Wayne Easter

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member is just about filibustering. The amendments that we accepted concerning community organization were important. We saw them as such. They are two very important words.

We did listen to the discussion of Bloc members opposite on the gap and we fixed it.

I want to get to the point-

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading debate of Bill C-12, the employment insurance act.

I feel most privileged to have worked on the human resources development committee examining the bill. I enjoyed the thrust of debate with members opposite as we strove to improve the bill for the benefit of all Canadians. I sincerely believe the bill and the process undertaken speak well for democracy.

In my experience as a farm leader I appeared before many parliamentary committees and in my experience as a parliamentarian I have never seen such substantial changes made to a bill in the interest of the people from whom we have heard. Improving the bill to address the concerns of people is what this process was all about. It has been a very long process.

The green book on social security reform was tabled a little over two years ago. When that paper came down I held a couple of public meetings. People were very concerned about the direction that might be taken by human resources development in terms of social security review. A committee went all across the country with members from all parties in attendance. The committee heard over 600 presentations. It heard a lot of concerns about the two tier system and where we might be going on UI. It came back with what I think was a wonderful report, on which part of this legislation is based.

A seasonal industry task force was set up. Its report mentioned how important seasonal industries are, that seasonal industries do not work only during one season but create economies downstream. They create full time jobs in industries other than their own in terms of the products and services they need within the seasonal industries. Seasonal industries are made up of full time workers who are highly skilled and much needed in those seasonal industries. The government took that to heart and took those issues into account in terms of the preparation of the final stages of Bill C-12.

When Bill C-12 was introduced I held public meetings in my riding, as did many of my colleagues. We expressed as members of the government our concerns internally and publicly on the bill. We said publicly that there was a problem in terms of some areas as they impacted on the seasonal industries, and we moved to correct those changes.

We also recognized some very good points in the original bill. It is an hour based system. It gets rid of the 15 hour job trap. The part II benefits include $800 million for reinvestment in such programs as wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships, skill loans and grants. Those are important points.

I have made it clear from the very beginning that scrapping the bill was not an option. We are dealing with the realities of the turn of the century. We need improvements to the bill and we will try to achieve them. We must work as members of Parliament toward improvements. The former minister and the current minister agreed and showed an openness for change.

We heard concerns. One was from Jacinta Deveau:

At a time when corporations are making record profits and yet still laying people off, now is not the time to start increasing qualifying times or decreasing benefits particularly for those people who must resort to applying for benefits, must do so for longer periods of time and in greater numbers; add this to the competition for fewer and fewer numbers of jobs sought only not by those people caught in the corporate downsizing and adjustment but those in seasonal and non-full time job occupations and you have a recipe for disaster in the Atlantic region generally and P.E.I. in particular.

We did not bury our heads in the sand when we heard that concern. Government members moved to correct that concern. We corrected it in several ways. That concern we corrected by fixing the gap and improving the divisor. We are certain the employment measures will move some distance to improving the job situation.

We did not take the position to scrap the bill. We listened and moved to make improvements. That is very different from what I have heard from members opposite.

The hon. member for Mercier, the critic for the Bloc, talked about the lack of debate. On the night of the filibuster those of us sitting on the government side wanted to debate the substantive issues to see if there were other areas of improvement. Is the hon. member asking us to do away with the employment measures which will help people to get jobs? Is the hon. member asking that we scrap the benefits for low income families? Is the hon. member asking us to go back to a system which had within it a 15 hour job trap that trapped mainly women in part time jobs? This bill improves that situation. Members opposite should recognize that.

I will list some of the other improvements we have been able to accomplish through this debate. Members on the government side have fixed the gap, the dead weeks. We have managed by making amendments to the legislation to take out of the calculation base those weeks that would have been considered as zero earnings. We have fixed that gap to the benefit of seasonal workers and of workers generally.

We have changed the divisor to make it more uniform across the country. It will be the regional rate plus a divisor of two. That does two things. It sets some stability and it ensures for business that there is an incentive out there for people to find work instead of simply going on UI.

