of a total of 3 million, the number of fraudulent claims amounts to less than 6 per cent. The auditor general has already determined that there are always cases of fraud in any government program, regardless of what segment of the population it is intended for.

What is happening? We could have recovered $272 million last year. In cases of fraud, however, only $93.4 million were recovered. The remaining $179 million was due to honest mistakes, occasionally by recipients but, three times out of four, by the unemployment insurance commission.

This explodes the myth of fraud, which is, in fact, the basis for this reform. They want stricter controls and increased mechanisms.

They want better control of measures. Why? To catch more people because unemployed Canadians are seen as potential cheats.

We object to this kind of approach, because we know that, in many cases, UI benefits keep people from starving after they lose their jobs.

There is something else we find quite extraordinary and revolting. I often tell this story to help people understand. Everyone knows the story of Robin Hood. I am not saying he was right, but he used to take from the rich to give to the poor. But what is the Liberal government doing by lowering the contributory earnings ceiling from $43,380 to $39,000? It is saving $900 million. It is giving a present to the better off in our society. I am not saying that people making $40,000 are rich. The government is giving a present to business, to large corporations. But what is it doing to compensate for this $900 million? It is collecting this $900 million from those working less than 15 hours a week, who had not been paying UI premiums. And 70 per cent of those working less than 15 hours a week are women and young people. This is unacceptable.

By calculating benefits based on the number of hours rather than the number of weeks, the government is heating up the competition for McJobs. People who want to qualify for benefits will apply left and right to take someone else's job.

This bill is unfair. It is not an employment insurance bill, as it ensures that fewer people will qualify for benefits, thus hurting the most disadvantaged in our society. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is spending all its energy fighting this bill to have it withdrawn by the government.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to take every precaution, but if it still creates a problem, I withdraw my words if that is necessary.

Nevertheless, even after the amendments, I question the members opposite because, last week, we had 40 hours of debate in committee, three quarters of which concerned the motion on time allocation we opposed. We opposed it because we wanted to use all

our time to study this important bill. I recall especially clause 2, which contains the definitions.

To prove the merit of our point of view, I pointed out that a number of clauses required more than five minutes just to read them. I did not go very far. I chose clause 5 to make the simple point that it took over five minutes to read it. In fact, it took me 12 minutes to read clause 5. So we fought over this and that was the end of it.

This is the second time in this legislature, under this Liberal government, that the work of a committee has been gagged. Here we are at report stage. Unfortunately, we were told that the opposition was not making any amendments. Out of the considerable number of small amendments we submitted-I just want to point this out-, only one-I know because it was mine-on "community agency" was agreed to, despite all the hours we spent trying to respond to the minister's invitation to present amendments. All the amendments by the member for Mercier and the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup were defeated.

Obviously, all the government amendments were accepted. My amendment concerned only two words. The three amendments presented by the Liberals have a budget impact; we are told that there are $365 million in improvements. I say, so much the better. However, a half measure is a compromise. Something that is unacceptable is unacceptable.

Just to make a point-you cannot be half pregnant. You are either well and truly pregnant or you are not. When a measure is unacceptable, it is not by improving it somewhat that you make it more acceptable. You just make it a little less bad, that is all.

So this is more or less what we were offered. I also remind the House of what was done last week, concerning another bill, to make the maritimes accept the GST agreement. A $960 million goodie was given to offset GST, in the hope of making the maritimes support the bill.

I could quote speeches of present government members when they were in opposition. There are many of them and I could as well remind them of all those who came before the travelling committee and submitted briefs. I even call on Liberal Party members to ultimately reconsider their project. Since I have only 30 seconds left, it is important to recall the Prime Minister's letter. Please read it again and think about it while there is still time. This is an unfair, regressive and anti-job measure.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was expecting to speak a little later today in this debate. But seeing that our friends across the way, and those next to us, have decided to pass, I shall jump in now.

It is somewhat strange to see the Liberals, now they are in power, adopting an attitude so completely opposite to their attitude when in opposition. Without going over all of them we could say this is unkept promises week.

It would be worthwhile repeating a certain number of points relating to unemployment insurance. First of all, I would like to quote the present Minister of Human Resources Development, during the debate on the Borrowing Authority Act on May 1, 1989. He said: "The point I am trying to make, which many of us will have to look at seriously, is the whole notion of trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden, if they think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance, family allowance, and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must not allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand, the United States, and about other countries and how they do it. This country is very special in how it deals across the board with men and women in every part of the country. There are basic standards, basic programs, universal programs, and programs that allow people to deal with their future with some degree of security". Those are the words of the present Minister of Human Resources Development.

