Status of Women committee  If they want to protect their pension plans, what are your recommendations? Perhaps my question is not clear enough.

Human Resources committee  Thank you very much. First, I would like to let Mr. Lessard clear up something.

Human Resources committee  I think we've been clear in our documents and also in the discussion that obviously the 360 hours are vitally important. You can design the best EI system in the world, but if people can't access it because the threshold is too high, then you have a really nice document, but it doesn't really do anything for anybody.

Status of Women committee  Our goal is that we don't want to see people lose their pension and we don't want to see tragedies like we have seen recently, but I think we need to have a very clear picture of how much the federal government can do and what our role is. If you could explain that for me, that would be great.

Human Resources committee  No, I think we've been very clear that uniform access should be a permanent measure and it should be for all points across the country. When the change was made in the 1990s to, first of all, require employers whose employees worked more than 15 hours a week to pay into EI, because you'll recall that before that they didn't, we actually supported the change from weeks to hours because we thought this would actually open the door for a lot of people, for the people I talked about, women and young workers, who had periods of unemployment.

Fisheries committee  There may be some truth to that, but on the other hand, history has demonstrated that this hasn't always been fact. The EU, back in 1996, as this report pointed out, made it very clear that they have a strategy to implement UNFA in a way that reflects their views. I don't see a real change in the EU strategy at all. I just think that being trustworthy.... You know, it's trust but verify.

Fisheries committee  Let's be clear here. NAFO makes an annual decision. You're saying a resolution of an objection takes years, but months later a new decision will be rendered. Say, for example, Iceland wants to fish more than what NAFO has allocated to them of Flemish Cap shrimp.

Employment Insurance Act  I also had an opportunity today to ask another member from the Conservative Party whether that member thought this bill was clear as to who was going to benefit and how, and how it was going to roll out. The member's reply is kind of interesting and I think very reflective. He said that one has to have a lot of letters behind one's name to understand how this works.

Employment Insurance Act  The petroleum industry was cranking it out. That is why, when we consider the availability of this benefit, it is clear that this particular bill will be most attractive to people in the petroleum industry, which is mostly in Alberta and Saskatchewan and which is mostly where the government support is.

Fisheries committee  Canada was recognized by all in the first NAFO Convention, when it was drafted by Canadians. With Canadians taking the pen, it was made clear that Canada was the coastal state. This new agreement has watered that down.

Fisheries committee  It does not like losing votes. To some extent, their concerns were valid as the NAFO Convention was drafted to make it clear that Canada was the primary coastal state. Further, Canada was a prime mover in the adoption of the 1995 United Nations Fish Agreements, UNFA, which reinforced Canadian positions and strengthened international law in regard to enforcement on the high seas.

Agriculture committee  So clearly this is a major issue and a big problem for the rendering industry. Certainly from the point of view of the customers, there's a clear cost discrepancy between the U.S. and Canada due to the different regulations. The CRA membership does indeed support the efforts of the customers in the beef processing industry and the cattle producers to seek additional support until such time as this discrepancy is removed, through either harmonization with the U.S. regulations or by some other means.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. A number of members on this side of the House heard exactly what the member said. He used the word “liar” directly at the minister while he responded. I am simply asking him to acknowledge it.

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in the Standing Orders that members in the House cannot call out or yell out and accuse each other of lying or being a liar. During the responses to the questions from his party by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the leader of the Bloc called out to the minister and accused him of being a liar on at least four occasions and more like six.

Taxation  This is a new study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives which says that $4 billion to $6 billion are being lost from the Canadian treasury under this plan. They make clear it is not good for Canadians. Why are the Conservatives giving tax dollars away and charging HST to Canadian--