Anne-Marie Day

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to talk about employment insurance and the consequences for the working people who will be affected.

We decided to present this motion today for one simple reason: as we speak, there are many working people, whether they are seasonal workers or workers who have worked somewhere else in one way or another, from sea to sea, from coast to coast to coast, who are in a situation where they will be denied their employment insurance benefits in future.

The Conservatives say this is not the case and people will not be denied that income. We know very well, however, that a seasonal worker, in Prince Edward Island for example, has no opportunity to find what is called suitable employment. This means that after six weeks they will be required to accept employment that might pay only 70% of their earnings. They will have no choice, because no other jobs are available. Canada does not have large cities from coast to coast to coast. Jobs really are not available everywhere in the country.

Fishers only fish in the fishing season. We know that between fishing seasons, they have to spend time on their boats and equipment. It was agreed that they could spend this time attending to their boats and equipment. Now, they have to agree to go and work about an hour's drive from home.

The Conservatives do not understand what a region is, and what local and regional development are. We know that Canada is not an overpopulated country and the regions are the biggest part of the country.

If the bill is adopted, these new measures will have a huge impact across the country in terms of local and regional development.

These new measures were hidden in a Trojan Horse, in a budget. They should have been debated in the House independently from the budget. It is inconceivable that the Conservatives included amendments to 70 laws— amendments that were completely hidden—in a mammoth budget implementation bill.

Frequent employment insurance claimants in the regions will be told that they have to accept employment.

Let us talk about the tourist season. Many regions make their living from tourism. This is true of Quebec's Charlevoix region, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and all through the eastern provinces and other places.

At the end of the fishing season, fishers have to give up their activities and accept a job that will be offered to them after a month or six weeks have elapsed. Therefore they have no opportunity to repair their boats. If they want to pick up their work again the following year, at the start of the fishing season, they will have to leave their jobs. These fishers are in danger because their boats will not be properly maintained and freshly equipped. Moreover, they will probably have to hire people who will not be trained for fishing because the fishers who accepted other jobs will no longer be available.

The number of workers is not very high in the regions. It is not like in the city. Local and regional development is very different. This must be taken into account.

Commuting for an hour in Montreal is really not a problem. Commuters take the metro or a bus, and that is fine. Forcing people to travel for an hour in the regions is dangerous.

It is a one-hour drive from Forestville to Sept-Îles. There are very few houses between the two points. There are only one or two, and about 100 in Pessamit, a reserve where the concentration is a little higher, or small villages like Ragueneau and Chute-aux-Outardes. Apart from that, it is just one big, long drive. A one-hour drive is 100 km.

This means that every morning and every night people have to travel 100 km through little villages to get to where someone is offering a job. This is unacceptable. We cannot ask people to travel an hour every morning and every evening to get to their place of work. Who will take care of the children? Who will get the children from school? When school finishes at 4:30 p.m. or when the school bus brings the children back home, who will take care of them at home?

People who live outside of cities are likely to be uprooted, because they are going to have to move to the larger centres. As we have often seen, rural areas have been drained of people, because people have moved to cities in a self-imposed exile in the search for a job. This is something that has affected young people enormously because, of course, they went away to study at university and did not go back home, because they relocated to wherever the jobs were.

Now the population in rural areas has just about reached its minimum level. The fact that people have to leave rural areas means that the people who decide to stay will be impoverished. There are not really many jobs in rural areas. There are a few small shopping centres that are often located in the largest town. I am thinking of a place like Bonaventure in the Gaspé that has a population of 3,000; Rimouski has about 30,000 people; Baie-Comeau has about 35,000 or 40,000 inhabitants; and Sept-Îles where of course the population is increasing right now because of Quebec's Plan Nord, the northern plan. Basically, there are not that many services that can be offered to people.

So people will be uprooted. People will have to leave rural areas. What will happen to our tourist regions? People who do not agree to leave their own regions in order to take jobs somewhere else will have to be happy with their income or look to social assistance, the first kind of income security. This security is, of course, a safety net, but it is synonymous with the status of the poorest of the poor in society. If we talk about income security in terms of social assistance, people will find themselves to be poorer than ever.

