Bill C-280 (Historical)

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

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean for his fine speech and the compliments he sent my way.

This member has the gall—the guts even—to rise in the House of Commons to lay such a burden on 19 MPs who managed to squeeze $4.5 billion out of the federal government to help students who are in debt and homeless people in need of a place to live. We will get blamed for that.

But were was the Bloc Québécois when we were negotiating with the government to improve the employment insurance plan? Who travelled the country to meet with workers? Who went to Rivière-au-Renard and even met with workers in a cathedral in the Gaspé? Who went to Forestville and joined the workers and employers who were demonstrating in the street to be eligible for employment insurance?

When we had the chance, we negotiated with the minority government. The Bloc Québécois wanted elections to be called and chose to team up with the Conservatives, who are against employment insurance. They should be ashamed of themselves. The member did not even stand up and address the people of Canada and Quebec with a straight face. The Bloc members have not done justice to their people.

We at least put forward a motion today to base calculations on the best 12 weeks. Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, deals with only one thing: an independent EI fund. Why did the Bloc not introduce a bill covering all the recommendations, as the hon. member said? This is a tiny bill dealing with only one thing. Where was the Bloc Québécois?

I introduced a bill dealing with all the recommendations, but it was defeated by this Parliament. Now, I am moving a motion to try and get a little something for the workers. I am sure that those listening to us today know that we have their well-being at heart. If the Bloc Québécois is ashamed of the work done by the NDP, it should vote against the motion. Pardon my French, but they should stop sucking up wherever and whenever it pleases them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today. I want to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, who seconded the NDP motion on employment insurance, for giving such prominence to the employment insurance issue. The problem faced by seasonal workers across the country is so serious as to warrant putting before the House a motion that will be debated all day today.

Let us examine this motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance benefits paid to Canadians in areas of high unemployment (10% or greater unemployment rate) should be based on either: 1) the best 12 weeks of income in the last 52 weeks preceding the claim; or 2) the best 12 weeks of income since the beginning of the last claim, whichever is shorter.

I believe this is a step in the right direction, but I have to add that it is not what is really needed. Many Canadian workers are aware that I toured Canada in 1998. I have talked about it time and time again in the House of Commons. The purpose of this tour was to see how other parts of the country, besides the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, were affected by this problem.

At the time, the minister responsible for employment insurance said the problem existed in Atlantic Canada and nowhere else in the country. I travelled through 10 provinces and one territory, the Yukon. Everywhere I went, this problem existed.

The problem, as everyone knows by now, was so serious that during the various elections the Liberals would always tell voters that if they voted Liberal, then changes would be made to EI. They did that every time.

I remember one of our colleagues who used to be in the House of Commons, Georges Farrah, the representative for the riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok. His first day at the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a session the Minister of Human Resources Development attended, he made an appeal to the minister on behalf of the people of Gaspé and Îles-de-la-Madeleine. He said people were unable to qualify for benefits and that the divisor of 14 was the hindering factor for workers.

The current member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac clearly said—and I have the newspaper clippings to prove it—that officials in Ottawa did not understand seasonal workers and that the government needed to make changes to the system.

The former member for Shediac—Cap-Pelé, Bernard Richard, who is now the New Brunswick ombudsman, is someone who is quite respected in that province. One newspaper reported that Bernard Richard demanded that the federal government find solutions to the employment insurance program.

I introduced a bill in the House of Commons after tabling my report on my tour across Canada. The report included 15 recommendations. The Liberals and the Conservatives chose to vote against the bill. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for voting in favour of it. We fought hard to improve the employment insurance system for seasonal workers.

That said, the following question might be asked today: why take the best 12 weeks in an area with an unemployment rate of 10% or greater? I predict someone will ask that question.

The reason is as follows. Bill C-2 was introduced prior to the 2000 election—I remember it quite clearly and, obviously, so do other members of the House of Commons. Subsequent to that election, we realized that not many amendments had been made. The parliamentary committee had written a report that went beyond Bill C-2. Then it made a number of recommendations that the government completely ignored.

During the 2004 election, a few more minor amendments were made, such as extending the number of weeks by five. We called for additional changes, but we were told that they would be made after the election.

The problems with EI are extremely important. The former Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien, struck a parliamentary committee comprising Liberals to travel around the country and identify these problems. After the report was tabled, the current Prime Minister even decided to follow up on this work. This committee still exists, as a matter of fact.

