Peter Van Loan

[Airports, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto area travellers face the highest airport costs in the world because of the government's policies. Air travel is critical to our economic growth and prosperity. These ridiculously high federal charges hurt ordinary travellers going on vacation, pickpocket tourists and threaten business.

While the Liberals fly high in their Challenger jets, Toronto area residents are being grounded by gouging. Why is the government picking on GTA residents and taxing travellers to death?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party supports this legislation. We see the need for some changes to fine-tune and create certainty for normal agricultural, hunting and fishing practices.

However, what the member just spoke to is particularly important regarding some of the links to other offences. I know in my community, in York--Simcoe, there is great concern among a lot of organizations that are very involved in working for animal welfare in addressing those problems.

There are a lot of dog and cat lovers and a lot of very good, concerned citizens, people from the Animal Welfare Society and the like who do a lot of good work. Unfortunately, in my community, we probably have had more than our fair share of bad incidents in terms of the treatment of animals which perhaps has prompted this local response. One happened very recently in September, literally on the road where I live, Baseline Road. It started out as a gun offence after a call to the police. They came to the site and discovered it was also a marijuana grow operation. The OSPCA had to be called in because of a puppy mill and the unfortunate animal cruelty situation that existed there.

I find it interesting that the government is concerned about that, yet at the same time it is pursuing other legislation such as the decriminalization of marijuana, which seems to fuel exactly the same kind of activities such as these puppy mills. Almost every single time they appear in my constituency, they also happen to be marijuana grow operations.

I would like to know from the member why the government is, on the one hand, encouraging criminal activity, yet on the other hand finally getting on with the important problem of providing animal protection?

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why this whole subject matter of the sponsorship program alarms me is because of the harm it has done in Quebec to the cause I care about, the cause of Canada. The reality is that the Liberal Party has never been able to conceive the cause of federalism as being distinct from the cause of its party.

There are many Canadians who are not Liberals. There are many Conservatives in Quebec and the rest of Canada who care passionately about this country and unfortunately, by the actions of this government and the Liberal Party through the sponsorship program, our cause has been tainted, damaged and hurt. The greatest damage to the cause of Canadian unity in Quebec has been caused by the corruption of the sponsorship scandal.

For Canadians to have any confidence that there is a future for national unity there has to be today a different alternative in Quebec if they seek the federalist option of unity. That is why it is important that there be a debate and that they realize there is more than one party. The Conservative Party, for example, is a party that cares passionately about national unity, is willing to fight for it, and in fact, is now the only remaining credible standard bearer for the cause of national unity and federalism in Quebec and across the country.

It is said that the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism. That is what we see in the Liberal government, a desperate effort to defend its corrupt behaviour and track record.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member may wish to suggest, as he has, and I understand why, that Justice Gomery is not the last word and perhaps we should go to a court of appeal.

I think the purpose of this report and the confidence that Canadians have in it, and I have even heard his own Prime Minister say he would prefer to rely on what was said by Justice Gomery. Justice Gomery made findings that there was clear evidence of political involvement in the sponsorship program. That is a clear finding of fact.

I was a practising lawyer at one time in my life and I remember learning that on questions of slander and defamation truth is an absolute defence. I am inclined to think that what Mr. Justice Gomery has found as fact, as a learned justice, would at least qualify as perhaps being truth in a court of law. I would hate to think that my reliance upon the findings of Justice Gomery and the things he has put in his report would expose me to intimidation or a lawsuit from any member of this government for slander or accusations of slander and defamation.

However, I am not the least bit surprised because that is consistent with the motion we are discussing. As soon as one talks about what has been done or discusses the facts of what is in Justice Gomery's report, one is accused of defamation or slander. The implication of that is that people are being threatened with lawsuits because they have the temerity to discuss the findings of Justice Gomery, to raise the debate with Canadians, and ask them to consider the implications of what these findings of corruption mean for Canada and its democracy. It is remarkable.

Hearing that from the member in his question does not surprise me at all because it is consistent with the Liberal pattern of behaviour, which is not to dare talk about it. That is what we are told again and again. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services in question period said they were mere allegations and how dare we repeat them. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services said in question period that it was before the commission and how dare we possibly speak about it.

