Evidence of meeting #29 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Jackson  National Director, Social and Economic Policy, Canadian Labour Congress
Georges Campeau  Professor, Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi (réseau québécois)
Pierre Céré  Spokeperson, Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses
René Roy  Secretary General, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
Roger Valois  Vice President, Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Claude Faucher  Vice-President, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques
Robert Blakely  Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay, I apologize. That's all the time we have. We'll start our next round, if there are any questions coming the other way. We're over time here.

We're now going to move to Mr. Lake. You have five minute, sir.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

First, the $54 billion seems to be a big point of contention. I agree with most of the witnesses that it was wrong for the former Liberal government to collect the $54 billion. It never should have been collected. I have a copy of Hansard here from 2001. A member from the Bloc was questioning Finance Minister Paul Martin about this. Mr. Martin said:

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is following the auditor general's 1986 recommendation that we include the revenue from EI premiums in our consolidated revenue fund. That is what we did.

Later on he was asked about it again. He sums up their position on this at the time:

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, this is an accounting practice. It has been discussed on many occasions in the House. I remember giving this same answer to the member from Roberval at least three or four years ago. It does not exist. It is an accounting practice. The money comes in like other revenue, and the expenditures go out like other expenditures.

I think that was wrong, and I think most of you probably feel the same way. The reality is that the money has been spent. It's not a surplus sitting in an account somewhere. It's money that's been spent. Ultimately, if parties such as the NDP and the Bloc want to run on an election platform that would increase the debt by $54 billion or increase taxes to cover $4 billion—I think that is the number Mr. Lessard was using—they can run on that platform.

Myself, I was elected in 2006. Before that I probably paid as much into EI in the years of the previous Liberal government as I could possibly have paid. As a payer who will never see that money back, it ticks me off. It does. I'll never see that money back.

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

A point of order, Mr. Chair. We are not here to hear campaign arguments. We are here out of respect for these people who have made the effort to travel here and give their opinion about something that is extremely important. Workers have been defrauded out of $54 billion and someone is pretending that the purpose of the work we are doing is to prepare...

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay, that's—

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

... for the election campaign, Mr. Chair. This is a real point of order. What he just said was a low blow, for no other reason than to prevent me from finishing asking my question.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Okay, you guys are even now.

So we'll go back to Mr. Lake.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

It's actually not about that. It's about what this bill is and what it isn't, what can be done and what can't be done. Mr. Lessard suggested that $4 billion per year should be used and spent to make up for the $54 billion that had been spent by the previous Liberal government.

What I'm trying to get across is that I don't believe the answer to this problem is to penalize the taxpayer by jacking up taxes by $4 billion a year. I don't believe that's the answer. That money has been spent. There is nothing we can do about it—

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Chair...

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

—other than be glad that we've now changed governments.

10:30 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I have never said that! I have never talked about going and collecting $4 billion from taxpayers. We have never said that. Why is he saying that, Mr. Chair? I repeat: out of respect for the organizations here, we have to refrain from playing this game. We have to listen to what they have to say to us and ask them about what they have told us, Mr. Chair, and not try to interpret and state falsehoods to try to influence the opinion of the people here. Mr. Chair, I am not playing that and I would like to see these games not be permitted here.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Lessard. I have a feeling he won't influence these people at all.

Anyway, go ahead, Mr. Lake.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

His time must be just about up, just with the question.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I would think that my time has been stopped through most of this.

The one thing I do want to say, actually, is that it's fair to say we may have differences in the way we view the EI program and the benefits and the way the program should be run—maybe, I'm not sure—but the reality is that this bill has nothing to do with those differences. All this bill has to do with is transparency and accountability.

I've said before that if the Bloc ever came to be the federal government—I'm not sure how that would happen—or if the NDP were the federal government, they could make changes to programs and benefits that would increase them as much as they would like to increase them, and this bill would have no impact on their ability to do that. What this bill does is say that money collected for EI should be spent on EI, plain and simple. It shouldn't be spent on things like the gun registry, or the sponsorship program, or a variety of government programs that might be there; it should be spent on EI. It should be spent on workers and helping workers.

Mr. Blakely, I just want to clarify something, because you suggested in your last statement, in answer to a question, that there was no wording about a backstop. But in clause 131 it says:

If amounts credited to the Employment Insurance Account after December 31, 2008, and the amount of the Board's reserve referred to in subsection 66(4), are not sufficient for the payment of amounts authorized to be charged to that Account after that day, the Minister of Finance, when requested by the Minister, may authorize the advance to the Account from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of an amount sufficient to make the payment.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

It says “may”.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

It's interesting that one of the Liberal members is trying to correct me in talking about the word “may”, but I'll point out that this actually follows the same wording as is in the act now, so it's no change to the act.

There is a backstop. The fact is that if we have this reserve of $2 billion, if for some reason there's a deficit of more than $2 billion, under this legislation the government will cover that and workers will not be penalized. There may be a slight increase in rates to cover circumstances as need be, and there might be a slight falling in rates if we're collecting more money than we need to collect, based on mathematical formulas that are pretty much exactly the same as they are right now.

