Mr. Speaker, first I want to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for what happened this morning. I had a commitment at noon and I regret not having been able to listen to all his comments, which, no doubt, were very interesting.
Today, we are debating the motion tabled by the official opposition asking that Bill C-12, formerly known as Bill C-111, be immediately withdrawn from the Order Paper. I regret to have to tell my hon. colleagues, from the outset, that the government has no intention whatsoever of doing that.
The important thing here is to recognize that we will now have an opportunity to get constructive proposals from the members of the parliamentary committee that will review this legislation. The importance that the government and, I am sure, all the members of this House attach to employment insurance must not be downplayed.
Regardless of where we come from, there is no doubt that this bill will affect a lot of people, many of whom are among the most vulnerable ones in our society. This is why my predecessor, Mr. Axworthy, indicated shortly after introduction of the bill last fall, that it was his personal intention, as well as that of the government, to look at possible changes in certain areas of the legislation, particularly the formula used to calculate benefits, which is based on what the bill defines as continuous work weeks.
There is also the whole issue of how far we can go. In any reform of this type, we have a duty, as parliamentarians, to ensure fairness, that is a balance between what is proposed in a budget planning outline, including job creation measures, and the impact of such measures on men, women, families and children.
What struck me almost since the moment that we introduced this bill is the very widespread and well-founded support enjoyed by the reform throughout the country. Every poll, every indicator of public opinion shows support, in every province, for a comprehensive reform of the whole UI system as we have known it for a long time.
I have also been aware for some time now that there is a feeling of compassion and sympathy among Canadians from all regions, who want to ensure that we look after those who need to be protected, those who are most vulnerable.
As I explained yesterday in this House to my hon. colleague, the critic of the member's party on this issue, I am convinced that the committee, under these circumstances, will come up with proposals to help us respect the will for change as expressed throughout the country, but also to meet the needs of those who will be the most directly affected by all of this.
I would like to take a minute to talk about the protests taking place lately and about the people who use all the means at their disposal to voice their concerns about this bill. Some would go as far as to imply that these protesters are talking on behalf of the majority of the population. Having had the honour to be elected several times to the New-Brunswick legislature, as representative of my native area, in Acadia, and to be elected and re-elected to this House of Commons, I think I am well aware of the needs of the citizens of my riding.
I also understand the concerns these people have. I respect my constituents and I do think that they also respect me, generally speaking. This is why I felt the need to say openly, without any spitefulness, that when we see the same people week-end after week-end, in various areas in northern New-Brunswick and near the Quebec border, the same faces, and hear the same speeches, we are aware of the impact they can have throughout the country on the people who watch them on television or read about them in the paper; they wonder about this situation. They wonder why these people who called themselves community leaders do not ask for more jobs, economic development, changes to the act to promote training programs or subsidies to employers, but keep asking vigorously and unequivocally for this bill to be withdrawn.
This came as quite a shock to me, since no one in the last five or ten years had told me that the Unemployment Insurance Act, as it stood, was perfect. Quite the opposite. Not a week or a day has gone by without my riding office receiving requests from concerned citizens or groups who thought the program did not work and that changes needed to be made.
Of course, our predecessors made some changes a few years ago. But what is surprising and even frustrating is to see some people telling us: "You have to withdraw this piece of legislation." Very few recommendations were made on ways to improve not only Bill C-111, now known as Bill C-12, but also the existing system.
No one came up with proposals or changes that we could consider seriously and that would have made us say: "Yes, maybe what our government has put forward is not the perfect solution." But, in terms of the existing program, has anyone made proposals that would have improved the situation of the people who have come to us throughout the years, as I said earlier, with all kinds of problems?
One of the things that is essential is we have to have some equity and fairness in all the things we do, particularly as we deal with social programs.
A major attempt had been made by people who are employed full time, who make very good salaries. Everybody is told on a regular basis what members of the government make, what members of Parliament make, what members of the opposition make, what the Leader of the Opposition earns as a salary. It is a constant public discussion.
I had a guest in my constituency a couple of weeks ago who is the head of the Canadian Labour Congress. It would be interesting to know how much Bob White makes a year, what his salary is, what his working conditions are, what kind of situation he is involved in, how many times he has been on unemployment, how many times he has been into fish plants, how many times he has gone into the woods to see how people work.
When I discuss this issue, I discuss it as a person who has lived all of his life in an area where seasonal industries are a reality. They are not a choice. They are imposed by climate. They are imposed by government legislation. Whether it applies to total allowable cuts in the forest, whether it is total allowable catch in the sea, whether it is the tourism industry which is heavily influenced by our climate, whatever the circumstances, the situation is the result of conditions far beyond the capacity of individuals or their families to influence.
When we look at the changes I hope we will be able to discuss as we consider Bill C-12, I hope there will be constructive suggestions that reflect the need for equity and fairness across the country.
The unfortunate thing is that Bob White is a perfect example of someone constantly bringing up the problems on the Gaspé coast, in northern New Brunswick, in Shippegan, Tracadie, Caraquet, and talking about the impact of these changes in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
I say to my friends in the Bloc Quebecois: Do you think Bob White is your friend? Do you enjoy having him come in with his colleagues or cohorts-it depends on how I feel as to how I describe them-to tell people in our areas in Quebec and northern New Brunswick what their problems are? Think about who the messenger is when analysing the message.