The member for Bourassa said how dare we say that he actually appeared in front of the commission as a witness, which he did as a matter of fact, because he did not want that talked about as it was very unpleasant for him. Guess what? It happened and it is the truth. It may hurt, but that is what debate is about. If one wants to be serious in this business, one has to accept responsibility and the rules by which this game is played. Part of those fundamental rules are the rules of freedom of debate and freedom of expression. I believe that this question of privilege simply does not serve those ends.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, with the greatest of respect, that I know nothing of the fantasies of which he speaks. They are remarkable flights of fancy. They are not the subject of the findings of Justice Gomery.

What we are talking about and what we are debating is not slander. We are discussing what have been proven to be and established to be findings of fact of Justice Gomery.

The member may wish to suggest--

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion on a question of privilege raised by the member for Bourassa. The member takes exception to members of Parliament communicating with Canadians on the subject of the sponsorship scandal. It is remarkable.

What we amazingly have in front of us is a motion that suggests that members of Parliament should not be permitted to discuss the sponsorship scandal with Canadians. Coming from the Liberal government that is not surprising, but as a democracy it is particularly alarming.

We should be permitted to discuss the most important issues of the day with Canadians of which the sponsorship scandal is perhaps the most important. We should not be surprised that the motion came from the government. It has consistently taken the stand that we should not discuss the sponsorship scandal. The government will do anything to keep that from being discussed by Canadians.

If we think back in recent months to questions asked in this very chamber, the Minister of Public Works consistently said that discussion of the sponsorship scandal represented mere allegation, therefore it should not be discussed. Thanks to Justice Gomery we now know that those mere allegations were not mere allegations. He found those mere allegations to be fact and accurate.

We also were told by the Minister of Public Works that we should not be permitted to comment on that evidence. The member for Bourassa is carrying on in the very same vein by suggesting that members of the House should not be able to communicate with Canadians about the sponsorship scandal. We have heard the government consistently try to shut down discussion. It is a pattern of cover-up. It is a pattern of whitewash. It is a pattern of preventing these issues from seeing the light of day in any way possible. We also see that pattern extended through the denial of opposition days, which have been shut down so these issues cannot be discussed with Canadians. Taken all together, we see a consistent effort by the government to suppress discussion and debate with Canadians on the sponsorship scandal. Now we have this motion.

We heard earlier from the member for Ahuntsic. She said that we should respect the institution and our rights and privileges. Perhaps the most important privilege in a democracy and in a democratic institution like Parliament is freedom of speech and expression. It is that very same freedom of expression that the member for Bourassa seeks to suppress with his question of privilege.

We have those rights that we hold dear. To me the right of freedom of expression is perhaps the most important of those rights. We are alarmed by what the motion by the member for Bourassa suggests and for our very right to express ourselves on these important questions.

Let us look at the substance of the sponsorship matter that he takes exception to us discussing with Canadians. The government does not want to see us communicating with Canadians. The substance is found very simply in the findings of Justice Gomery and his report entitled “Who Is Responsible?”.

Members of the government are fond of going into about 700 pages or so in the report to find some fine detail that can be taken out of context that suggests in some way somebody somewhere in the government did not know something about it or was not involved in the sponsorship scandal. If the government can find one person who is clear, then somehow the Liberal Party or the government is clear. Justice Gomery told us something very different.

The commission of inquiry found clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship scandal. That is a critical finding of Justice Gomery and is in his report in black and white.

He found deliberate actions to avoid compliance with federal legislation and policies, including the Canada Elections Act, the Lobbyists Registration Act, the Access to Information Act and Financial Administration Act, as well as federal contracting policy and the Treasury Board transfer payments policy. These are not, in the words of the Minister of Public Works, “mere allegations”. These are major findings of fact of Justice Gomery.

He found a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and Government Services Canada, the minister's department which he does not want us to talk about, Crown corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the sponsorhsip program. Guess which political party? It is the Liberal Party, but he was kind enough not to mention that.

No wonder the government and the member for Bourassa do not want us to discuss this with Canadians. I can understand why. He does not want Canadians to hear about the Liberal Party receiving kickbacks.

Then the report states that five agencies received large sponsorship contracts, regularly channelling money via donations or unrecorded cash gifts to political fundraising activities in Quebec, with the expectation of receiving lucrative government contracts.