This law will impoverish Canadians. It will impoverish those who cannot abandon their homes and move to larger centres. This law will also impoverish the regions. That is what people in New Brunswick, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are concerned about. It seems that the Atlantic provinces will be impoverished by this bill, more than the provinces that have a larger concentration of jobs.

For example, it is not true that people will automatically move to the far north where there are mining developments or major projects. Some will do so by choice, but others will not, because they have to take care of their families and their homes in the community where they live. Not everyone can just pick up and leave.

Naturally, those who want to go to work in those locations will do so because the wages offered by large corporations are very good, for example, those offered by the large oil companies in the far north. We know that the oil companies will bring about all sorts of development and workers will be needed. Some will go work there voluntarily; it seems that often it is young people who choose to do so. Those who have moved around to plant trees will now move to go and work where there are jobs. One does not preclude the other.

However, when the people in our regions are offered employment, there are two things that must be considered: training and individual choice. Workers are human beings. They are not merely pawns on a chessboard to be moved around at will. A pawn must go where it is placed and that is it. Life does not work like that.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it is important to take into account that workers are human beings.

[Restoring Rail Service Act, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the 4,800 workers who are currently on strike and who have continued to provide services, whether in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.

For those workers, the government talks about the need to protect the economy. What would the economy be without working people? What are universities without students? There is no possibility of doing anything without workers. There are alternatives, like Canadian National, that can offer services and other options.

Can the member explain why he thinks they are so intent on not bargaining directly with the workers?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Conservatives forced Mexican nationals wishing to work in Canada to obtain a visa in order to restrict their entry.

The Conservatives want to connect people to jobs by sending emails and text messages, but they have yet to say what they will do about families living below the poverty line who do not have cell phones or Internet access.

People in outlying regions have also been abandoned, whether they work in the fishery, tourism or forestry.

Why is this government using EI reform to attack communities that make their living from tourism?

[Employment Insurance, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we all know what usually happens when there is a labour shortage: salaries increase. That is the principle of supply and demand.

However, the Conservatives' plan to reform employment insurance will put downward pressure on the salaries of workers across Canada. This will be very bad for the economy. If EI is to be reformed, the changes should target accessibility and the processing of applications.

Why are the Conservatives ignoring the real problems?

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is completely false. This is about taking responsibility and managing risk. We have absolutely nothing against the fact that workers have a retirement fund and even that employers contribute to the fund if that is possible too. I feel that the hon. member's premise is completely false.

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

Of all seniors, women are among the poorest. In terms of pensions, we are well aware that women live longer than men. Currently, many of them have no pensions for their old age and they are pushing shopping carts with no idea of what they are going to put in them in order to survive.

This is a huge phenomenon in our society. Women's salaries are lower. I am sure that most of the 20 million Canadians without a pension fund are women. Women will become poorer when they retire. And they live longer.

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very pertinent question.

We are not opposed to a pension fund for people who have worked their entire lives. The provinces support expanding the Canada pension plan. That is excellent. What I am saying is that we have to ensure that the risk of investing this money in the stock market must be secured. If we took the Canada pension plan—the employer contribution and the employee contribution—and sheltered it in trust, people would be much more inclined to contribute than if employers were entitled to withdraw funds at some point.

At present, Canadian Pacific workers risk losing their life savings. They risk losing everything, or part of their pension fund, which is what happened to employees of White Birch Paper in Quebec.

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, like the other hon. members, I am going to give a speech on the pooled registered pension plans act. I am going to share my time with the member for Churchill.

First, I would like extend my thanks to the member for London—Fanshawe, the NDP critic on this bill. Second, I would like to thank all the hon. members for their various comments on the government bill that we are debating today at third reading. This is a very important topic, one that Canadians are really concerned about.

As we heard earlier, according to the Conference Board of Canada, 1.6 million seniors live in poverty in Canada, and, according to the Canadian Labour Congress, 12 million Canadians lack a workplace pension plan. This is food for thought.

It is amazing to see how two events can be interrelated. Today we are going to debate a special bill tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour less than 24 hours ago. According to the representatives from Teamsters Canada, this special legislation infringes on the freedom to negotiate working conditions. You may wonder how this legislation is related to pooled registered pension plans. Well, the Canadian Pacific conflict basically has to do with pensions and management's wish to revise the system in order to keep up with its competitors.

