Bill C-280 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence

Employment Insurance Act

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That is better than nothing, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-280 introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan, is designed to put an end to government interference in the use of a fund that belongs to the unemployed. This bill establishes, on the one hand, an independent commission responsible for setting the EI premium rate annually and, on the other hand, an independent EI fund, that is separate from government funds, to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the EI program.

During the 2004 election campaign, the FTQ, CSN and CSQ central labour bodies got together to form the Sans-chemise coalition. They displayed instructive signs in the vicinity of Liberal panels to show how outraged they were by the misappropriation of EI funds. The coalition took objection to the fund's loss of independence, with more than $46 billion having been misappropriated.

Extending the insult beyond the party, the MP for Outremont's campaign team acted in a way that was contrary to the freedom of expression and to Canadian election law by removing the signs of the Sans-chemise.

As the signs of the Sans-chemise said, “The Unemployed have been Robbed”. By setting the premium rate too high, the Liberals have accumulated huge profits at the expense of the unemployed. Indeed, $46 billion has been used for purposes other than those originally intended. This bill will ensure that the EI fund is finally a fund separate from public accounts, to be managed in the interest of the recipients of the EI program, by them and for them.

This independent employment insurance fund is designed to be used exclusively for EI purposes, with the rates being adjusted to avoid running huge deficits or surpluses, as is happening right now. In other words, the money raised for employment insurance could not be used to finance health, heritage, defence and other non-EI related programs.

Many witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, including Mrs. Sheila Fraser. The Auditor General of Canada stated that “the government did not respect the spirit of the Employment Insurance Act” in using the money in the EI fund for something outside the program.

The workers and union representatives who appeared before the committee are in favour of Bill C-280. They all want to see an independent EI fund. These witnesses say that the surplus belongs to the people who paid into the fund.

Indeed, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities are unanimous. There was also unanimity among committee members from all four parties. All these favourable responses to the idea of setting up an independent EI fund must translate into unequivocal support for this bill presented by the Bloc Québécois.

If we all agree, in committee at least, on the creation of an independent fund, we must also make changes to the employment insurance commission and to the way in which premium levels are set. This bill includes these vital elements of a sound EI plan.

The bill put forward by my colleague from Manicouagan seeks to establish a neutral and impartial Employment Insurance Commission. This bill proposes the establishment of a tripartite commission composed of 17 members where employers and employees would formed the majority. These are the people who benefit from the EI Fund and who pay into that fund, and it makes sense that they would have a majority as far as the management of the program goes. Moreover, having groups of employers and employees represented on the Commission would make it more independent from the government.

By proposing the creation of such a commission, the Bloc Québécois is responding to the request of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We still have to deal with the setting of the premium rates. The EI account is not supposed to make astronomical profits, nor is it supposed to make deficits. It should maintain a certain balance and keep a reserve in case of an economic crisis.

Currently the premium rate is too high and the surpluses are not properly redistributed. To thank the unemployed for their $46 billion contribution, last fall the government announced it was lowering premiums by 3 cents per $100 of insurable income. This was a purely arbitrary decision. This government is laughing in the unemployed workers' face.

To prevent the government from arbitrarily setting the premium rate according to which way the wind blows and what its electoral promises hold, Bill C-280 proposes that the premium rate be set by the Employment Insurance Commission.

The commission would determine a rate that would ensure a fair premium during a three-year business cycle. In this annual report, the commission would explain its decision and analysis, a decision that would ensure that there is enough revenue to pay the expenses authorized on the employment insurance account.

I remind you that, between 1972 and 1996, it is the commission, not the government, that was setting the premium rate. During these years, the employment insurance account was viable and was doing well, without merrily taking advantage of workers and the unemployed. The calculation formula of the basic premium rate was very simple. It was the average basic cost of the benefits, minus the amount required to reduce or eliminate the deficit or the surplus in the employment insurance account.

With this formula, it was impossible to have a cumulative balance such as the one that we now have. In any case, since 1990, the employment insurance system is self-supporting, because the federal treasury stopped contributing to it, but is merrily dipping into it.

Consequently, I suggest to all my colleagues who take the interests of their constituents to heart and who want a fair balance in the employment insurance system to vote for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund, for the creation of the employment insurance commission and for Bill C-280.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I will not be saying this evening that the government has stolen the workers' money. It has only taken it without asking.

It is my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-280 moved by the hon. member for Manicouagan. This is a very important bill for the House of Commons.

It appears that the employment insurance fund, which has been taken without permission, is something the government is still interested in. The government would still like to take it without asking. I have checked and the words I am now using are proper.

That is why the government has invoked the idea that if there is no royal recommendation the bill will not be accepted. A minority government has to find a back door to do what it cannot do by the front door.

It is unfortunate that the government wants to base itself on a matter of procedure we could call a little loophole, in order to reject the bill from the hon. member for Manicouagan, a bill that is so important for the working people.

Other colleagues have said so. In 1986, it is true that the Auditor General mentioned that it should remain in the consolidated revenue fund. I do not think that when the Auditor General made those remarks he believed that the government would take that money for other purposes. That was not the point at the time. He was saying that it should be there and it should perhaps be better managed. It is now 2005 and we notice that $46 billion has disappeared. That $46 billion amount is made up of the contributions from working men, working women and their employers.