Better yet, I will read from a 1993 letter addressed to the Mouvement Action-Chômage by the present Prime Minister, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time. I think the whole thing needs to be read.

Thank you for your fax indicating your opposition to the legislative measures taken by the government to change unemployment insurance.

You have my assurance that the Liberal Party shares your concerns about this attack on the unemployed, and we also do not believe that the recent superficial amendments change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures in any way.

I shall skip the next paragraph since it only gives statistics. He goes on to say:

In light of the gravity of this crisis, the Liberals have called upon the government-Conservative at the time-to take steps to encourage economic upturn and job creation. Yet, according to the Minister of Finance, he will not only continue the same taxation, monetary and trade policies which have plunged us into this recession, but will also dump on the unemployed under the pretext of reducing expenditures. . . .

Liberals are appalled by these measures. By reducing benefits and penalising even more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs, the government shows it cares very little about the victims of the current economic crisis. Instead of addressing the problem at its core, the government picks on the unemployed. Besides, these measures will have disturbing consequences because they will discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable labour conditions.

Finally, rest assured that Liberals will continue to demand that the government withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your position on this issue.

This letter is signed by the current Prime Minister. It was signed, it is not something he said on television. As we know, the Prime Minister is rather inconstant in that regard, but it is there, he signed it. I do not know if I can call him by his name. I cannot, but the letter bears his signature.

I also reread several speeches. I could, for instance, talk about the speeches the current chairman of the human resources development committee made in the House. If I may, since you are now in the chair, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to a statement you made in February, when you said that if the bill remained in its present form you would not be able to support it. You are now in the chair. I simply wanted to mention it.

If you felt uneasy about this bill I can tell you that many members from the maritimes were-

[Quebec Bridge, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify this double talk, since he refuses to fund repair work to the Quebec bridge on the grounds that it belongs to a private company, while granting $2 billion to a consortium, which is also a private company, to build a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?

[Quebec Bridge, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

This year, the Quebec bridge was designated a historic landmark by the federal Department of Canadian Heritage. Yet, the Minister of Transport still refuses to share in the costs of the repair work, with CN and the Government of Quebec.

Does the minister not find it ill advised, to say the least, to grant a consortium $41.9 million, indexed annually over a period of 35 years, for a total of over $2 billion, to fund the construction of a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which will be used by 132,000 people, while refusing to give anything to preserve the Quebec bridge, which is used by over 600,000 people?

[Quebec City Bridge, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's inaction regarding the restoration of the Quebec City bridge is a constant threat to the survival of this structure. Last fall, Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, promised the Coalition de sauvegarde du point de Québec that the issue would be quickly settled after the referendum. "Do not make waves regarding this issue before the referendum", he said.

Since October 30, Mr. Pelletier is nowhere to be found. Moreover, it is just as difficult to discuss this issue with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, even though the Quebec City bridge was recognized as a heritage site of national interest by her predecessor.

Is the Liberal government acting out of revenge in dragging its feet, given that it did not succeed in getting a single member elected in the Quebec City region?

If this is the case, such an attitude is outrageous. Otherwise, the federal government should do like its Quebec counterpart and quickly announce its contribution to the restoration of the Quebec City bridge.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my turn has come to speak on Bill C-31, and I will be better able to concentrate on my speech as soon as I have some quiet.

This bill is aimed at privatizing certain services and gives the government the opportunity to dispose of rail stock. It makes minor changes to the old age pension-until the real thing comes along in five years-provides for the Canada social transfer, in other words it combines three transfer programs to the provinces into one. Of course, it will be transferring cuts to them at the same time. It gives more power to the Minister of Industry and it modifies the Student Loans Act. But mainly, the bill enables the Minister of Finance to give $963 million in compensation to the Atlantic provinces in exchange for harmonization of the GST.

My colleague, the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois, has addressed this at length, so I shall concentrate my remarks mainly on unemployment insurance.

So Friday has arrived, the end of the week, and what a week we have had here in the House. A rather special week, since the government imposed two gag orders, the first on Bill C-31, on which we are speaking today, and the second on the committee stage of Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance, in the human resources development committee. But Bill C-31 also addresses unemployment insurance.