So Mr. Blakely, if you could, I'd like to have you comment on that. Does that allay a little bit of your concern?

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

The time is up, but I'll give you the chance, Mr. Blakely, to answer the question.

10:35 a.m.

Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office

Robert Blakely

One of the first things I learned in law school was the canons of construction: “may” is discretionary; “shall” is mandatory. There are very few circumstances where “may” becomes “shall” in statutory interpretation.

If it said that the Government of Canada would backstop it, would it allay my fears? Yes. The fact that someone has the discretion to do it does not allay my fears, and I'm obliged to you for pointing that out.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Mr. Blakely.

We're now going to move to Mr. Lessard. You have five minutes, sir.

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Over the years, there has been a change in what unemployment insurance is called: it has become employment insurance. It has always seemed to me that this was no mere trifling change, and that it was meant to reflect a change in the culture of how the fund is used. I would like to know your opinion on that. It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that this is in fact what has happened. The fund has been used more and we have been told that it would be used for developing and promoting employment, particularly for training.

Other people who have spoken have also told us, here, that it should not be used as a form of social security, for example for parental leave or things like that. They added that distinctions had to be made and we had to go back to calling it "unemployment insurance", so that it would genuinely be used for unemployment insurance.

What do you think? Is this a direction we should be moving in?

10:35 a.m.

Vice President, Executive Committee, Confédération des syndicats nationaux

Roger Valois

I want to try to answer your question. Government after government in Ottawa has talked about cutting taxes. Well, there are other ways of taxing us. The money in the employment insurance fund is being used for what tax money could be used for. Let's stop trying to cut taxes and taking money out of the employment insurance fund. That is what the present government is doing and what other governments have done in the past. Saying that you're going to cut taxes always works in elections; so they took the money out of the fund next door. If we used tax money for social programs or labour force training, we would stop looting the employment insurance fund. If the employment insurance fund were used only for unemployment, and taxes were used to do what the government is supposed to do with our taxes, we would not be here shouting and listening to all this nonsense.

A little earlier, I understood something. When I watch question period on television, I wonder why people are shouting. I have seen why now. I have refrained from shouting, I don't want to be saying just anything. We have been on this case forever. They dip into the fund instead of doing what they should be doing with taxes, and they tell people they are going to cut their taxes. I understand! They have money coming out their ears, thanks to the fund! The $54.1 billion, that is $54,000 million dollars. When we change how we describe the figure, it catches one's attention, doesn't it?

We agree completely with having maternity leave, child care centres, etc., we want them. But once they start being paid for out of a fund from which money has been knowing siphoned off to pay for programs, we say there is a problem. it is understandable that it would be used for labour force training, but workers' primary concern is eating. You can't listen on an empty stomach. It's all very well to train the unemployed, but when they have nothing to put on the table for their family, there is a problem.

I understand that there is a "Canadian" vision of the problem. Nobody wants to increase employment insurance benefits in eastern Canada when there is a shortage of workers in the west. People can't travel back and forth between Newfoundland and Edmonton every day, they have to stop and eat. People do not move around like that.

There is a country called Canada, about which I do not particularly care, but that is another story. This is a "Canadian" vision of the problem. When there is a labour shortage in British Columbia, for Whistler, or in Edmonton or elsewhere, it would be completely ridiculous to increase employment insurance premiums for people in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or eastern Quebec. That has been understood, but is it acceptable to say that we are going to cut taxes because there are pots of money in the employment insurance fund and we are going to go blithely dipping into it? The Conservative Party is not the only one that has done this. The others have done it too. When we talk about the government, we mean the government.

We are saying that the employment insurance fund has to be used for the unemployed, and has to be used to maintain and support the economy because people are unemployed. We do not object to tax money being used for what they want to use the money in the fund for. We do not fiercely object to labour force training when the government in Ottawa has money coming out its ears. That would be ill-advised. That may be why nothing is being said. Money is being taken out of the fund because taxes are being cut instead of maintaining tax levels and ensuring that the employment insurance fund is used for what it was created for in the 1940s: we did not want to go through what we went through during the great economic crisis of the 1930s. That is why it was created!

Stop telling us whatever sounds good. We are paying attention, and our fathers did before us. Don't come here and tell us whatever sounds good to try to protect the government, which has dirtied its hands in the fund by paying for its programs out of the fund because it didn't want to raise taxes. It wanted to cut taxes instead to make the voters happy. That is what happened. Let's not be telling each other tales here this morning. I'm not 26 years old, I'm 62.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

I have a point of order.

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

That's all the time we have.

We're now going to move on to Mr. Dhaliwal. You have five minutes.

May 8th, 2008 / 10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the panel here.

First of all, the way I see it is that I'm hearing, on the other side, that the members are saying this board is put into place to be open, transparent, and accountable from a government perspective, but I haven't seen a single example in the last two years from this neo-conservative government, whether it be income trusts—

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

On a point of order...[Inaudible--Editor]...Mr. Lessard.

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

—election spending, Chuck Cadman, and all those issues.

Mr. Robert Blakely was mentioning that in the U.S. there is a neo-conservative agenda. How do you see that neo-conservative agenda from the U.S. being implemented through this crown corporation here in Canada?