That is why all Canadians, all workers and employers, are worried. We have had meetings of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on this topic.

Even the employers have said that this fund has to be removed from the government's hands. It must be taken out of consolidated revenue fund. It is our fund, We pay for that fund. It is insurance for the working people and we are the ones who should look after it, under government supervision; the government's responsibility will be to ensure that the money is truly going in the right direction.

If it were not in the consolidated fund, the government would be more inclined to do the right thing. It will do the right thing and I think we put it back on the right track.

The Auditor General had said to put it in the consolidated fund. Yet, 10 years later, the Auditor said that in the past 3 years the government has come very close to breaking the law. That is where we are today. There should be $15 billion in the employment insurance fund in order to run it properly and we have a $46 billion surplus.

I have to hand it to the government. I hope I am allowed to say so. I find that at least this is a little more honest. They are telling us they used the money for something else. They never used to be so open. At least now they are willing to admit they used the money for social programs or job creation. Finally, they put it on paper. They tell us in black and white that they took the money without asking. They did what they wanted with the money and that is too bad for us.

It is unfortunate and that is where I disagree with the Conservative member. He said he likes the eight proposals made in December and that is the direction they want to take. However, they have problems with the rest and say we must wait.

Workers in Canada have been waiting and suffering for 10 years now. People have been punished for 10 years now. Statistics show that there are 800,000 people paying employment insurance who do not qualify to receive benefits.

In the past 10 years, we have reached a point where there are 1.4 billion children who go hungry in Canada. I maintain that the changes made to employment insurance in 1996 led to this poverty in Canada. These are members of single parent families, who work from morning to night and, when they lose their job, do not qualify for employment insurance benefits. It is usually women who head single parent families. They have a hard time working the required number of hours to be eligible for employment insurance, a program that belongs to them.

In the meantime, as for the business aspect of the issue, I do not agree with the Conservative member when he says this does not create jobs. That is not true.

Most people—let us say between 95 and 99%, not to state that they are perfect—who work from morning to evening in a seasonal pattern, when they receive an employment insurance cheque, do not travel to Florida for a vacation. These people receive their cheque and will spend it in the community. This money ends up in the hands of storekeepers, car sellers, small business owners in the community. This way, it is good for the region.

If one wants to solve the employment insurance problem, it is simple; one has to create jobs. The former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, said in 1993, when he was in the opposition and Brian Mulroney, of the Conservative party, was heading the country, that one had to solve the employment problem if one wanted to solve the employment insurance problem. That is what he told Conservatives at that time. He said that there was no need to make changes to employment insurance, but rather that there was a need to put in place a stronger economy in order to foster economic development, to invest in regions and to create jobs. People needed to be put to work and, automatically, they would not have to be dependent on employment insurance.

For a change, I agreed with Jean Chrétien; he was right. However, when he came to power, it was as though someone had injected him with something and he had suddenly become a Conservative. Therein lay the problem.

In that connection, he had even sent a letter to an unemployment action group in Trois-Rivières. I have it in my office. That letter says very clearly that the Conservative government was not acting properly at that time. The pity is that he followed in the Conservatives' footsteps. Both parties have the same positions when it comes to workers: they are on the right.

In his speech, a while ago, my Conservative colleague stated that everything was good for the employer, that he could save money while creating jobs. On the other hand, he remained silent on ways by which we could lighten the burden of the employment insurance program so that young people who pay premiums can qualify to receive benefits. This is what is important. It is insurance for which both employees and employers pay premiums, because this latter group is not able to guarantee the former work throughout the 12 months of the year.

For example, no matter in what area of a province a company is, it must pay employer's liability insurance in case a work accident happens. The employer pays the totality of the premiums because he or she must offer a safe working environment where nobody gets hurt. However, when an accident does happen, the employer pays a compensation to the employee so that he or she gets a revenue if that accident forces him or her to stay home.

It is the same thing here. In our great country, we must recognize that we must help each other. I read in a newspaper that in New Brunswick people receive more benefits than what they paid in premiums. That is normal, that is what insurance is all about. It means that the federal government did not do what it was supposed to do in terms of job creation in that province. That is why people are so poor that they must leave their province and their families to look for work in Toronto, Barrie, Niagara Falls or Calgary. It is a shame.

The government should work very hard to make sure that these people have a job and are not forced to rely on employment insurance benefits. That is my opinion. That is the thing to do instead of cutting benefits paid to men and women who lose their job. That is cruel, outrageous and unacceptable. Liberals played a role in that since they adopted Brian Mulroney's line of thought when he was prime minister of Canada and leader of the Conservatives in place.

Once again, the Conservatives of today are not saying that workers should be able to qualify for employment insurance benefits. They prefer to take sides with the big employers and big companies which are far from being poor. Presidents of companies who receive $10 million a year are not poor and I have no pity for them. I am sorry but I must say that frankly and publicly to all Canadians.

On the other hand, I have a great deal of sympathy for the workers who lost their job and found themselves in the street. In the past, we never saw people sleeping in front of Toronto's or Montreal's town hall, but it is something we see now.