We know what that is. That is the offer of a payback. This is Justice Gomery's finding of fact, a major finding, that these people made donations because they expected to get contracts in return. The member for Bourassa does not believe we should be allowed to discuss this with Canadians. Through his motion, he is trying to suppress that debate, that freedom of expression and that exposure of the guilt of the Liberal Party in findings of fact by Justice Gomery.

Furthermore, Justice Gomery found, and it is in black and white, that certain agencies carried on their payrolls individuals who were in effect working on Liberal Party matters and that government money was being used to pay partisan Liberal Party workers. It is a clear conclusion.

Next he found “the existence of a culture of entitlement among political officials”. I guess that culture of entitlement extends so far that we cannot have the temerity to get up and question that entitled. If we dare suggest to Canadians that this culture of entitlement is wrong, the member for Bourassa will stand up and say his privileges have been offended and we should not be allowed to discuss that with Canadians.

It is a remarkable effort to shut down free speech and free discourse on perhaps the most important question facing Canadians. We have clear evidence by Justice Gomery, after having heard the testimony of dozens and dozens of witnesses, having sat for days and days, having been subjected to cross-examination, that we have a political scandal of enormous consequences, the biggest in Canadian history.

His finding of fact at the end, which is entirely consistent with what we see in the motion, is the refusal of ministers, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility. Not only will they not acknowledge their responsibility, but they do not want anybody else to point it out, even though Justice Gomery has said it is there, in black and white.

These are issues about which Canadians care. My constituents of York—Simcoe constituents care greatly about these issues. They care greatly about this matter of political corruption and that it should be addressed, debated and resolved. That is why this effort to shut down debate and discussion is most alarming to them and to me.

We are told that the great offence committed is that the communication went into the member's constituency, that it came from another member, and I do not recall which member, and that is a terrible thing. Guess what I have in my hand? I have a piece of correspondence that went into my constituency entitled “A message from the Prime Minister”. The headline does not talk about the Prime Minister. The headline is a personal attack on the character and integrity of the member for Calgary Southwest.

This was not sent by some backbencher, rogue member of the government. The communication was sent into my constituency by the Prime Minister. Guess what he discusses in it? He discusses the Gomery inquiry and he attacks the member for Calgary Southwest, the Leader of the Opposition, for questioning the government about the Gomery inquiry because Justice Gomery should be left to do his work.

How dare the member for Calgary Southwest and the opposition try to hold the government accountable and how dare they ask Canadians to hold the government accountable. Is that not a terrible thing? I guess if the Liberals are trying to escape accountability every way, they may as well bring a motion like this to say that the opposition should not even be allowed to talk to Canadians about the corruption of the Liberal government. It is entirely consistent with the pattern.

What is more, some of the suggestions in the message from the Prime Minister about policy are entirely inaccurate. They are attributed to what my party or I myself would do as a member if I were in government and they are false. This communication from the Prime Minister is certainly far greater an offence of privilege than anything concerning the member for Bourassa.

When this went into my constituency I did not like it. I can understand the member not liking it, especially since there were falsehoods in this communication. However just because I did not like it I did not get up in the House and say that the Prime Minister should not be allowed to communicate with Canadians. I did not get up and say that my personal privileges had been offended as a member of Parliament. I said that was part of debate, democracy and freedom of speech and that I should be allowed to enter the debate and answer those concerns. That is how democracy is supposed to work.

That is the party that pretends to be the party of the charter and of freedom of speech standing up to suppress freedom of expression. It is remarkable. The Liberals are turning themselves inside out. Freedom of speech extends, according to the government, as long as no one criticizes the government, as long as no one exposes its corruption and as long as no one exposes its misdeeds, but as soon as one crosses that line to talk to Canadians about corruption, freedom of speech must stop. Forget the charter, forget parliamentary privileges, forget the debate that should take place in this institution and forget the debate that should take place outside.

The Liberals seek to avoid accountability at every opportunity possible, which is why they did all the remarkable things, including a deal that cost $4.6 billion. They made announcements of $26 billion in the weeks of late April and early May to try to avert an election and that accountability. Those tactics will cost every family in Canada, a typical family of four, $3,030 of their own tax dollars to avoid accountability.

