Barry Devolin

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the cost of this program, $55 million in the first year and $75 million in subsequent years, and the need to specifically focus on older workers, I have two or three comments.

First, I agree and recognize that there is an issue for older workers who lose their jobs. They have difficulty in re-entering the workforce. When I read the motion, I see that it refers specifically to factory closures associated with globalization. I would argue that our concern is actually broader than this, in that we are concerned with all older workers who have lost their jobs, whether it is in factories or in small businesses or other enterprises in communities.

My riding in central Ontario, which is quite rural and has a very high percentage of older people, also has a relatively high unemployment rate. Many of the unemployed older people in my riding would not be such as a result of globalization or factory closings, but as a result of other more local factors. That is my first point. I think we need to look at the needs of older workers in a broader context rather than focusing specifically on factory closures.

In terms of the relatively small number of dollars involved here, I must apologize, in that I am a rookie member and have been here less than a year and, as such, $55 million still sounds like a big number to me, although I recognize that in this place $50 million or $100 million gets tossed around pretty easily. My point has been in terms of the costing. I think investigation bears this out: if there are several components to the cost structure, including percentage of wages, number of weeks a person must work, number of weeks of benefits to be paid, local unemployment rate and age of workers, in that model if we only change one factor it is relatively easy to determine what the cost of that would be.

My concern has been about simultaneously changing three or four variables in that equation. The actual impact of that will probably be different than merely adding up what the individual costs would be. In fact, I would argue that the total cost would inevitably be more than the individual costs. My point about costs is that if we are going to change a lot of things I think we need to have accurate information on what the total cost would be.

[Supply, June 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the motion today. In the last couple of weeks we have had two or three opportunities to talk about employment, employment insurance benefits, worker training and today more specifically about older workers in Canada. I also had the opportunity to work with the member for Chambly—Borduas on the human resources committee and I am well aware of his interest in this area.

I think we would all agree that while the federal government is dealing with job opportunities for all workers in Canada, the employment insurance program is probably one of the most important mechanisms we have to address these issues. In committee over the past few months we spent a lot of time talking about the future of EI and about changes that need to be made to the program to ensure that it is doing the job it is supposed to do and, quite frankly, to ensure that the government is not continuing to syphon billions of dollars out of the program.

In committee the three opposition parties agree on several things. The first thing we all agree on is that there should be a separate EI account, that basically the dollars taken from employers and employees to fund EI should be set aside for the benefit of employers and employees and should not be within easy access of the federal government.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

The three opposition parties agree that we need to have a separate account. Quite frankly, it appears that government members do not wholeheartedly support that idea and if they do it is quite grudgingly.

Second, I think all opposition parties agree that the government should make more of an effort to actually respect the intent of the EI Act, which is that there should be a balancing in EI, that the dollars coming into the program should be equivalent to the dollars flowing out of it.

Unfortunately, for the last 10 years the Liberal government has been deliberately keeping premiums high, taking more dollars than are necessary, both from workers and employers, while at the same time reducing payouts. It has not been setting aside those dollars for the future for employers and workers but rather using that money, which is in general revenues, to fund all sorts of programs that the Auditor General makes comments on a regular basis.

All opposition parties agree that EI needs to be brought into balance, and part of that is addressing the premium side and the other part is addressing the amount of dollars that get paid out.

The third point I was recently quite disturbed to discover and one which the other parties do not agree with my party on is that before we can come up with a package of changes that would actually bring EI into balance, I believe we need accurate and detailed costing of those changes. If we are going to change the number of weeks required for eligibility, we need to have accurate information in terms of what that might cost.

The NDP recently had a motion before the House regarding the best 12 weeks. The motion did not refer to the best 12 continuous weeks. I guess arguably it could be the first week, the fifth week, the seventh week and the ninth week over a period of time. For people who work irregular hours, such as six days on and six days off or 12 hour shifts, they would have a checkered income pattern from week to week. I had a concern that there was an opportunity for mischief there. I would have been much more interested in a proposal that said 12 continuous weeks rather than just the best 12 weeks.