Let us hope that Parliament will vote in favour of this bill, because it is very important for the people, the working people in Canada.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party supports the principles set out in this bill.

In supporting the principles of the bill, we look at the fundamental values behind it, the values of fairness. We look at helping those genuinely in need in society. We believe that people should be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labour. We also believe that the best form of employment insurance is a strong economy that creates jobs so people never have to be unemployed.

I thought I would start by first responding to some things that my friend the parliamentary secretary said about why the employment insurance fund was rolled into the consolidated revenues of the government. He pointed to the Auditor General's reference to certain accounting principles.

However, what happened is that the Liberal government then used that technical approach once the fund was rolled into consolidated revenues as a free ticket to raid the employment insurance fund to the tune of some $46 billion over 10 years.

That is $46 billion that the government took from employers and employees who contributed in the hopes of having their work and their future secured. The government used that money, diverting it for other purposes, perhaps including, as my friend pointed out, supporting the sponsorship scandal that has drawn such attention in recent days.

What my friend also failed to mention was the role that the Auditor General played in exposing the inappropriateness of that government diversion of funds from the employment insurance purposes for which they were intended to other purposes. That was condemned by the Auditor General one year after another and in one report after another.

It was not until this government faced a minority situation, where opposition parties could bind together to bring to the fore the importance of this issue, that once and for all the government is being held to account. That theft from workers and employers who paid in that money is hopefully going to be brought to a halt.

Certainly this private member's bill put forward by my friend from Manicouagan is a good example of how we are working on this side of the House, regardless of the party we belong to, to try to bring an end to the theft of those moneys by the Liberal government.

The $46 billion accumulated notional surplus from the employment insurance system reflects what was, over the past decade, a deliberate program of overtaxing workers and employers in order to divert those moneys to fund other government priorities.

As has been mentioned, the Conservative Party worked very hard at committee to have the first eight recommendations of the employment insurance subcommittee approved and adopted. The recommendations were designed to bring the system into fiscal responsibility. We were pleased to see that happen.

Those are only recommendations out of the committee. We are concerned that the government may not respond appropriately. When I hear the comments from the parliamentary secretary, I am concerned that it may not. That is why this private member's bill from the member for Manicouagan is most timely.

The practice of diverting those funds to other purposes, as has occurred with the $46 billion out of employment insurance, is intellectually dishonest. It violates the law. That is exactly what the Auditor General found. That practice has attracted her criticism repeatedly. It also represents, most profoundly, an unfair and regressive form of taxation.

Instead of funding government spending increases out of more progressive forms of taxation such as income taxes, the use of this EI surplus for that purpose takes proportionately more from the working poor and from small businesses. As such, it taxes those who can afford it least, shifting the burden from those who have means.

The reason is simple. When someone pays into employment insurance and they achieve a certain income level there is a cap that they run into. Those who have high incomes and earn far more than the cap stop paying into employment insurance. As a result, the burden falls disproportionately on those with lower incomes.

That may make sense in an employment insurance system where only a certain portion of earnings is insured, but when that money is taken and used instead for the general programs of the government, it represents a replacement of what would otherwise be income taxes, a much more progressive form of taxation, a much fairer way of funding government programs.

For that reason, we find the approach taken by the government in the past 10 years of diverting these employment insurance funds to be an unacceptable, punitive approach that has hurt workers more than anybody else. On the other hand, it could only have happened by having insurance premiums that were too high. That was the other thing the government did over the past decade to achieve the $46 billion surplus. Consistently, illegally, year after year, the premiums were set far above what was necessary to maintain the system as viable, resulting in a surplus. In so doing, what effectively was occurring was that those taxes themselves, those premiums, were too high. That is a job killing payroll tax. It stifled and continues today to stifle the ability of employers to create new jobs and economic growth.

As I have said, the best form of employment insurance is the creation of new jobs. That has been harmed consistently by the $46 billion in overtaxation through EI premiums in the past decade, something that has yet to stop. Even in the new premium which has been set, any basic math tells us that a surplus will continue to be generated. Our priority is to stop the unfair practice which hurts working families and the businesses that have had their money taken by the government under false pretences. The theft must stop and the money must be returned.

Some items trouble us about the proposed legislation. It is the commission with its 17 members and a potential policy-making role.

We feel that the fundamental structure of employment insurance as a program should remain primarily a matter of government policy. The number of 17 commissioners perhaps seems to us an unwieldy and large number. For that reason, I am somewhat encouraged by the Speaker's ruling and would encourage my friend from Manicouagan to consider shutting that portion of the legislation which stands as a barrier to its passage. This would make it possible for us to embrace the bill with a full enthusiasm completely.

There are other problems with the employment insurance system as it works today. One of the biggest problem is that people fall through the cracks. Increasingly the government in an effort again to shift that burden out of their own revenues has layered program after program, what are essentially social programs, on to the employment insurance mechanism as a vehicle to deliver those social services, whether they be maternity leave or extended maternity leave, compassionate care leave and the like.

The problem is that increasingly more and more Canadians are not part of the employment insurance system or, if they are, they are not eligible in the special, unique circumstances that arise. People fall through the cracks. This increasing reliance on employment insurance to deliver things like maternity care, compassionate care and sickness leave and the like results in a discriminatory situation where many Canadians simply do not have the support they need. That has to be addressed in the long term.