The government takes the tax dollars and the Liberal Party uses those tax dollars to fund its own partisan activities. It uses those tax dollars to stay in office by hook or by crook, by whatever deal they can make with whatever party, by doing whatever it can to keep the numbers and avoid the accountability.

Now that the accountability has been rendered in black and white by Justice Gomery, accountability that the Liberals know will be communicated some more, they launch their initiative here in the House to suppress further debate and discussion of the findings of Justice Gomery. That is what this is all about.

Members should make no mistake about this. This is an effort to shut down that debate. In fact, if it were not for this motion being brought forward, paradoxically, this is the only way we are getting to debate this question in the House. What an irony that the only way we can do it is in response to an effort to shut down debate. I am sure the member for Bourassa did not anticipate that when he brought forward the motion but that is the implication.

When things like this happen, it is called democracy. It is called debate. When I look at the communication in question, I see quite a few things with which I do not agree. I happen to believe passionately in my country and in the importance of keeping this country united. My friends in the third party in the House do not share that view but I do not believe their right to speak on that issue or any other issue or to expose the government's corruption should be shut down because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

The reason I became involved in politics is because my family roots go back to Estonia where my family grew up. My mother and grandparents only came to Canada because with World War II came successive waves of Soviet and Nazi occupation. Because many in the family had the temerity to have views and to believe in democracy and freedom, they were seen as enemies of the new Soviet state of the occupying forces.

Many of my relatives were sent to Siberia where they lost their lives. Some were brutally murdered in their beds by Red Army soldiers or other Communist sympathizers, or killed in any remarkable number of other fashions in that conflict all because they believed in democracy and freedom and wanted to live their lives in peace. They wanted to enjoy the democracy they had enjoyed as a free country for a number of decades.

I was fortunate in that my mother and grandparents did manage to flee to Sweden and, ultimately, to Canada. They reason they chose Canada was because it was a land of hope and opportunity but, most important, because it was a land of freedom. It was a land where they thought that democracy flourished and the country did treat them very well. I have been fortunate to enjoy the benefits of that country myself and fortunate to enjoy our democratic process.

My family did not choose Canada because they thought freedom of speech was suppressed here. That is what they were fleeing. They did not choose Canada because they thought it was a country with a corrupt government run for a narrow self-interest. No, that is what they were fleeing.

The question we are debating, which is whether we should be allowed to discuss these questions and communicate with Canadians about them, is very profound and very deep. It is one of our greatest freedoms. No, it is not always nice to hear certain things being said about us. Sometimes there are personal attacks and I do not like them, but there is a difference between what is poor form, what is rude and what is actually wrong. Freedom of speech includes the right to say things that people may not want to hear and sometimes, as the government is discovering, the truth is quite painful and we do not want to hear the truth. However the country and democracy are strengthened when the truth does come out.

I attended the University of Toronto's Victoria College, my undergraduate university. Carved in the sandstone over the main building of Victoria University are the words “THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE”. That is what we are talking about here, truth, freedom and the ability to bring these matters forward in a legitimate debate, which is what the motion from the member for Bourassa seeks to stifle.

My constituents do care about the questions in this. Let us think about the consequences. We have clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship program. That corrodes our democracy.

I have had the experience, as I am sure many members have had, of going door to door and speaking to constituents and voters and there is a great deal of cynicism about the business we are involved in. It is cynicism that is bred of spin, of people making promises and breaking them in politics, and it is a cynicism bred, sadly, of the findings of Justice Gomery and similar programs and similar sponsorships.

What we can take heart in is that when the truth comes out hopefully our country is a little more strengthened; debate can ensue and cleanse. When the light shines in they say that is the great antiseptic. It cleans things when people can hear the truth and discuss the truth. Suppressing debate and discussion is not the way to get there. Suppressing the way in which we approach our democracy and suppressing the free debate is not the way to get there.

The conclusions in the report are important findings. The work of Justice Gomery into the sponsorship affair was very important. The sponsorship scandal was, undoubtedly, the most defining political event of the past several decades. It is perhaps the saddest event in the history of Canadian democracy in terms of its impact. We have seen corruption through the bureaucracy, through contracting, through the work of ministers and through suggestions by the prime minister's office.