We have fixed the intensity rule to a great extent. We have ensured the intensity rule does not apply to low income families with dependants. There will be a method of receiving an intensity rule credit for those who work while on unemployment.

This is in part based on the concerns raised by some of the people who have been demonstrating. In order to ensure that these good amendments that Liberal members have made are secure into the future, the power of a future minister to change the divisor by regulation has been deleted from the bill. In the future changes will be made in the House and not by the executive.

I am pleased with what has been accomplished. I will admit that one good amendment was moved by members opposite. We supported and it was incorporated in the bill. It goes to show what can be done if the opposition is more co-operative instead of saying "scrap the bill". We really do not want filibusters. We have made great strides forward.

The minister said that the bill is not perfect, that there are some areas of concern. However, as a government we do listen and we make changes to meet the needs of people.

In closing, I would like to quote Alice Nakamura. I think she is right on target:

You have proven wrong all those who told me this reform effort was a waste of time. Bill C-12 tackles the serious problems with our present UI program, making use of the best available research about how our labour markets and social programs function. And it is a bill that pays careful attention to the real life problems of transition. It strikes a careful balance between the desperation of people who cannot find enough work and have depended on the income from UI benefits and the desperation of economic analysts who recognize the threat which trends in our present UI program pose for our economy and the future employment prospects for Canadians.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

It was a filibuster.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I do not have the time in this grouping to do an analysis of the member's remarks.

Most of us here know there needs to be a critical analysis done on those remarks. It really surprises me to hear the comments of the hon. member for Mercier on basically supporting restaurant owners who clearly do not want the current hour system in place because they like that 15 hour trap.

As the member said and the restaurant owners are suggesting, students should be provided with an exemption for EI premiums because they will not qualify for benefits. Some students can qualify for EI. Those who lose a part time job may qualify if available for work during the same hours as before.

Members opposite have complained about the entrance requirements. Work as a student can help someone meet new entry requirements when they enter the labour market on a permanent basis. Four hundred thousand full time students making $2,000 a year or less annually would have all premiums refunded. This represents about 40 per cent of full time students with earnings.

The government is working in other ways to help create employment opportunities for youth, in part through the $315 million announced in the budget.

In this group of amendments in the course of my remarks I want to give the members opposite a challenge to support more openness and more decision making by MPs in government.

As the member for Malpeque I have an amendment at this stage to improve the bill. Motion No. 23, if carried, will ensure that members of Parliament will be given greater control over future changes in the EI act. That is what democracy is all about. Members of Parliament can be involved more in the decision making process.

The bill in clause 14(5) reads: "For the purpose of achieving a uniformed divisor of 22 in subsection (2), the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, by regulation amend the table in that subsection by increasing to a maximum of 22". Subsections (6) to (12) give the rules of procedure in terms of how that would be done.

My rationale for deleting those clauses of the bill are this. Under the current legislation the minister would bring forward an increase to the divisor on the basis of a report to the minister, not Parliament, which satisfies the minister, not Parliament, that individuals, communities and the economy have adequately adjusted to the changes contained in the act to the insurance and employment assistance programs and to the effectiveness of the employment benefits and support measures contained in the act.

The terms and conditions of the report and the process by which is provided to Parliament are outlined in clause 3 of Bill C-12. However, in terms of examining clause 14, as written, there is no provision made that the minister must await a report from the appropriate parliamentary committee before the minister can bring forward the regulations increasing the divisor.

I always worry about what the minister may or may not do. Increasingly the public is concerned about government by executive council rather than by the people's representatives. By deleting this section we ensure any changes relative to the divisor will be

made after appropriate discussion and legislative change in the House.

I agree with the concerns of the public of executive government and that decisions of the magnitude of increasing the divisor should be made only after serious debate by representatives of all parties in the House of Commons.

There is no question there are some out there who are using that section of the act against us right now. There are some who are saying these are great amendments put forward, known as the Scott, Regan and Augustine amendments, but really they are saying these are just smoke and mirrors because after 1998 "the minister may".

What this amendment will do is to ensure that those amendments made by my colleagues in the Liberal Party will remain intact. If further changes are to be made, they will be debated in the House prior to any such changes being made. The public will have a chance to have input.