When the committee started to draft its report, the senator from Madawaska, Ms. Ringuette-Maltais, made a dissenting comment to the effect that it did not go far enough. However, the Liberal Party did not share that opinion.

It is our responsibility as members of this House to have parliamentary committees. The report of the Subcommittee on Employment Insurance Funds presented another 28 recommendations in February 2005. The Liberal Party had agreed to use the best 12 weeks. The Liberal members of the committee had even voted in favour of the report, which refers to the best 12 weeks, so that it could be tabled in the House of Commons. However, after the budget was tabled, the minister announced in a press release that she was in favour of the best 14 weeks in regions where the unemployment rate is 10% or higher.

Today is an opposition day, and we are proposing that the House adopt the best 12 weeks instead of the best 14, and we are using the government's own motion to do it. So we hope it will be adopted.

Consider the seasonal regions. We do not choose where we are born. We do not choose our parents. One fine day, bingo, we are here. We are born, and we learn whatever language we are taught. Nature, not us, determines who we are. However, I do think that Acadia, along Chaleur Bay, where I come from, is the most beautiful region in Canada.

My colleague over the way says he might like to move to Quebec in order to have a view of the beautiful St. Lawrence as it flows into the Atlantic. That is not far from where we live, but our cousins in Gaspé have the same problem we do. In fact, when the people of Gaspé and the North Shore invited me to Forestville, there were 2,500 people out in the streets. Workers from the local businesses, business owners and clergy were out to show us that this is no longer a political matter. It is a human matter. It is time the EI problem were addressed.

For Canadians in the regions who have to accumulate 14 weeks to qualify, the divisor is 14. If there are regions where 17 weeks are needed, then the divisor is 17. Yet there are regions where there is high unemployment and 12 weeks are required. Twelve weeks is 420 hours with an average work week of 35 hours.

So why punish these people and tell them the figure will be 14? They are already getting only 55% of their income, so they are being punished twice.

A problem has developed in the southeast of the province, where people work 17 or 18 weeks out of the year. Some 1,500 people there broke the law by stockpiling time. The Liberals understood the problem and settled it by proposing the 14 best weeks, since there are 17 or 18 weeks worked.

But the problem is not limited to this one place. People must be treated the same everywhere. Since the minimum required to quality for EI is 12 weeks, it is completely normal for those to be the best 12.

People who work in the fishery or forest industry—whether in northern Ontario, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Hornepayne, Manitouwadge or White River, or in northern Alberta, or in Prince George, British Columbia—everywhere I went, have the same problems with EI.

This week in parliamentary committee, when we were debating Bill C-280 proposed by the Bloc Québécois, the parliamentary secretary was worried. If money were taken from the employment insurance fund and put into an independent fund, our country could be driven to the verge of bankruptcy. We balanced our budget and paid our debts with it when we had a deficit.

Is it really up to working people who have lost their jobs to pay for the country's deficit and balance the government's budget? They are attacking families, children. They are taking money from these families that could be used to help them buy food and clothing and send their kids to school. They are creating poverty in Canada, and that is totally unacceptable.

When we speak about employment insurance, it is not only in Acadie—Bathurst. Newfoundland has similar problems. We could talk to the Minister of Natural Resources who said that he has the same problems in Newfoundland because it is a fishing region. It is not the fault of the working people if the fishery stocks have gone down in the Atlantic Ocean. It is not the fault of the fish plant workers if the fishery stocks have gone down around the Gaspé coast. It is not the fault of the working people, with all the high technology now even in the forestry sector, that the woodcutters have been removed. Even there they only have short weeks which are not enough.

Some are under the impression that if we bring it down to the best 12 week of earnings, it will encourage people to quit their jobs and go home. Who is encouraged to quit their job and take 55% of their wages? As a matter of fact, the law is very clear in employment insurance. If people quit their job, they will not have employment insurance because they will not qualify. This is an excuse the government is using to not give employment insurance. It is only an excuse to take that money and use it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

I recall in 1986 when the Conservatives moved the account from employment insurance to general revenues. People were on the street because they did not want the change to employment insurance.

The minister responsible for employment insurance in 1996 was Doug Young. When he was in the opposition in 1989, he asked all New Brunswickers to fight back against the changes in employment insurance because they would be a disaster for New Brunswick. In February 1993 Jean Chrétien himself, when he was in opposition and leader of the Liberal Party, said the Conservatives were wrong to make changes to employment insurance because the problem was not the people. He said we should not punish people. He added that the problem was economic development, and we had to create jobs and put people to work.