We also discussed whether the percentage of income should be increased to 60% and whether there should be different rules in different parts of the country based on local unemployment rates.

I moved a motion in committee requesting that the Department of Finance develop an econometric model to allow us to assess the impacts of these proposed changes, and not just on a one off basis, but that if we were going to introduce five or six significant changes at the same time, we would need to know what the actual interactive result of that would be and what the total cost of that would be.

I am confident that those estimates can be generated. I think it is prudent and responsible for all members of our committee, regardless of what side of the issue we are on, that we should be not only requiring but actually demanding detailed information in terms of what the costs are going to be.

That is why, quite frankly, I was shocked that none of the other parties suggested or supported my motion at committee to get that information provided for us.

Where my party parts company with both the Bloc and the NDP is that we think there should be a balanced approach where we look at the premium side as well as the payout side. We think that EI premiums are essentially a payroll tax.

I think everyone in the country recognizes that payroll taxes are job killers. Even the current Prime Minister when he was finance minister recognized the point that as we increase payroll taxes we eliminate jobs across the country. Obviously, if that is true, the corollary is true as well which is that if we reduce payroll taxes that actually encourages job creation.

We as Conservatives think that side of the equation bears closer scrutiny. There is a large surplus, a notional surplus of $46 billion. Over the past five or ten years the government has taken $46 billion from employers and employees. Every time the government takes a couple of billion it throws a chit into the notional account. Basically, it is an IOU $1 billion or IOU $3 billion.

I have serious concerns that the government is trying to figure out a way to wiggle out of that commitment. I believe it will try to establish some new fund and then argue that because it actually owes the money to itself that it does not really owe it to anyone.

We have heard the parliamentary secretary for the minister argue in committee that to cut a cheque for $46 billion and deposit it in this account would cause massive chaos in the Canadian economy and in the government finances, seeming to suggest that we ought not do that and that it would be easier if we just kind of walked away from that contribution.

I reminded the parliamentary secretary on those occasions that the money did not belong to him nor to the Government of Canada, that it actually belonged to the workers and the employers. I said that it was their money and that it should be set aside for their benefit.

If, quite frankly, repayment of that money into a separate EI account causes there to be a large amount of money in that account, perhaps in the short term a contribution holiday would be the right way to approach this. Would it not be great if there were dollars set aside so that both employees and employers had a holiday from paying premiums for the next two, three or four years and were able to actually keep more of their own money?

I think there are a variety of ways to deal with rebalancing the EI system. We have two debates going on here. One which, in my opinion, is somewhat dishonest, and that being that we cannot put the money into that account. I think that should happen.

The second debate, which I think is an honest debate and one which we may agree to disagree, is how we are going to find that balance. Are we only going to increase expenditures from the program, which it appears to me is the interest of both the Bloc and the NDP, or are we going to look at the expenditure side and try to balance it with some changes on the contribution side as well and find something that actually works, not only for those people who have lost their jobs but that it continues to work for those people who continue to have jobs or for those people who continue to create jobs in Canada?

I think that is where we are and where we should be. My sense and my challenge to my colleagues in the opposition parties is, first, let us work together to get this separate account established; second, let us work together to force the Liberal government to keep its commitment and to actually return the dollars, the $46 billion, that have been taken from workers and from employers in Canada; and third, let us have this discussion and get the information in terms of how much different changes will cost, and then we can have discussions on what the right balance will be.

A very important part of that discussion obviously would be older workers and older workers in areas with no opportunities. For that reason I am happy to support the motion today. However this is only one small piece of a larger puzzle and we should not lose sight of the first two important points. My sense is that the government would like to get us trapped in these small disputes so it can walk away from its much larger commitment, which is to the workers and employers in Canada.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have three other petitions representing the views of several hundred people in my riding regarding the definition of marriage. I must say that it is my understanding that many more of these petitions are on the way.

The petitioners support the efforts of our member of Parliament, being myself, to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

My constituents urge the Government of Canada to heed the views of Canadians. They urge the government to allow all of its member to vote freely on this motion.

[Petitions, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present this morning, the first of which concerns a program called the community access program that provides high speed Internet service into many small communities in my riding and across Ontario.