Similarly, the reliance on using employment insurance as the vehicle to deliver training means we are delivering training that often is not aimed at increasing the productivity of society or ensuring that people actually are better off after the training and better equipped to get a job. Rather, it treats it as an extension of the employment insurance system. Decisions are made on what training to pursue based on length of eligibility and whether we can extend our eligibility, rather than will this help us to contribute more to the economy. Will this mean we end up with a more productive workforce? Will this mean we will have overall economic growth?

Those issues have to be addressed in the long term. While they may not be addressed in this bill, these are things I think are important priorities and they certainly are for the Conservative Party. I am not sure they are for the government yet, but we will continue to press them to make it so.

Finally, I wanted to address the issue of long term viability of the employment insurance system. We think it is important that the management of the system, the premiums, the rate setting mechanism which has been politicized in the past decade be restored to accountability. This has to be the number one priority. Before we start looking at major changes to the system, we have to ensure we have corrected the mismanagement, the fiscal theft that this government has engaged in for years. We have to ensure that the new structure of it can be viable.

Before we tinker with it massively, we have to ensure it is viable and works and can be sustainable. Our concern is that if one makes too many changes too quickly, we may face a situation where the long term viability of the system is in jeopardy.

I am confident that the proposed legislation before us in Bill C-280 does not do that. I am confident the legislation would help to contribute to restoring fiscal accountability in the system, putting an end to the consistent theft of workers' and employers' contributions to employment insurance and their diversion to other purposes by this government.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address the subject of the Employment Insurance Act. I want to thank the member for Manicouagan for giving us an opportunity to debate these important issues.

Bill C-280 proposes some fundamental amendments to the EI act and I think it is important to provide some historical context for the present structure. This historical context I think will illustrate the importance, complexity and challenges presented by the proposals contained in the bill.

Let me begin with the employment insurance account, which the member mentioned. It is important to appreciate why the EI account is reported within the consolidated revenue fund and not, as the bill proposes, separate from the accounts of Canada.

In the early 1980s, the Auditor General of the time expressed concerns about the fragmented reporting of government activities. To rectify the situation, that Auditor General was of the opinion that the EI premiums paid by employers and employees were federal revenues that, given the government's control over EI policy and programs, should be included in the reported Government of Canada revenues.

That was a decision of the Auditor General of the day. I know the member respects the Auditor General. The change in accounting was a response by the government of the day to what the Auditor General said.

On the Auditor General's advice, in 1986 the EI account was fully integrated into the government's general finances. This practice follows appropriate accounting methods consistent with the standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This reasoning still holds true with today's Auditor General. Ms. Fraser indicated support for the current EI accounting procedure at last November's public accounts committee meeting.

At that meeting Ms. Fraser said:

In our view, this is the correct method of accounting, and it complies with accounting standards for government...Employment insurance is considered to be a government program: government determines the rate of premiums, eligibility criteria and benefits....

She went on to say:

--I have trouble imagining that the employment insurance program could be excluded from the government's summary financial statements, which include all government activities.

Clearly the Auditor General of Canada strongly endorses current accounting procedures for the EI account.

It is important to note that because the EI account has been consolidated with other accounts of Canada in reality it is not an actual account containing cash, but rather it is a bookkeeping tool.

However, this government is committed to transparency. That is why the reply to the Speech from the Throne contained an order of reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities instructing it to recommend measures which would ensure that all future uses of the employment insurance program would only be for the benefit of workers and not for any other purpose. The committee is seized with that at the present time.

The standing committee tabled its report with its unanimous recommendations last December. We intend to analyze these recommendations carefully and give them serious consideration before responding to the committee. I am confident that the government's response will represent improvements and address some of the concerns raised by the member in Bill C-280.

I would now, however, like to note particular elements contained in the bill that require careful consideration. One of these refers to ensuring that the difference between the assets of the employment insurance account and its liabilities does not exceed $15 billion. The member mentioned this.

Placing a cap on the account is something that would need to be examined carefully to ensure that it meets the test of time and future cyclical needs of the EI program. In other words, unemployment demands vary with the economy. Does this cap which is being mentioned cope with those variations?

This point raises the larger issue of an independent fund as recommended in the bill, requiring the replacement of the federal government's at present unlimited obligation to pay EI benefits with the liability of a separate account. Although the bill recommends that the federal government should still be required to lend the account money if it was unable to meet its obligations, this would mean that the account could not be operated at arm's length from government.

It is clear, therefore, that the changes proposed in the bill would be sufficient to cause EI account activities to be outside of the consolidated revenues.

I would now like to return to the other major proposal of this bill: the establishment of the new 17 member tripartite Canada employment insurance commission.

This proposition raises several potential issues, not the least of which is that an independent commission could have important effects on the capacity of government to set direction on the policy and program elements of the EI program. It is important that the government have the ability to ensure the program responds to the labour market needs of all Canadians.

EI plays a key role in Canada's economy and social safety net by providing temporary income support and helping workers adjust to the labour market. It is crucial that the government retain the ability to serve the labour market needs of Canadians.

