Mr. Speaker, the more this government introduces legislative initiatives, the more I realize that it is incapable of proposing a really good measure for our people, our workers in particular. It is not capable of that because the only thing it considers to be a social measure is cutting income taxes and taxes in general. It is turning a long awaited measure that would be a step in the right direction into a real crime meant only to please businesses, in that contributions would be reduced.
For more than 10 years, people who are concerned about social justice have been calling for an independent employment insurance fund. For a long time now, the federal government has been collecting employment insurance contributions from employees and employers, restricting eligibility for benefits and using the money for other purposes.
In addition to causing endless frustration among the workers and a good number of colleagues here, such the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas, who are worried about this situation, this reprehensible behaviour by the government has created a double standard.
First, employees and employers pay far too much for what they get in return. Then their benefits are reduced.
Access to these benefits is also being limited more and more, especially for seasonal workers who work in necessary jobs that vary from season to season.
Year after year, the government has used the surplus created in this way to balance its budget and create astronomical surpluses that it then used to pay down the debt, as everyone knows.
The result is as follows: $54 billion that belongs to the people who contributed—not to pay down the debt—has been used for other purposes, while there are pressing needs in employment.
The Conservative government has finally reacted and decided to create a Canada employment insurance financing board. It was a good idea, but behind the terms healthy management and good governance lie intentions that will not really help workers.
Cutting EI contributions will not help workers. The government is obviously trying to convince us that it will—and this is not the first time—but does paying a dollar less every week matter to a worker who receives $100 less in benefits because of a bare-bones calculation? In reality, this calculation is of much more benefit to businesses and regions experiencing full employment, like Alberta. Is anyone here surprised?
The only way to help workers is to provide benefits that ensure a decent income for seasonal workers who are supporting families and for older workers who get laid off and have to make it to retirement with no hope of receiving any income other than employment insurance and, unfortunately, welfare.
The only way to help workers is to transfer funds for employment programs to Quebec—in our case—for workers in seasonal and precarious jobs.
Creating a Canada employment insurance financing board is a step in the right direction only because it will finally put an end to the theft of people's contributions. That being said, the government has no intention of reimbursing the $54 billion by applying it to employment programs or worker assistance, and that is unacceptable.
The new board will not be giving that money back to workers. In fact, should a recession or massive layoffs occur, it will have to borrow from the consolidated revenue fund. So there is that whole borrowing problem. What will happen? Who will have to pay when there is a liability? Unfortunately, once again, the workers are the ones who will pay.
This is what they are calling improved management and governance, which the government promised on page 6 of its Budget in Brief.
An actuary will determine the contributions to be paid. Only $2 billion will be kept in reserve, and employment programs will in the hands of the Minister of Human Resources and of businesses that will pay as little as possible.
This vision will be enshrined in legislation, and this crown corporation will not have to answer to Parliament.
As for Bill C-50 on the budget, I want to bring up a point that has to do with part 7, concerning the board's duties and restrictions, so to speak.
According to clause 36 of this part, “the Governor in Council [the cabinet], on the joint recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance, may make regulations...respecting the investments...the limitations—” and other revenue. I would like to know how this clause 36 will work with subclause 4(c), which states that the object of the board is to manage any amounts paid to it. Who will do what?
We are talking about transparency and good management. Does this not strip the board of its essential role? Does this not strip it of the great transparency and also the great responsibility it is supposed to have? Is it an independent entity? I get the impression that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not.
Also, what about the auditor general's recommendation that there should be an adequate reserve, estimated at $15 billion, I believe?
In conclusion, as we can see, the Conservatives are trying to make it seem as though they are responding to a legitimate demand, and have concocted a bill that is unacceptable on at least two points, not to mention that they did not address all the demands for the redistribution of wealth. In particular—and this topic is close to my heart—they have not attempted to help poor seniors get out of poverty.