As we know, access to Internet service is important for economic development and it is important to make sure that no Canadians are left behind in a changing economy. In this petition several of my constituents urge the government to reconsider its decision to discontinue the CAP program.

[Agriculture, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister does not have any problem with improving the appeals process as it is currently included in the flawed bill.

Is the minister prepared to stand in the House today and make his commitment to the farmers of Canada that he will urge government members on that committee to make sure there is a real and meaningful appeals process for the farmers so they do not have to be dragged through the courts when they disagree with a CFIA decision?

[Agriculture, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, farmers across Canada are burdened by increasing government interference in their lives. They are concerned about the way the Canadian Food Inspection Agency goes about its business.

Bill C-27 should be focused on reorganizing the CFIA to make it more accountable and responsive to producers. Bill C-27 does not include any significant appeals process for producers. Can the minister tell us why?

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is an important issue and that using opposition days to move one's agenda forward is one tool, but there are others. In that report my colleague references, there were certain recommendations that all opposition members in the committee agreed to and others that we did not agree to.

I can tell him what my concern was at that time. We were provided with what was essentially a laundry list of different changes that could be made to the EI payout schedule: that people would work fewer weeks, or that the percentage of income would be increased by 5% or 10%, or that the eligibility criteria would change.

Of course each of these changes would carry some cost. While we want to see the fund brought back into balance, I was personally concerned that we could go the other way. I actually moved a motion in committee to get the Ministry of Finance to cost each of these different ideas, including the one on the order paper today, so that at least we would have the information and know how much each of these changes would add up to. Then we could make reasonable and responsible decisions.

I said that if there is a $6 billion surplus, it is not just having 10 options that cost $1 billion each and picking the six we like most, because there are interactivities between these different functions. We would have to look at a package and have someone with an econometric model actually price it out.

I put forward that motion in committee. The NDP member of the committee voted against that motion. At that point, it raised the question in my mind as to whether there was genuine concern in terms of bringing this into balance or whether this was maybe more a political exercise in terms of driving the agenda. My interest is to bring it back into balance. I hope the NDP will work with us to get the right information so we can do that.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that EI is set up in a separate account. It appears we may be moving in that direction, notwithstanding some of the efforts by government members on our human resources committee to punch some holes in Bill C-280.

Bill C-280 actually states that the government should repay the $46 billion. We have heard all kinds of excuses as to why that cannot happen immediately and we have heard about all the problems that would ensue. They almost make it sound as though the government actually has no intention of ever repaying that $46 billion.

I would be glad to work with opposition members from all parties to hold the feet of this government to the fire and make sure this money does not disappear. That is probably the biggest piece of this puzzle. As I said earlier, we can debate how we should bring this fund back into balance in terms of the amount that comes in and the amount that goes out, but I think the first and absolutely the most important point is to get this government to recognize that the $46 billion belongs to workers and employers.

Let us get that resolved. At that point, we can then have an honest discussion about how it would be divided.

[Supply, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the employment insurance fund.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I have had the opportunity to participate in many discussions and debates about the EI fund, how it has ended up in the situation it is in today and how we might fix it.

It is important for Canadians to realize that the largest problem in EI today is the fact that the Liberal government for almost 10 years has deliberately overcharged employers and workers in Canada. The premiums have been too high. I have had some debate with some of my colleagues from the NDP on whether we should cut rates to bring it back into balance or whether we should increase premiums. That has been an honest discussion. There has been no discussion between us that the Liberals have been deliberately overcharging Canadians, running up a large surplus in the EI account year after year and using that money to pay for other general government expenses.

Here we are today with a $46 billion surplus in the EI account. As many Canadians may have heard, in Ottawa this is what is euphemistically called a notional surplus. For those who are not familiar with the concept of a notional surplus, it is a whole series of IOUs totalling $46 billion.