The report says, “a refusal to accept responsibility in the Prime Minister's Office...among ministers, a refusal to acknowledge their responsibility”. It is time we took that responsibility and it is time we took seriously the role of debate. I absolutely urge the House to turn down this effort to suppress the freedom of speech in debate that will make this report meaningful in the end.

[Airports, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the transport minister wants Toronto's airport to pay rent of $144 million, which is two-thirds of all the airport rent in Canada. In contrast, competing U.S. airports actually receive millions of dollars from the government.

This discriminatory stealth tax threatens to force airlines to move, flying out of New York, Detroit or as the minister said, he prefers Montreal instead of Toronto. The cost will be huge with higher ticket prices, less choice for Canadian travellers, lost tourism and trade, and harm to the economy.

When will the government stop its hidden airport tax shakedown and treat Toronto residents--

[Canadian Ballast Water Management Act, November 3rd, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, An Act to provide for the management of ballast water in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to put in place mandatory ballast water management controls and thereby provide real protection against aquatic invasive species that threaten the delicate ecosystems of our inland lakes and waterways.

The Conservative government of Brian Mulroney was a leader in introducing the very first guidelines. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has fallen behind and has failed to act for 12 years.

As time has passed, new invasive species, like the round gobi and the quagga mussel, have been introduced to Lake Simcoe's watershed threatening its environment. It is my hope that the pressure brought by this bill will embarrass the government to act, as it now can, to introduce mandatory regulations.

Our environment is too important to be sacrificed by an indecisive government afraid to offend big shipping interests. Now is the time for action to protect the environment and the delicate ecosystem balance of Lake Simcoe and the entire Great Lakes Basin. It is our obligation to our families, our communities and to the generations to come.

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

[Sponsorship Program, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Party in government, Canada has experienced a dramatic decline in reputation.

Since 1995, Canada fell in the Transparency International clean government rankings from fifth place to fourteenth place today. That reputation has been justly earned by a Liberal Party in government that is corrupt in the worst way possible.

Justice Gomery has today confirmed that the Liberal Party ran an orchestrated scheme of contract kickbacks and illegal cash transfers designed to divert taxpayers dollars into Liberal Party coffers.

Having run millions of dollars into debt, and unable to raise money from a skeptical Canadian public, the Liberal Party simply helped itself to public funds and paid party organizers with taxpayer dollars. That money not only was the critical factor in winning elections, the Liberal Party actually applied for and received matching federal rebates for the money looted from the public treasury to run its campaigns, using that money for subsequent campaigns.

Every Liberal MP in this House has been elected using the benefits of that tainted, illegal funding, and all should hang their heads in shame.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important proposal to fix the serious problems we have seen for years in the employment insurance system. Employers and workers who have paid EI premiums have seen $48 billion of their hard-earned wages taken by the government and diverted to other spending purposes.

The Liberal government has been doing that for 10 years. It has consistently generated a significant surplus out of the employment insurance system by taxing workers and employers who create those jobs, and taking the money and using it under the pretense of collecting it for employment insurance while using it for other purposes.

We do not believe that is acceptable. In fact, it verges on being less than truthful in the budgeting processes of the government. If it were not for that diversion of surplus funds, members can rest assured that the government would not have balanced the budget as it claims to have done. It is through the pilfering of funds collected from workers and employers that the government has been able to do that.

The present employment insurance system continues to create a situation where employment insurance is not working for workers or employers. It is creating a drag on job creation. It is also creating a situation of overtaxation on workers earning a modest to middle income. EI premiums are capped at a certain level. A form of regressive taxation has taken place here through the theft of those funds from the surplus.

We hear from all kinds of people that it is a problem. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is concerned about this and has pointed out the impact on job creation. Garth Whyte, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

You had a $48-billion surplus in the EI fund. It's disappeared into general revenue. There's no reason EI premiums should be used to build up a new surplus. We would be extremely upset if you do that.

Although we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources that we would see a situation now where surpluses will not be collected but, guess what, that was the very situation under the previous legislation.

The premium rate setting mechanism was designed so the government would set a rate that would not exceed the amount necessary to maintain the EI program. Notwithstanding that provision in the law, we continue to see a surplus collected every year; an average of $4.6 billion a year. This overtaxation has gone on for a decade, none of which was contemplated in the legislation. That practice has hurt the economy and job creation, to say nothing of being unfair to ordinary workers.