There are other good reasons for this amendment. I am sure the members opposite will enjoy this. On page 91 of the red book there is the following statement:

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable.

The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business beyond closed doors.

This amendment ensures we meet that red book commitment and that debates are held in this place prior to important decisions being made.

What will be required of the minister is that without the sections currently in the bill the minister will have to table in the House the appropriate legislation to increase the divisor. As a result of this the bill to increase the divisor will receive first and second reading, committee examination, report state and third reading, as all legislation currently does.

As a result members of Parliament will have an opportunity of debating and, if required, amending the legislation on future divisors. The report provided to the minister under clause 3 will then have a key role to reform in providing the government and members with the justification for any future changes to the divisor.

Most important, Canadians who will be directly affected by any changes in the future will have the opportunity of submitting their views to their MPs in a parliamentary committee.

Taking power out of regulation, out of the bureaucracy and putting it into the hands of parliamentarians and the people they represent is improving democracy and improving openness in government.

I expect members opposite as well would see the amendment as worthy of their support. This is a real opportunity for members opposite to support openness in government and I call on them to support this very important amendment.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-12, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 45, on page 23, and lines 1 to 13, on page 24.

[Petitions, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to present a petition which calls on Parliament to establish a national policy to control and contain the incidents of

chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada, and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons affected with these illnesses.

The petition contains 211 names from the province of Prince Edward Island.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I was just trying to convince the member opposite that if she had been more constructive we might have been able to adopt more of her amendments. The kind of amendment that came forward from the hon. member for Mercier on this point, to us, did not make sense.

The bill maintains the insurance features. It finds a better balance. It targets better low income. It brings more people in. It gets rid of the 15-hour job trap. With the amendments that have been put forward by several government members, the bill has been substantially improved. That is progress. That is what democratic debate is all about.

Let me speak directly to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mercier. It is an amendment which the member must be embarrassed to talk about because she did not address it in her remarks.

The part of the motion that removes section 5 removes the whole financial footing on which coverage under the unemployment insurance program is based. The removed section defines the jobs on which premiums are to be paid and establishes that the coverage is for those who work as employees and thus cannot control their unemployment. I might remind the hon. member for Mercier that the removal of all penalties for quitting would require that every claimant be paid benefits even if the claimant deliberately caused his or her own unemployment by quitting to go skiing or by stealing from an employer and being fired.

The motion ignores the basic premise that unemployment insurance is to provide income support to those who are involuntarily unemployed. It is entirely against the insurance principle that benefit should be denied to an insured person who voluntarily causes the loss against which they are insured.

The motion of the hon. member for Mercier is equivalent to paying fire insurance to the person who burned down his or her own house. That is ridiculous. Maybe that is why she was so embarrassed to talk about her amendment. Facts speak for themselves and that is the fact.

The motion goes further than reversing the C-113 provisions for an indefinite denial of benefits for voluntarily quitting, it also will prevent any temporary disqualifications of seven to 12 weeks, as existed before 1993.

I was told, on investigation, that before the changes were made that those who quit their jobs without just cause were taking over $1 billion out of the fund each year. I would like the hon. member for Mercier to try to justify taking $1 billion out of the system for those who abuse the system and cause their own problems.

Simply put, if the government adopted the motion, persons who quit their jobs without just cause or who were fired for misconduct would not be subject to any penalty whatsoever. This kind of irresponsible motion will fail to score any points with Canadians, including hardworking Quebecers.

As I said earlier, when we get reasonable motions that make sense, such as the one which came forward at committee, government members are willing to consider them and, in fact, adopt them which we did.

This motion is so absurd that it flies in the face of the common sense provisions that have been part of the unemployment insurance program since it began 55 years ago. If the government adopted the motion, Canada would be one of the few countries, if not the only one, that allows people to quit their jobs and receive insurance benefits with impunity. Perhaps that is what the hon. member wants, or perhaps it was just thrown in for the sake of moving an amendment without giving it reasonable thought.