Last year, in reply to the government's Speech from the Throne, amendments were brought forward by my leader and were agreed to by the leader of the NDP and subsequently agreed to by the government. A commitment was made that we would revisit the EI process, that it would be put back in the place where it should have been all along, and that is with balanced finances; money coming in is equivalent to money going out. A commitment was made to stop the Liberal practice of deliberately overcharging and running surpluses year after year and throwing IOUs into the EI notional account and taking that money for other purposes.

We are faced with the issue of a $46 billion surplus. Earlier today I sat at committee and heard Liberal members suggest that we could not possibly repay that $46 billion into the EI account without it causing some sort of fiscal catastrophe. It sounded to me that the government was suggesting that if it were to move on with EI, that $46 billion would be written off and it would start with a fresh sheet of paper.

The $46 billion that ought to be in that account is the property of workers and employers in the country. It is not the property of the government. Nor is it up to the government to decide how to spend it. That money rightfully belongs to workers and employers. One way or another, sooner or later that money needs to be put back into the account, and workers and employers should benefit from those dollars.

One of the ways to address the imbalance is to look at premium rates. We in the Conservative Party have said all along that EI is essentially a payroll tax. Everyone, including the current Prime Minister when he was finance minister, acknowledges that payroll taxes kill jobs. If payroll taxes were reduced, employment opportunities would be increased. More Canadians would be given the opportunity and the honour to hold a job. Surely the best employment insurance scheme for all Canadians is an actual job. For those who are unable to find a job or who cannot keep a full time job throughout the year, programs like EI are meant to help them.

It is also important for us to remember that changes to the EI formula are complicated and will result in changes in terms of the amount of surplus or deficit in the future. I have had this discussion with the member for Acadie--Bathurst in committee a few times and with the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We have agreed to agree that the Liberals are stealing money from employers and workers. We have agreed, in some cases, to disagree in terms of how that balance should be re-struck

I think the first and most important point for all of us in this House and all Canadians to remember is that this government, when pushed if not forced by the three opposition parties, has agreed to fix EI. There is a discussion going on about setting up a separate bank account so that all the money does not go into one place in the consolidated revenue fund.

I know the government loves the consolidated revenue fund because it maximizes flexibility. It maximizes the Liberals' ability to shuffle things around where nobody can see them, to spend dollars here or there where they want to but not actually make sure that people get those dollars.

In my personal life I have a bank account into which I deposit my paycheque and out of which I pay several things, but I also have a retirement savings account that is segregated. It is set aside and I know that the dollars I put in there will stay there until I need them later in life. I also have registered education savings plans for my children and those dollars are set aside in such a place that they are and will be there.

That is what the idea of setting up a separate account for EI is all about. It is to take these dollars that employers and employees contribute to this fund and set them in a place where the sticky fingers of this government cannot get at them. That is what we have had for too many years: the sticky fingers of this government pulling those dollars over into the general account and spending it on a whole host of things. We have spent much of the last month learning where billions and billions of dollars have gone.

I agree with my colleague from the NDP that we need to fix the EI fund. We agree that the money needs to be set aside. We agree that it needs to be in balance, that the payments going out actually must match the revenues coming in.

In our most recent report, we have agreed on a whole variety of changes that need to be made. The ball is now really in the government's court. The government is going to have to decide whether in fact it will respect the wishes of our committee and whether it is going to respect the wishes of this entire Parliament when it voted last year on the Speech from the Throne to actually put EI on the right footing.

That is the job before us. We have a variety of remedies. The resolution before us today may be one part of it. I agree with one other NDP member who said that we cannot do everything at once, but I think it is important that we move forward and balance EI. We have to put it at arm's length from this government, which so obviously cannot be trusted with it. This stack of IOUs worth $46 billion is ample proof of that.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this today. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 1st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear the member for Sault Ste. Marie on the one hand say that he looks forward to cooperating with the Liberals. He sees the minister as a man of honour who can be worked with, yet specifically, one of the initiatives that was supposed to come out of this ministry, and that I know my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie was really looking forward to, was an actual national child care program.

What cause does he have for optimism that he can rely on the Liberals to actually act on the things that he discusses? Given his recent experience with national child care legislation, which I know he wants and is expecting, what cause for optimism does he have that any of the things that get promised are actually going to be delivered?