Another group talked about the impact of this on the economy and on competitiveness, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, the research arm of Ontario's task force on competitiveness, productivity and economic progress, which is an arm of the provincial Liberal government in Ontario. The study was funded by that government through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

Let me tell the House what those experts said about the problems with the EI system as it is working now.

Our view is that EI is not an insurance program. Rather it is becoming a transfer that places a dysfunctional tax on productive labour and successful businesses. In addition, the excessive surpluses accumulated are a high cost to have provinces and to overall prosperity growth.

They are saying that the way the government runs employment insurance right now is hurting economic prosperity and growth, and taking that surplus is one of the biggest factors. They go on to say:

Our research indicates that the federal surplus surprises are leading to a loss of discipline in fiscal federalism, resulting in potentially unsustainable growth in federal transfers. This lack of discipline is also exacerbating the trend away from investing in future prosperity towards consumption of current prosperity. An important part of this lack of discipline is the growing surpluses in EI, a program that is less and less an insurance program and more and more a transfer program.

That study has some very interesting perspectives on how the transfer has actually discouraged job creation by employers, discouraged people from working and creates the reverse incentives. It creates incentives for people not to keep people employed. It creates incentives for businesses to lay off people, to cause them to lose their jobs. The entire structure has the wrong incentives. That is another discussion for another day.

The focus here has to be on the surpluses and the negative impact of those surpluses and the money that is being taken.

This bill sought to address that. An amendment that I was pleased to propose on behalf of the Conservative Party proposed to return the $46 billion that had been taken from those taxpayers, from the workers and the employers, those job creators. The amendment proposed to restore that money to the fund over a period of 10 years. This would create a genuine balance, money that could be there for a rainy day. It would allow for lower premiums and would encourage more job creation. Workers would have more money to take home at the end of the day. The money that was taken from them over 10 years would be returned to them over a period of 10 years.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary that in view of the Speaker's ruling on the need for a royal prerogative, the government has no intention of providing that royal recommendation. It does not wish to provide that royal recommendation. It is fully at the discretion of the government to do that.

The government could make the decision to be fair, to be equitable and return to workers the hard-earned dollars that they paid into the insurance program but which were taken from the insurance program to be used for other purposes. The government has the ability to do that.

I will make the same case today that we made at committee about why the government should provide that royal recommendation. The notion that the money is in general revenues and that it would be transferred to a separate fund is really a matter of bookkeeping. It has always been recorded as a figure in Canada's books. The money has been a surplus. It has been a recorded amount. That is how we know it is $46 billion. The government is required to record it.

In that sense it is not really new money. It is money that is there. It is money that has been identified. It is money that was collected for a specific purpose. It is money that should be spent for that specific purpose.

Until and unless the government is prepared to do that, then we know that the government is not taking to heart the interests of workers and employers and the government does not really mean what it says when it talks about running the employment insurance system as an insurance system in the future. Only if the government is prepared to do that will it do so.

We are concerned, as I said, that the changes by the government do not do what the government says they will do. Our amendments in the bill that is before the House would have the effect of ensuring that in the future any surpluses that were collected from employment insurance would go into a fund. There would be a fund that would be maintained. The money could never be taken away and spent for other purposes.

That will not be the case here. Much is made of the notion that by restoring the commission all of a sudden there will cease to be surpluses. The fact is there may be some conservativeness built in to the rate premium assumptions every year in the premium setting process which may cause a bit of a surplus. Any time it is a good year there will be a surplus and there is nothing in the government's reforms that will prevent it from once again, as it has for the past decade, raiding that surplus and continuing to divert moneys for other spending purposes.

The government will continue that unfair, unjust and inequitable form of taxation. It is the taxation that hurts the working families in my riding and typical families in our communities all across the country. They are hard-working people. They are honest. They play by the rules. They pay their taxes. They are trying to pay their mortgages. They are trying to get ahead and build a brighter future. They cannot afford to have additional taxes that are set differently every year, specifically for providing them the security of employment insurance and then face the loss of those premiums.

If a private insurance company were to do that sort of thing, it would probably be prosecuted by the government. However, because the government does it and the government sets the rules, it can get away with it. That is what is wrong with employment insurance today. That is what this bill should fix.