The current UI program and the new employment insurance program are designed to help workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. That is why it is called insurance. As an employer, I see it as an extremely important program which makes it possible, in the industries and the region I am in, to ensure that we have skilled workers available for the busy season. It is a program that benefits not only employees but employers, and I certainly want to admit that.

If workers choose to quit their jobs or are fired for misconduct, there is no way that they should expect to collect benefits. The amendment proposed by the member for Mercier would allow that to happen.

I have given their amendments serious thought but I have no choice because of the lack of thought given to this one than to say nay to that amendment. Maybe we will come to some others later that will make more sense, but certainly that one does not.

I expect that is the real reason why the member for Mercier did not speak about the amendment that the member proposed. Instead she talked rhetoric, of things in the past. Again that rhetoric does not apply.

What the member needs to admit is that this bill is a major restructuring and improvement of the situation for employees and employers right across the land. As the evidence becomes clear I am sure that eventually the member will want to admit that.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the member's remark. She talked about throwing some fat on the fire. In my opinion the member jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

I was hoping the member for Mercier would talk about her amendments instead of giving the usual rhetoric we heard from the Bloc Quebec during the full course of the committee hearings and debate.

The member did not talk about her amendment. Maybe there is a reason for that. I would be embarrassed to talk about the amendment proposed in this section if I were her as well.

I want to deal directly with that amendment. I want to address a couple of points the hon. member talked about. She quoted the letter from the Prime Minister of March 26, 1993, that "the Liberal Party of Canada shares your concern".

The Prime Minister and this party do share the concerns. This is not the same old bill the Tories of the past brought in. The member is trying to mix apples and oranges.

This bill is a major restructuring of UI to EI. It moves away from the kind of tactics of the past, a little patch here and a little patch there, in which we would raise premiums one time, shorten weeks another and move to some other provisions that usually ended up hurting workers.

This is a major restructuring of the bill. It tries to bring better balance to the bill and maintain the insurance concepts. It tries to address the problems of those in low income areas, maintaining and targeting areas where there are seasonal industries so the program is there for not only employees but employers. It tries to

maintain the economic restructuring that comes about as a result of EI as well.

The member knows but does not want to admit this party and the committee, of which she was a member, went out and talked to people. The member from Carleton-Charlotte talked earlier about some of the provisions in the bill and some of the amendments Liberal members made to the bill which will improve it in terms of addressing the needs of regions and of workers.

The members also should recognize this party and committee members in committee listened constructively to what Bloc members had to say. If they recall correctly we even adopted an amendment. It was the only one which you brought forward that seemed reasonable to us. You could have been more constructive in bringing forward amendments. However, you cannot deny that we adopted it.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on this grouping of motions I listened again very intently, as I did the other day, to the human resources development critic for the Bloc party. I hoped to hear members opposite give some good, reasoned arguments for the amendments they are proposing in this section. Sadly their arguments were wanting.

We are reasonable people on this side of the House. We listen to reasonable arguments. As I said the other day, we listened to the reasonable arguments put forward at committee and as a result substantive changes were made to the bill. Several problem areas have been fixed. This bill is substantially improved and will meet much better the needs of seasonal workers and the needs of the regions of the country.

The member for Mercier in her remarks talked about cutting off entitlement. I want to refer to some of the numbers that were used by myself and others the other day. The fact is that more part time workers will be in the system: 500,000 more individuals will have their work insured. The 45,000 seasonal workers who, despite paying premiums, were not eligible for UI, will be eligible for EI. The hours based system is beneficial. In high unemployment areas somebody working a 45-hour week will now qualify with just over nine weeks of work.

This bill is actually improving the entitlement of people who are getting into the system. I want the member for Mercier to understand that.

The argument that puzzled me most was the member saying the bill supposedly gave a gift to corporations. Any of us who sat at committee, as did some of the members opposite, can recall what the representative groups from the big corporations, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and so on, were saying. They certainly did not see it as a gift. They were concerned that perhaps too many benefits in the system were going to the less well to do and to seasonal industries.