I looked through the information available in my department as to what the impact of employment legislation is on real people, real men, real women, real families, real problems. I realized we were talking about an act of this government that would impact on construction workers, that would impact on single mothers, that would impact on low income families. It would have an impact on people who work in British Columbia, in Manitoba, in Ontario, in many other parts of the country.
Is it the climate in Atlantic Canada that attracts the likes of Bob White in midwinter to walk in the streets of Bathurst? We would think he would be walking in the streets of Victoria. Or is it because, as is often the case, people who have an agenda exploit the vulnerable, the weak, the people who do not understand the implications of what is being done to them?
I have confidence in the parliamentary process. I believe that where I stand in this place today for over decades and for more than a century women and men who have been elected to serve in this place have found ways to provide solutions for people with problems. That is why I have been constant in my belief since the day I was asked to take on this responsibility that the women and men who sit on the parliamentary committee, as a result of input from members of Parliament on both sides of this House, will be able to provide us with some assistance.
I do not want to pass on all of the responsibility. I recognize the government introduced the bill originally and that we will have to deal with it. The hon. Minister of Finance also made undertakings in last year's budget on the fiscal requirements he put forward that will have to be respected. I recognize all of that.
When we have come to the end of the day, when the parliamentary committee has considered what needs to be done and has made its recommendations, I believe we will have addressed the question of how to calculate benefits and how to deal with consecutive weeks of work. I am confident we will have dealt with the intensity rule. It was meant to avoid disincentives for people to go back to work. We will make sure that disincentive is removed but that fairness is maintained.
The system we can construct together will be one that will respect the needs of men and women and their families across the country. We will also have to make sure that we respect the fairness and equity which is inherent in any program where millions of Canadians work every day of the working week every month of the year. They are saying, and I agree with them, that they are prepared to be compassionate and they are prepared to make their contributions so long as the system is fair and equitable and not exploited unduly.
In that context I want to make it clear today that I look to my colleagues from all parties to make suggestions which I hope will be forthcoming soon. We must have the legislation, however the final form may evolve, through Parliament and implemented by July 1 this year.
I want to make one contribution today. Although there will be changes that will be respected, Canadians can be assured we will make every effort that there will be no abuse of this system to the extent that we can control it.
Canadians are fair and equitable. It is essential that we go to a basis of zero tolerance of anyone who wants to take advantage of their peers. When employment levels are high enough in the country, this money is a fund that comes from the employer and the
employee. The Government of Canada plays a role in the unemployment insurance fund only when it is in deficit. It was in deficit until a very short time ago.
People are now talking about surpluses. There is no doubt that if we are fortunate enough to continue to build up surpluses we will have to control what is happening to premiums, to employers and employees and make sure there is no undue surplus accumulating. However, I do not think we want to go back to a situation of there being a deficit and the spectre of having the taxpayers of Canada make a major contribution. It has also been our experience in the past that there was a huge increase in premiums which have been very difficult to handle as we try to rebuild the economy.
There will be a balance. There will be fairness between those people who need to be assured that the employment insurance system will be there for them when they need it and those people who continue to contribute in good faith because they believe it is the proper way to ensure that those who are vulnerable in our society are taken care of.
There is a great deal of potential for divisiveness, depending on how we approach the bill. For example, I hope Canadians will note that I never use the term seasonal workers. Every man and woman I know in this country, practically without exception, when given the choice between a full time year round job and a full time seasonal job will always go for the maximum amount of benefits they can get for their families, which is to work as much as possible.
Some people are confronted with the inevitability of working in an industry where the Government of Canada says, for example: "Sorry, you can only fish certain times of the year because of environmental reasons and we want to protect the species", or the provincial governments say: "Sorry, you cannot cut wood because you have a total allowable cut. We cannot afford to have clear cutting; we have to make sure that we practice good silviculture and forestry practices". We cannot tell those people when we are imposing a set of rules that we are not going to take those rules into account when we look at a program like employment insurance.
There is the potential for divisiveness when people in different parts of the country are provided with misinformation or are exploited. We can turn people against each other; not just looking at whether somebody is happy with the way the program works in a given clause.
The same phenomenon occurs in a given city where people work 12 months of the year in the traditional type of job activity. Other people work, for example, in the construction industry where through no fault of their own, but by the nature of the work they do, from time to time are not able to work, not because they are not full time workers.
Do not tell a plumber, an electrician, a mason, an iron worker and people in the construction industry that they are seasonal or part time workers. That is their profession, that is their job. They are faced with the unfortunate reality that the nature of the work they do has been impacted on by all kinds of situations beyond their control.
I hope we will be able to look at Bill C-12 together. We have to recognize we are not working in a vacuum. We have decades of experience with unemployment insurance. We have a bill that is working right now, for better or for worse, that is in place.
I am frustrated by those who say that this bill should be repealed, should be withdrawn, should be scrapped, as though somehow we could go back to what some people apparently think is the appropriate situation where you work for 10 weeks and you get unemployment for 42 weeks. That is not in the cards for anyone. Canadians would not accept the kind of a system that was prevalent in the seventies and through part of the eighties.
We have to work together. The law that is in place now has to be changed. I hope that when we come back to this place to deal with the recommendations of the standing committee that those recommendations will be compared to what is in place now and not what was proposed last fall.