In addition, a jump from a commission of 4 members to one of 17 could affect the commission's ability to reach consensus and get issues resolved in an efficient and effective manner. My colleague raised that question earlier. Departing from the commission's present composition of the Deputy Minister and Associate Deputy Minister of HRSD, as well as a commissioner of workers and a commissioner of employers, requires careful analysis and needs to be cost effective.

Finally, the establishment of an ongoing administration of a 17 member commission that would operate and oversee the EI account would be a costly undertaking. Canadian premium payers do not want their money spent on administration. They want it spent on benefits. That said, it is an important issue and one that the government will consider carefully in developing a response.

Returning to the issue of EI premium rate setting, the government is reviewing the rate setting process and will be considering approaches for a new mechanism in responding to the standing committee. It would therefore be premature to make changes to the process prior to the completion of that work.

That said, it is important to note that the government has demonstrated prudent financial management over the EI account. Over the past 11 years, premium rates have steadily gone down while the benefits to Canadians have been steadily enriched since 2000.

Just last December, the Government of Canada announced that the 2005 rate for employees is $1.95 and for employers $2.73 per $100 of insurable earnings. As a result of these rate reductions, employers and employees will pay $10.5 billion less in premiums than they did under the 1994 rate when this government came to power.

Canadians can be proud of their efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy. It is that strength and the number of Canadians working that have allowed us to lower the rate yet again.

While I appreciate the member's contribution to the debate on the EI Act and welcome this opportunity, as I said, to share ideas, for the reasons that I have outlined I believe that it would be premature to move forward with this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order, please. I must advise the House of a ruling by the Chair with regard to Bill C-280.

The Chair has examined Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another act in consequence to determine whether its provisions would require a royal recommendation and thus prevent the Chair from putting the question at third reading.

Among other provisions, this bill mandates the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. The parent Act, in respect of this amending provision, namely the Department of Human Resources Development Act, provides that the members of this commission are to receive remuneration for their services.

Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (and Standing Order 79) prohibits votes on bills appropriating public revenues without royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues.

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation. The amending provision requiring a royal recommendation is found in clause 5 of the bill and appears to be the only provision requiring a royal recommendation.

Therefore, in its present form, I will decline to put the question on third reading unless a royal recommendation is received for this bill.

Today, the debate is on the motion for second reading and will continue as scheduled.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved that Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

On December 12, 2003, in keeping with the wishes of the Prime Minister, the Department of Human Resources Development was divided into the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Department of Social Development.

According to the Prime Minister, the justification for this was to strengthen our social foundations. As a result, 14,000 public servants who manage more than $20 billion, supposedly in order to strengthen the social foundations of Canada, will be mandated to build the economy of the 21st century.

Human Resources and Skills Development will therefore hold a mandate to promote the development of highly skilled workers. As far as I know, however, this is already being done in Quebec and successfully done at that, until there is any evidence to the contrary.

What then lies behind this endless desire of the central government to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, on the pretext of improving Canadians' quality of life, especially when the Employment Insurance mess is obviously not a good advertisement for massive intrusion into an area that would definitely merit being brought into line with the needs of the provinces, the regions of Quebec in particular?

Whether the topic is employment insurance rules, setting up an independent fund, or community housing needs, I can see no need at all to change the rules of the game.

The real issue is this: How is this new approach likely to improve the lot of individuals, when we have not talked at all about correcting the eligibility criteria for the vulnerable people who are EI clients, or about improving the current, inadequate structure?

Bill C-280 introduced by the Bloc Québécois deserves to be adopted, because it establishes the composition of the Employment Insurance Commission. The commission would be far sighted enough to incorporate in its structure representatives of employees and employers appointed by the governor in council, a chairperson appointed by the House of Commons, and vice-chairpersons selected from among the deputy ministers or associate deputy ministers of Human Resources Development Canada.

The second part of Bill C-23 deals with the appointment of a Minister of Labour and all his powers, duties and functions, all for the purpose of improving the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians by promoting, among other things, a highly skilled and mobile workforce, and reinforcing the social foundations of Canada.

How, then, can we explain the government's stubborn opposition to passing an anti-strike-breaker law in the past, the bill now reintroduced by one of our hon. members as Bill C-263? Logically, Bills C-23 and C-263 should be considered together if we want to improve the quality of life of working people.

As for manpower development, the Government of Quebec has no lessons to learn from Ottawa, especially since the four client groups that escaped its grip in 1997—young people, people with disabilities, immigrants and older workers—are not receiving the attention they need for their freedom.

As for the section of the bill dedicated to the national homelessness initiative, whose purpose is to establish support mechanisms for the homeless, especially to help them settle and prevent other people at risk from joining their ranks, the proposed federal initiative itself has no permanence, which is clearly a necessity under the circumstances.

Needless to say, in my riding like in any riding with an inner city, social housing and homelessness are major problems. That is why the proposed measures will have to take into account this new dynamic. Both in terms of approach and funding, we will be expecting long-term solutions, and not ad hoc programs like the ones we are unfortunately seeing all too often these days.