It is a bit odd. With this approach, the government could be said to be wearing both a belt and suspenders. In other words, the amendments to the unemployment insurance plan are in two bills that are being considered at the same time. Different.

Furthermore, Bill C-31 is worse than Bill C-12 in that its effect is retroactive to January 1, 1996. People should be reminded that, while we are being gagged and while the time spent by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development in consideration of this bill is being limited, as it was this past week, here we are passing another bill containing two measures: the reduction in the ceiling on insurable earnings to $39,000 and its effect being made retroactive to January 1, 1996. This is quite something. They are not taking any chances. Perhaps they are afraid of protests against this bill in the Senate, the House or somewhere outside Parliament. They are not running any risks; they are going at the unemployed with two bills.

Worse yet, there was contempt of the House this week. This is why I called this the week of the gag. I am not talking about yawning but about being gagged. I am talking about being very wide awake and being gagged. We were very much awake in opposition, even if we did go to bed very late, even going without sleep Tuesday night, because we tried to convince the government and the whip opposite that it did not make sense, at the stage of considering the bill clause by clause, to allow only five minutes per clause.

What is more, I showed that clause 5 alone-my only example-took 12 minutes to read. So, with the time limit the government wanted to impose this week, it was not even possible to read the clauses. It was not permitted. It was impossible. So, as you can imagine, there was no time for answers to our questions, and we could not complain, obviously. So, they pushed it through. The government, for the second time in this Parliament, is setting time limits with this bill against unemployment insurance, as it did with

the bill sending railway employees back to work, where we sat here on a weekend.

What is worse, they are so contemptuous that, on January 1, they issued an employer's guide, a job statement I have in my hands, asking that contributions be made on the basis of $39,000 instead of $42,400. Employers were advised to comply since a bill to that effect would be passed. They said one bill, not two. So this measure has already been implemented.

We know that this measure, which would reduce maximum insurable earnings from $42,400 to $39,000, represents an amount of $900 million that the government agreed to forgo on a retroactive basis. I wonder what kind of game they are playing.

Then they accuse us of wasting the government's money because we want to take our time to study the clauses. The government, for its part, can give a present to business and to people making more than $39,000 to make them more receptive to its bill. Meanwhile, people who did not have to pay premiums before will now have to, including those working less than 15 hours a week, whose contributions represent another $900 million.

This is the exact opposite of Robin Hood, who tried to help the poor by robbing the rich-although the means might not have been the most appropriate. The government, however, gives to the rich so it can take more from the poor. What is the world coming to? This is a week of muzzling; nothing makes sense any more.

They send this to employers, thus showing their contempt for Parliament.

I will not say much about the GST. As we know, the Prime Minister does not want to acknowledge the statements he made about the GST, although the Minister of Finance admitted that they indeed made a mistake, that they did promise to kill the GST but that it was not feasible. I am not talking about the red book, but about the Prime Minister's statements.

The Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge his comments, but he may recognize the letter he sent Mouvement action-chômage on March 26, 1993. I would like to read it, as it is not very long:

Thank you for your fax expressing your opposition to the legislative measures taken by the government-the Tory government and former minister Valcourt-to amend the unemployment insurance plan.

I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern about this attack against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent superficial amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures.

Our country is still in the throes of the worst economic crisis it has gone through since the thirties.

I will skip the next paragraph as it contains figures.

Given how serious the crisis is, the Liberals have urged the government-the Conservative government-to take steps to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Yet, the Minister of Finance says not only that he will renew the same fiscal, monetary and trade policies that have plunged us into this recession, but that he will go after the unemployed in order to reduce government spending.

The Liberal Party is appalled by these measures. Obviously, by reducing benefits and further penalizing those who leave their jobs voluntarily, the government shows very little concern for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of getting to the heart of the problem, it goes after the unemployed. These measures will have a disturbing impact, for they will discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable conditions in the workplace.

Finally, you can be assured that the Liberals will continue to call on the government-the Conservative government-to withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate your taking the trouble of sharing your views on this matter with me.

Sincerely,

Jean Chrétien,

Leader of the Opposition.

This is not a statement but a letter. I will not repeat it. Now, through Bill C-31, and especially Bill C-12, the government will reduce UI benefits even further. People will no longer qualify.

In conclusion-you are indicating my time is up, but I know you are not trying to muzzle me-I deplore this week of muzzling. It is the end of the honeymoon and the beginning of the end for this Liberal government.