Sadly, in the fall, when the Liberals were elected, they continued to make the changes that the Conservatives had been doing which was to cut employment insurance. When the Liberals took the money from EI and put it in general revenues, it gave them a way to get money. Then they became greedy. It is not the workers who depend on EI any more. It is the government that depends on EI for all those surpluses. Some $46 billion of surplus on the backs of workers who lost their jobs is totally unacceptable in this country.

The employment insurance surplus is about $46 billion. It is no longer working people who depend on employment insurance but the government itself, which needs it to balance the budget and have a zero deficit.

In the case we are talking about, the best 12 weeks, people made arguments such as it would cost too much, be too expensive, cost $150 million.

For the information of the House and all the hon. members, I asked our researchers to look into this. When we were in parliamentary committee, some people from Human Resources Canada came and gave us some figures because we were pushing for the 12 best weeks out of 52. The best 12 weeks would cost $320 million.

In the minister's remarks after the budget was tabled, he announced some changes, saying that the 14 best weeks would be used, the number of hours would be reduced from 910 to 840, and one could also have earnings of $75 a day. The cost would be $300 million.

If the costs of the 12 best and 14 best weeks are compared, which would be $320 million compared with $300 million, the difference is $20 million and not $150 million. That is not very much—$20 million—to help families, children and industry, when they have a surplus of $46 billion. Just last year, in one year, the government generated a $3 billion surplus.

I ask my Conservative colleagues, who opposed the recommendations on employment insurance—apart from an independent fund—to take a look at their colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador and support them too. I ask all my colleagues in the House of Commons and in the Bloc Québécois to support the changes requested in the motion. I ask my Liberal colleagues to do a very honourable thing next week and support the motion before the House of Commons.

I am sure that working people will thank everyone in Parliament, all the political parties, because finally they will have put their political partisanship aside and done something for people in need, for working people.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recall her reasons for voting in favour of an independent fund barely two months ago? If she does not, that is somewhat cause for concern for the department she heads.

Since a Bloc Québécois bill aimed at creating an independent EI fund is currently being studied in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, does the minister not realize that now is when she needs to speak up and clearly support Bill C-280?

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I do indeed have 13 minutes left to speak to Bill C-23. At the risk of repeating myself, I will say that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill since it proposes an Employment Insurance Commission without any real power and with the opposite makeup to that outlined in our Bill C-280. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas introduced a bill for an independent employment insurance fund that would have only 17 members. Bill C-23 does not help our Bill C-280 whatsoever.

Furthermore, this bill institutionalizes blatant constitutional interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, particularly with respect to the National Literacy Secretariat, Learning Initiatives Program and the Office of Learning Technologies. All these matters come under provincial jurisdiction. As my colleague already said during consideration of another bill, the federal government interferes in anything to do with provincial jurisdictions. In Quebec and in the other provinces, we have appointed people to deal with this. Visibility is one thing, but we need the money.

No measure will prevent the use of replacement workers. Also, in connection with Bill C-23, we are talking about POWA, the program for older worker adjustment. It worked very well in the 1990s, but was eliminated by the current Liberal government. At present we face problems arising from globalization. Many jobs are being lost because of industry closures, for example in the textile sector. Furniture manufacturers are closing, such as Shermag in my riding. This is happening in Victoriaville too.

These employees have training in working with wood, but have never had any retraining. POWA would help these people aged 55 and older—we want the threshold dropped to age 50—to be retrained in another area and thus continue to work. At age 50, people still have a career. These people really need financial help to get retraining in another area, rather than stay home and wait for EI benefits, which never come. Indeed, the government had fun borrowing money from the EI fund without any intention of repaying it. That is $46 billion gone.

Furthermore, the Bloc feels that Bill C-280 better responds to the demands of contributors to the EI fund. This is another matter, which considerably frustrates the people of Quebec, and, I have no doubt, the rest of Canada. Many workers contribute to EI, but are not entitled to receive it. They include women, young people and even students who have summer jobs and pay into EI. This is just a little strange. It is another hidden mini tax. We are proposing that EI be improved to help people who are really suffering.

Then there is the exodus of young people. Many of them go to work in the city, because their is nothing in their municipality. When young people leave the countryside to move to the city, they do not come back. They find work, meet people, start another life and do not come back. It is extremely hard on the farming sector, succession and replacement work. So this is why it is vital C-23 not be passed.