There is nothing in this bill guaranteeing anything substantive to promote housing development in order to make housing more accessible and in particular to ensure that it not take up too much of the tenants' monthly budget. As for measures to improve the employment insurance program, efforts must be made particularly to ensure that they are geared toward helping the target clientele made up of young people, people with disabilities, seasonal workers and older workers who all too often face the sudden closure of their places of work.

It must be recognized once and for all that the solution is not always to question existing programs, be they federal or provincial, but rather to ensure that programs complement one another and respect the jurisdictions of each level of government. If as much energy was put into bringing each existing program, regardless of its origin, in line with the others as is put into claiming paternity for programs, this would go a long way toward facilitating the well-being of all citizens.

In a nutshell, there is nothing in this legislation to ensure a better world in terms of industrial relations, employment insurance and social housing, given that the funding for acceptable solutions is not provided. In this bill as in many others, one of the problems may be insufficient reliance on the available human potential because, in many cases, administrative constraints hinder creativity.

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not stoop to the government's specialty, which is to always look for ways to create new org charts. In private member's Bill C-280, we suggested straightforward structures to make government management more efficient. The Bloc Québécois is contributing through its own bills and motions.

Should we keep the old department the way it was or divide it in two as suggested here? The division is not a solution in itself. Having more departments or fewer, or dividing departments will not settle any problem.

I have some experience. I will soon turn 50. In my younger years, I used to be very much interested in politics. I was proud to know by heart the make-up of cabinets in Quebec City and Ottawa. I thought that once I knew them, I would know them forever, and that it would never change.

Later on, when I was 15 or 16, I realized that it was not worth trying to remember the names of ministers and their departments, because they keep changing all the time when circumstances change and when mandarins feel like changing them.

I also know that this bill has been introduced because of problems in the management of this department. Would government management of the firearms registry have been better if there had been two registries instead of one? I doubt it. Splitting a department in two is neither good nor bad. What counts is the way it is done.

In Bill C-280, we suggest measures that are clearer, more simple, and more transparent for the public.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

This bill gives a definition of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Early in the bill, we read the following:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters...over which Parliament has jurisdiction and which are not by law assigned to another Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.

Unfortunately, it is not specified that all these jurisdictions are provincial. In other words, this bill further entrenches the federal invasion of the areas of manpower development and education.

In the next few minutes, I will not come back to the employment insurance aspect, even though it is an important part of the new department. I believe that my colleague for Chambly—Borduas has very clearly explained the position of the Bloc Québecois in this respect.

Let me just recall a few facts. The employment insurance program became a federal jurisdiction when it was handed over by the provinces in the hard times of the second world war. Since then, the federal government, here as in a number of jurisdictions, has done as it pleased, completely ignoring Quebec and the provinces.

The current government can now demonstrate its good will by supporting Bills C-278 and C-280 as tabled by the Bloc Québécois. These two bills would implement necessary and efficient amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, the first in terms of procedure and benefits, the second concerning the EI Commission and its related fund.

Unfortunately, in my riding, EI is taking on growing importance, while the government does nothing to keep businesses in business. EI is and will continue to be very important for a great number of citizens in my riding. However, the current criteria are inadequate on both counts. Workers need a decent income to meet their needs. With all the federal programs that have been slashed for all age groups and for all workers, my riding is looking at a annual shortfall of $23 million, which is an unbelievably large amount.

That being said, let me return to the current bill which, as I was saying, highlights the federal government's interference in provincial jurisdictions.

The mandate of the future Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development will be, among other duties, to strengthen the social foundations of Canada. However—I repeat—these social foundations, as it is clearly said, come under provincial jurisdiction.

The skills development portion of the new department is nothing less than an education department in disguise. The learning bonds are a case in point. The federal government must transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces, rather than establish programs in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. With the transfer to the provinces, the Government of Quebec could help students by limiting debts incurred due to their studies and by providing achievable dreams to our young people.

Bill C-23 stipulates that the new “Minister may enter into agreements with a province or a provincial public body...or bodies that the Minister considers appropriate”. I should hope so; this is obvious. The sectors of labour development and education come under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and provincial bodies should be consulted, unless, again, the Liberal government acts in bad faith.

In the area of labour development, I will again refer to the bill. It says that the Minister contributes to the achievement of these objectives by supporting the development of human capital, by improving access to post-secondary education, by supporting skills improvement in the workplace and by encouraging Canadians to embark on a path of lifelong learning.

I will provide examples from my riding to demonstrate that the Liberal government has difficulty in managing programs and that it would be well-advised to leave them, with their funds, to Quebec and the provinces.

In the Compton—Stanstead riding, after the closure of the CookshireTex and Cordelli plants, which fell victim to Asian competition, several employees took steps to retrain themselves. They sought to find their way back onto the labour market by becoming specialists.

Instead of encouraging them, the staff at the local employment insurance office thoroughly demoralized them. The federal employees there were saying that the newly unemployed people had more than enough qualifications to get retrained. Those who did not have all the qualifications were told that employment insurance would not pay for seasonal or long-term training.

Is that a show of goodwill? Is that what we call support for the development of human capital, for professional training and for continuous learning? I think the liberal government is laughing in the face of our fellow citizens. Instead of giving such absurd answers, the federal government should address the fiscal imbalance so that Quebec would have the necessary resources to take care of workforce development by itself, without having to go to Ottawa cap in hand.