Let us look for a moment at the maximum insurable earnings that the member talked about. They are being reduced to bring the MIE into line with the average industrial wage. That makes sense. When the UI system first came in, the maximum insurable earnings were at the industrial wage level but they have gone out of line over the years. They have to be brought back into line. That is what this bill does.

The maximum insurable earnings have to be brought into line gradually with balance so that people are not unduly affected. Dropping them to $39,000 means that they will fall to about 17 per cent above the average wage in the year 2000 versus growing to about 47 per cent above.

When I talk to the people in my area, they cannot understand why some people cannot live on over $40,000 a year or slightly higher and why they need to draw unemployment insurance at that level.

This bill is trying to come to grips with that and better balance the system. We will admit that while this results in some high income earners and their employers paying less in premiums it also means that there are substantive savings on the expenditure side as such workers will receive substantially less in benefits.

Keep in mind that the benefits are less at the high income level, bringing better balance to the system. The people who need the system in the regional industries can continue to take advantage of it. I see that as a major improvement to the system, one about which people have come to me and asked be changed.

I hate to accuse members of the Bloc Quebecois of throwing a red herring into this debate but I have to. They say there is no appeal for training programs. They are trying to negate the bill on the basis of that point. Let me ask, is there an appeal process under the current system that they seem to accept without criticism? There is not.

Let us take a closer look at it. The appeal mechanism in place for EI claimants and part I benefits is a formal process to ensure that regulations spelled out in legislation governing the EI fund are being adhered to, and that individuals are not being denied the benefits to which they are entitled. That is under Part I.

There is an appeal process at that level. I do not like to see this kind of fearmongering going on, and people saying there is no appeal process. There is one under part I.

Part II is substantially different. Part II is based not on an individual entitlement but on a framework of benefits and measures that can be implemented with discretion and judgment according to local and regional needs and priorities. Decisions are made, not on objective criteria bound by strict rules and regula-

tions, but within guidelines and strategies developed to respond to labour market conditions and the needs of the local work force.

Individuals, groups, employers and others may all be recipients of program resources. It would not be appropriate or practical to introduce a formal appeal process to such a framework. It is not in the current system. This is what I find absolutely amazing. I have never heard that complaint about the current system.

Given the fiscal framework, it is not possible to meet the expectations of every group and individual. While exercising flexibility and discretion, local offices must at the same time ensure that decisions are made fairly, equitably and transparently within an overall strategic planning process. Officers are held accountable for results, including participation by priority groups.

I wanted to raise those points because there is some strange information and a little bit of fear mongering which is being put on the record by members opposite.

I will raise one last point. I believe the last speaker mentioned the zero to 15 hours as if moving to the hours based system was a problem. We had this debate previously. I must remind the member again that by moving to the hours based system we improve the system substantially.

We will be getting out of the 15 hour trap which mainly affects women and to a great extent people who work in fast food outlets. The new system allows multiple job holders to get into the system and to draw benefits if needed, which we hope they are not because we are working very strenuously on the side of employment. However, the hours based system will help people get into the system if they need to. The benefits to a great extent will help women who are presently not entitled to get into the system. That is an improvement.

At least once during the debate members opposite should recognize some of the improvements in the system.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I had intended to address some of the points raised by the member for Mercier. Instead I must address some of the points raised by the member for Lévis.

Is there a reason the member for Lévis is dealing in rhetoric rather than in substance? What he is doing in dealing in rhetoric is the same thing that was done at the committee hearings. They do not want to deal with the substance because it will show what is really in the bill, that the bill has been improved for the working people of the country.

Opposition parties led by the Bloc filibustered debate for approximately 26 hours at the beginning of clause by clause examination of Bill C-12. The filibuster took place from approximately 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 23 until 4 p.m., Wednesday, April 24. As a result, we missed being able to debate the substance of the issue and really get the facts out there.

Let me address the points raised by the member for Mercier, the Bloc critic for HRD. I grant that her heart is in the right place and that she does care, but she should look at the facts as they relate to the bill. Her remarks were long on rhetoric and extremely short on facts.

The member argued the issue was not debated and she alleged the government does not care what happens. She is just plain wrong. The social security reform committee, which I believe she was a member of, held 600 hearings. There were public meetings held by MPs. The idea was to hold 100 hearings, and I believe close to 90 hearings were held.