In terms of workforce development, the government must respect's Quebec's authority. The current government must stop meddling in areas of jurisdiction not its own and must unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec.

In Quebec, our post-secondary program was developed based on our culture and needs. However, the federal government is constantly interfering. We are simply asking this government to mind its own business.

The federal government should also negotiate an agreement with Quebec to transfer four groups that were not included in the 1997 accord, namely young people, disabled persons, immigrants and older workers. Earlier, I talked about older workers when I mentioned POWA.

As regards young people, the summer career placement program ended up surprising everyone in that, in my opinion, it was a total failure.

There are many immigrants in downtown Sherbrooke who would love to work, but there is a language barrier preventing them from doing so. Because the government made cuts to French language courses, these people have to wait, often for long periods of time, for months and even years, before being given the opportunity to learn French and thus be integrated into Quebec society.

The Bloc Québécois supports the Quebec government, which feels that Ottawa should give these people the maximum amount provided by the Employment Insurance Act for training. There is an annual shortfall of some $200 million. This amount would allow us to invest in education and literacy. Quebec is also deprived of $100 million in the area of manpower, for those four groups. As I just mentioned, when it comes to development for young people and disabled persons, Quebec is ending up with an annual shortfall of over $400 million, which is a significant amount.

Many young people are discouraged because they are not finding any work in their field. So they are leaving for the cities. They would like to have access to courses in agriculture, another area that is really threatened with extinction. I wonder how we are going to feed our people in future.

The government does not acknowledge fiscal imbalance. This is another area that is costing Quebec $50 million a week. A careful calculation will make that a total of $2,500 million a year. That amount is not going to health, post-secondary education or young people. With $50 million a week, we could do things in Quebec to help the coming generation and especially the seniors. Seniors are often neglected. They have a wealth of life experience. Unfortunately, they are shunted aside as unimportant, to the detriment of Quebec society.

Among examples of the federal government's mismanagement and incompetency I note that it also enjoys taking away programs that are working well, such as POWA. I would add that section 78 of the Employment Insurance Act allows the federal government to invest 0.8% of total insurable earnings in support measures. At the present time, its investment is 0.57%. That is why it is making a profit while the provinces are in the hole.

As I have said, the deficits primarily affect women, who earn 70¢ for every dollar that men earn. So there is a 30% shortfall. We must not forget that children living in poverty have poor parents. Then there are the single mothers who count on EI when they are between jobs. They are penalized or disqualified because they have returned to work and have to accumulate 910 hours rather than the 360 the Bloc Québécois is calling for.

So, the cycle continues. These women cannot receive EI benefits in order to make ends meet or feed their children. So, they have to apply for social assistance, a temporary free pass, which is not something Quebeckers want to rely on.

So, it is extremely important for the Government of Canada to consider the provinces by transferring this money in order to help the four categories of applicants we are proposing.

Quebec will also be able to take care of itself, redistribution and its own areas of jurisdiction. We hope that, if the fiscal imbalance were resolved, the problems in hospitals would be fixed too. This would also correct the problem in post-secondary education, where young people are discouraged due to the lack of follow up. Furthermore, teachers lack support and the school boards need more teachers. As a result, burnout is a frequent problem. You have to work in the public sector to know what burnout is. In Quebec, many nurses have cancer, because they work non-stop and drive themselves into the ground. However, at a certain point, the human body needs to rest.

I repeat that, with regard to Bill C-280, the Bloc Québécois is proposing 17 commissioners instead of 14,000 public servants. These 17 commissioners could administer the EI fund, without anyone being tempted to take money that does not belong to them. We must weigh our words carefully here in the House of Commons, because some parties do not like to hear themselves described as they really are.

This $46 billion was taken from funds belonging to employees and employers. This money, that does not belong to them, is like a small hidden tax to pay the mortgage when the house burned down. It is all well and good to pay down the debt, but never at the expense of individuals, families and children. As I was saying earlier, children are poor, but some people forget that the parents of those children are poor as well.

As for manpower development—I am going from one thing to the next because I have so much to say—there is interference there too. Does the government intend to create hidden education? Is it going to want to develop a department simply to manage other departments that manage departments? This is very costly for no gain.

The government also has to negotiate with Quebec on the 1997 agreement. We have four categories that do not belong to Quebec: young people, persons with disabilities, immigrants and seniors. We must protect, develop and help these four treasures. The youth of today will become the adults of tomorrow.