I am asking my colleagues in this House to stand against Bill C-23, but to be in favour of Bill C-278 and Bill C-280, which, as I said, modify the Employment Insurance Act in an efficient manner. The Bloc Québécois also thinks that the Minister of Labour's mandate, as described in Part II of Bill C-23, is consistent with Bill C-263 on replacement workers. The federal government should support the initiative put forward by the Bloc Québécois by voting in favour of said bill, and thus modify the Labour Code without shaking up the entire Human Resources Department.

Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this bill on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will do so by discussing five specific issues. First, I will present our position. Then, I will examine the objectives set out in this legislation and also its mandate and vision. We will see if, given the stated objectives, this mandate and this vision are in harmony. Finally, I will deal with the programs as such, particularly the employment insurance commission.

The Bloc Québécois disagrees with this bill. We do not share its vision, for two main reasons. First, this bill does not in any way improve the current situation regarding the jobless. On the contrary, it confirms the direction taken so far by the government.

The second fundamental reason is that by splitting the current department into two to create a social development department, the government is increasing its interference in provincial jurisdictions, particularly those of Quebec. Later on, I will explain why I am alluding to Quebec in particular; it is primarily in light of the arguments presented by the hon. member for Peterborough regarding continuing education, among others.

On December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister announced the decision to split the department into two separate parts. The reason that he gave at the time was to achieve better strategic results in management improvement. However, we should, among other things, remember the purpose of the employment insurance fund.

The Prime Minister also contended that he wanted to promote an efficient labour market. The government systematically gets back to this issue and claims that the employment insurance fund works well, when in fact employers, workers and all stakeholders in that sector are unanimous in saying that the system no longer works.

The Prime Minister is also saying that he wants to do more for lifelong learning and student aid. In so doing, he is indicating that the federal government will get even more involved in provincial jurisdictions, particularly those of Quebec.

In order to achieve this goal, the federal government wants to mobilize various groups, including the private sector, government organizations and communities, regarding community development and the social economy. The reason I am reminding hon. members of the statements made by the Prime Minister is that we still do not see what is in it for workers affected by the employment insurance issue.

On that same December 12, 2003, the leader of the official opposition in Quebec announced he would be firmly and categorically opposing this new attack on the prerogatives of the provinces, including Quebec. He stated at the time that he unreservedly opposed the establishment of the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, of the Department of Social Development and of a cities secretariat.

It is my understanding that, administratively, cities do not come under the federal government but the provincial governments. This goes to show how clear and definite the intent is; the government is going as far as wanting to enshrine it in legislation. The structures announced will serve no purpose and clearly reflect, once again, interference from the federal government.

The hon. parliamentary secretary and member for Peterborough is right when he says that these are important departments and that it may be useful to consider a certain division of responsibilities in terms of their missions, particularly the social mission.

It is recognized that the social aspect, as far as day care centres, parental leave, compassionate leave, seniors and so on are concerned, should come under the responsibility of the provinces.

From the moment that attempts are made to make these the responsibility of a given department, this shows the particular nature that is intended to be given to this department with respect to areas of provincial responsibility.

In addition, administratively, this will complicate things instead of easing and simplifying them, as promised. The Secretary of State acknowledged that much when he said we would have a single window for all the services announced.

So, what will change in terms of services? The body, the service delivery organization, remains the same but a second head is attached to it. We end up with a body with two heads, with the drawbacks this normally entails: more complex directives, and often two sets of directives.

I think the member for Peterborough will acknowledge it. Officials from his own department have acknowledged that the legislation is already very difficult to enforce. They have a hard time with it. I am talking about the Employment Insurance Act. If the same approach is used for the other services there will be no end to the problems.

That said, let us look at the vision and mission of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Let me start with the vision. The vision is to build a country where everyone has the opportunity to learn, and to contribute to Canada's success. However, we have the right to expect a policy that would make things easier for people who have the misfortune of losing their job, that would simplify the rules and makes it easier to access employment insurance. We want this department to contribute to Canada's success.

As I was saying earlier, this is interference in entirely provincial jurisdictions. The bill talks about promoting an efficient labour market and a highly skilled workforce. This comes under the area raised earlier by the Secretary of State. This entire area has to do with training the workforce. There is still no measure to correct the whole employment insurance fund problem.

As for the mission, we are still making quite extraordinary discoveries about the government's intention. According to the mission statement, the department will contribute to achieving its two objectives by supporting human capital development, enhancing access to post-secondary education—a jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec—supporting workplace skills development, and encouraging lifelong learning for Canadians.

This is a niche the federal government created for itself in 1997 through its famous agreement with Quebec. There are four areas of jurisdiction, four well-defined niches that belong to the provinces: on-the-job training, immigration, seniors and young people and persons with disabilities.

This is also very interesting, because the federal government is getting involved in a new jurisdiction, one in which it did not get involved in the past. The government is also promoting a working environment that is safe, sound, fair, stable and cooperative.

So, the act, for those provinces that have one—and heaven knows that Quebec is far ahead in this regard—deals with people who are injured at work and who are affected by occupational diseases, through a body called the CSST.