The people of Canada showed their concern. The difference between the Bloc, the Reform and the Liberals is that when Liberal members heard those concerns we proposed amendments to the bill. If we look at the Order Paper, at the positive changes made by the minister and other members of the Liberal Party to that bill, we looked at the concerns of Canadians and have tried to address them.

In my past life as a farm union leader I had considerable experience dealing with legislative committees. In all my experiences before legislative committees I have never seen such substantial change come to a bill addressing the concerns of Canadians. Very seldom does a minister say he recognizes there are some problems with it. Both the previous and present Ministers of Human Resource Development have said there were some problems with Bill C-11 and C-12 and asked the committee to address them.

The difference is that Liberals on the committee said "yes, we will go the people, we will put forward positive amendments. All the Bloc, the Reform and some labour unions could say was scrap the bill. That is not productivity.

Members on this side of the House have addressed the gap, which was a serious problem. We have addressed the divisor, which was a serious problem. We have addressed to a great extent the problem of the intensity rule. Through the amendments we will address the concern that there may be too much control by the governor in council so that debate in the future on the divisor in terms of weeks will be done in the House. We have made major improvements. The bill has become an expression of what Canadians want.

The member for Mercier talked about shorting access to benefits. Let me again clear the record for the member. The fact is 350,000 claimants in low income families will get a supplement. With regard to part time workers, 500,000 more individuals will have their work insured; about 380,000 of these will have all their premiums refunded; 140,000 part time workers who pay premiums today will also have their premiums refunded. The list goes on. Some 90,000 unemployed people who not now eligible for UI now will become eligible for EI. Those points should be put on the record.

Again let me correct the member for Mercier on the point about women. On eliminating the 15 hour per week job trap, to avoid paying UI premiums some employees restrict part time workers to less than 15 hours per week. An hour based system will eliminate this 15 hour trap. Extending coverage to part time workers, the hour based system broadens coverage to 270,000 women who work part time. Of these, 204,000 will have their premiums refunded.

In terms of women holding multiple jobs, a greater share of working women hold multiple jobs and under the EI hours based system all hours count toward an EI claim. This means multiple job holders will now be fully insured should they take sick, maternity or paternal leave or lose one or more of their jobs for another reason.

There are exceptions to the intensity rule which will help women. The intensity rule, which reduces the benefit rate by 1 per cent for every 20 weeks of regular benefits claimed over the past five years, will not apply to 108,000 women who receive the family income supplement and have a history of past use of EI. It is important that I put these points on the record and correct some of the rhetoric of the member for Mercier.

I want to correct a point by the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on his concern about Revenue Canada. Since 1971, for administrative and cost efficiency reasons, responsibility for the determination of the insurability of employment earnings and assessment of premiums was legally transferred from the commission to Revenue Canada. The hon. member was informed of that at the committee but because of their filibuster it might not have sunk in.

Of some three million UI claims per year only some 60,000 or 2 per cent are sent to Revenue Canada for insurability rulings. These requests are an important control feature to ensure UI benefits are properly paid, thus saving the UI program some $116 million annually.

I point out for the member's benefit as well that there are 10 Revenue Canada tax service offices in Quebec which provide rulings on the insurability of employment. Five of these offices handle appeals to the minister in terms of minister's determination, and with this are the fewer than 28 human resource Canada commissions adjudicating claims in Quebec. These are more than sufficient to handle the 3,938 appeals to the minister in a typical year.

The member for Mercier talked about UI as economic stability. I point out to her that is what we see as a major important plank to the EI system. It is an economic stabilizer in the country. That is why we are trying to target the benefits to regions and to people with low incomes.

We have the clawback provisions and we recognized long ago that EI is important in terms of working men and women's lives and in terms of having an insurance program. It is an important economic stabilizer for the country as a well. It ensures that workers are available and that skills are available in the various regions throughout Canada.

In terms of the amendments in the bill put forward by the Liberals, we will improve that and ensure economic stability so there is prosperity in the future across the country.