The vice-president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference said the company “wants to take the money from our pension plan and give it to the shareholders”. In a democratic country like Canada, the right to retire in dignity after working your whole life is absolutely non-negotiable. So, yes, that is what we are talking about today.

Since 2006, the Conservative government has been introducing measures to amend Canadians' retirement security; these measures have been highly criticized. Just look at the retirement age, which will go from 65 to 67 in 13 years, when people who are 54 now will be 67. Why introduce this measure when in 13 years there will be less demand? Fewer people will be taking their retirement in 13 years than now. The baby boomers will have already retired by then.

Another measure they implemented was the tax-free savings account. The TFSA may be a good option for those who have the money to contribute to it. There is some debate as to whether the contribution limits should be increased from $5,000 to $10,000. Nonetheless, what is the purpose of this vehicle? According to a recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an ING Direct survey found that only 41% of Canadians have a TFSA. Nearly half of them earn $100,000 or more a year and only 24% of those surveyed said that they were using their TFSA to save for their retirement.

I have a TFSA. I was contributing to it bit by bit and it currently has $1,700. In fact, it is money I was saving for a rainy day: in case my washing machine or refrigerator broke down or something. I never considered using the TFSA for my retirement. I was earning a modest income and I never thought that $1,700 would go very far in providing me with a comfortable retirement.

We cannot rely on such savings to provide a decent retirement. I often wondered why the government developed such a measure. The government collects less tax, which leaves less money for investing in repairing bridges, ports and airports, in research and development or even in transfers to the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction. After I thought about it, I remembered that, previously, taxing the savings of the rich and the not so rich resulted in the flight of capital and the use of tax havens. That is quite likely why TFSAs exist: to keep our currency in our banks.

It is time for this government to take some real action to improve retirement security for the 12 million Canadians who do not currently have pension plans through their employers. Bill C-25 will not accomplish that goal. Canadians do not need another voluntary private savings plan. They need real measures that will ensure that they can retire with enough savings to live through their old age with the money they need to be able to dress, house and feed themselves. These are basic needs.

Canadians are wary, and rightly so. Pooled registered pension plans are risky. With this kind of plan, employees set aside funds throughout their entire working lives, and those funds are invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds and so on. Investment income depends entirely on market fluctuations. Thus, employees are the ones who absorb all of the financial risk associated with stock market ups and downs.

In addition, clause 30 of the bill states:

30. An employer is not liable for the acts and omissions of the administrator.

So, can someone tell me who is liable?

On the one hand, workers are obliged to contribute, while employers, on the other hand, are not, and the funds are subject to stock market fluctuations.

Can someone tell me who assumes the risk, if not the worker?

Quebeckers remember all too well certain recent predators, the kind we call white collar criminals. Some institutions get bad press because they are making huge profits, which they give out as bonuses at the end of the fiscal year.

The NDP wants to increase CPP contributions. We support a pension fund for all Canadians. It is time to get to work on that. However, we do not want a pension fund that fluctuates with the stock market and where workers' savings will diminish when it is time for them to retire.

We are asking that the government secure Canadians' pension funds.

Why does the government not want to study this solution even though seven provinces have agreed to expand the Canada pension plan?

The NDP is being proactive and working on job creation so that Canadians can save. The more workers earn, the more they can save.

The PRPP bill does not provide a fixed benefit, could run out of money if we live longer than expected and is not indexed. Employers and employees can withdraw from the plan, but companies are not required to contribute.

[POOLED REGISTERED PENSION PLANS ACT, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are at a historic crossroads, particularly with Canadian Pacific, whose retirement funds are back up for negotiation.

These people have worked for a certain number of years for the company and they have many years of experience. Despite that, they are losing their pension fund and have to renegotiate it.

I would like to congratulate the member on her excellent speech and ask her to explain what she would do to ensure a secure retirement fund for these people so that they can retire comfortably after working for a company for 35 years.

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the reforms the minister is introducing will result in lower wages for workers.

The Conservatives' obvious disdain for seasonal workers is unbelievable. They are making senseless, useless economic decisions. They have no compunction about picking and choosing winning industries and losing ones, penalizing millions of Canadians for their career choices, and attacking whole regions.

Will the government call off this irresponsible plan before it destroys whole sectors of the economy, yes or no?