Quebec also has legislation on the prevention of occupational diseases and accidents on the job, which gives the Quebec government a lot of flexibility to support businesses and workers, to take preventive measures and, when an accident occurs, to ensure that the individual and the company are affected as little as possible.

We have this body called the workplace security and safety commission—the CSST—which operates at arm's length, and in a way that we want to propose to the federal government for the employment insurance fund.

Let us now turn our attention to the employment insurance fund. First, we must look at the programs. The seven programs announced by the government, which will be under the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, deal with employment insurance benefits, employment programs, the workplace, learning, work, the homeless, service benefit support and benefit distribution.

Of those areas, there are already four in which there is federal interference in provincial jurisdictions, including, of course, those of Quebec. First, there is employment insurance. The government is once again keeping the whole empty administration shell of the employment insurance fund, by putting responsibility for it in the hands of people who are directly appointed by the government. We know what this way of doing things has led to so far: the government has dipped into the surpluses, thus largely contributing to the fiscal imbalance, and this is unquestionably an infringement on the provinces' ability to use that money for other means, or for the same purposes.

There is also the whole issue of replacement workers in cases of conflicts, the antiscab legislation, which I will not talk about here, in the House, since someone else must probably do so today or in the next few days. The issue of homelessness comes under provincial jurisdiction. As for training and manpower development, I will not say more, because I talked about this earlier.

However, concerning the Employment Insurance Commission, the government is staying the course. What is it telling us here? It is maintaining the commission. It is recommending four commissioners. One commissioner shall be the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who shall be the chairperson. The Associate Deputy Minister shall be the vice-chairperson. A person shall be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of labour and representative of employers. They will have no power. It is an empty shell. All they will have to do is manage the what goes on, without having one word to say about what the government is doing with the employment insurance surplus, among other things, but mostly with the premium and benefit issue as such and the whole regulation of employment insurance.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois, speaking for Quebec, disagrees totally with this approach. What we are favouring and promoting is, of course, the bill we introduced, which calls for a commission consisting of a chairperson, two deputy ministers, an associate deputy minister, seven management representatives and seven labour representatives. Why so many? Because it is these people who invest in the fund. It is for them that the fund was created. Since 1980, the federal government has not invested one cent in the fund.

This is not to make the fund strictly independent and strictly under the jurisdiction of the representatives of the two parties that contribute to it, that is workers and employers. The government will also be involved in its capacity as legislator, in order to ensure follow-up on decisions taken by the House on the recommendation of this new commission.

This approach matches in every aspect the repeated requests from all employers through their respective associations. Again this week, they made requests in subcommittees appointed by this House, and all of the labour organizations and other stakeholders which have voiced an opinion on this commission have done the same. Consequently, we have trouble understanding why the government does not bow to this demand and why there has been no openness on this front so far.

To quote what Hassan Yussuf, senior economist for the Canadian Labour Congress said only days ago:

The Employment Insurance Commission needs to be at arms length from the government. It must be independent in order to supervise the situation and then report to the public. We do not want to see it administered solely by workers and employers, but see it instead as tripartite. The government must be an equal partner.

We agree with that. It is very similar to Bill C-280 introduced in this House by the hon. member for Manicouagan.

In addition to this statement, there was another very important one by the secretary general of the FTQ, who said, “...it would be fair for the federal government to join us. So we very much agree on an independent fund, or even a trust.”

He gave as an example a trust like that of the CSST, Quebec's workplace health and safety board.

I will conclude with a brief aside concerning the anti-scab bill recently introduced in this House by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. It contains one very important measure, given the impact related to the role of labour in working relations.

I can say right now that the government ought to support Bill C-263, since the minister of Labour himself opened up the issue recently.

I have a lot more to say, but I will save it for later. In conclusion our position is this: because it proposes an Employment Insurance Commission without any real power, with the opposite makeup to that outlined in Bill C-280, which I mentioned previously; because it institutionalizes blatant constitutional interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, particularly with respect to the National Literacy Secretariat, Learning Initiatives Program, Office of Learning Technologies and the homeless issue, the Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-280 proposes a more suitable Employment Insurance Commission to respond to the needs and realities of the labour sector.

Therefore, in conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that the mandate given to the Department of Labour in Part 2 of Bill C-23 is in harmony with Bill C-263 on replacement workers. Consequently, the Liberal government should support the Bloc's initiative by voting in favour of this bill, thereby amending the Canada Labour Code.

Employment Insurance Act

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (setting premium rate to control surplus in Employment Insurance Account).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in this Chamber a bill to amend the current Employment Insurance Act. This bill, of course, is supported by the member for Chambly—Borduas, as well as by all my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois.

The adoption of this bill would result in the creation and management of an independent fund. We know that, with the new reform of the Employment Insurance fund implemented in 1996, seasonal workers in the ridings of Charlevoix and Manicouagan, have an increasingly difficult time qualifying for employment insurance. People have fewer and fewer weeks.

In the meantime, the federal government has been raking in surpluses. According to figures from the Auditor General, the federal government has amassed $45 billion.

This bill will have the fund administered by those who contribute to it, in other words, employers and employees, by setting the levels of premiums, ensuring sound management of the scheme and reporting to the Chamber.

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