I already touched on the $412 million shortfall. In October, Labour Canada said it was open to discussion. However, it did nothing. That is why we have to continue to drive home the fact that it is a provincial jurisdiction and that provincial jurisdictions absolutely must be respected.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois reached a major milestone in its fight to improve the employment insurance program, despite massive opposition by the Liberal members.

On Wednesday, the House passed Bill C-280 at second reading. This legislation, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is another step toward our objective of preventing the federal government from dipping at will into the employment insurance account.

The bill proposes the establishment of an independent commission to manage all the assets of the employment insurance account, set the premium rate and recommend improvements to the program.

This victory is a significant step for all workers, but the battle is not over. We will continue the fight until employment insurance contributors obtain justice by taking control of their fund.

Budget Implementation Act

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget tabled on February 23 is unacceptable, because it ignores the priorities of Quebeckers. For the past 12 years, this Liberal government, no matter who was at the helm, has not taken any concrete measures to fix the problems with EI, adequate funding for health and higher education, financial aid for students, agriculture, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, culture, foreign aid, to mention just a few.

Once again, there is nothing in the February budget to fix these problems. So it comes as no surprise that, having voted against the budget, I will also be voting against Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled inParliament on February 23, 2005, which is now before the House.

The Bloc Québécois has always acted responsibly. We worked to make changes to the throne speech and, immediately after the budget was tabled, we presented the government with a series of amendments. This Liberal government has rejected these improvements, particularly for EI and correcting the fiscal imbalance.

With regard to EI, I have met with women's groups in my riding and they have confirmed the discrimination they are facing because the Liberal government has imposed overly restrictive rules denying them access to EI benefits. We cannot say it enough: the EI fund belongs to the employers and workers, not the government.

In light of this minority government, the Bloc Québécois has taken an important step in its fight to improve EI by putting it back in the hands of its real owners: the workers and employers who contribute to it. I want to thank my colleague from Chambly, who has done an excellent job as the EI critic. After much diligence and hard work, the adoption at second reading of Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc, has put us one step closer to our goal of preventing the federal government from raiding the EI fund at will in order to satisfy its obsession with paying down the debt.

I also meet youth for whom access to the workplace is not always easy. They are often faced with precarious jobs with irregular hours. Even though they work hard, they are often among the first to be laid off and, as they have not accumulated enough hours, they are not entitled to employment insurance benefits. Why is this government so stubborn that it refuses to lower EI eligibility requirements to 360 hours?

Young people are not the only ones suffering from the decisions of this federal government. Workers who are close to retirement are losing their jobs. In the riding of Drummond, the situation in recent years is quite revealing. I will just mention the sometimes brutal closing of textile plants. Many people who have spent almost their entire working lives in these jobs find themselves with nothing when plants are closed because of an administrative decision.

Let us not forget that this is the government that put an end to the program for older worker adjustment, the POWA. The current human resources minister, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, will certainly respond that pilot projects are underway. I will simply remind her that, while pilot projects are going on and on, many men and women are going through tough times because of the Liberals' decision. Recently, an organization from our region, Les 45 ans pour l'emploi, wrote to me to ask for the reinstatement of the POWA. The same request has been made to me every time a business has had to lay off workers.

My reply has always been the same, that the request was on the table but the Liberal government continued to turn a deaf ear to their needs, in its arrogance toward the needs of older unemployed workers.

As for agriculture, a large part of my riding is agricultural, with field crops and beef and dairy operations, for example.

Agriculture is in crisis, and has been for a long time. The past 24 months may have been marked by the mad cow crisis, but field crop producers have also been suffering.

I believe the government has a duty to assist agricultural producers who are having to cope with the mad cow crisis, particularly with compensation to achieve a floor price. But instead, its actions are timid and inadequate, so much so that the farmers have recently decided on a $7 billion class action.

As for the field crop producers, I have met with them in my riding office. Despite the representations they made last years, they have received nothing tangible to counteract the trade injury they are experiencing. They continue to suffer from the federal government's withdrawal from their sector.

At their meeting with me, the farmers of my region again told me of the very difficult, even unbearable, situation being experienced by Quebec and Canadian grain producers. Why? Because prices remain terribly low and do not even cover their production costs, which just keep on increasing. Then there are the concrete interventions by the American and European governments, which have been subsidizing their agricultural sectors for a number of years.

What is Canada's reaction? Over the past 10 years of Liberal reign, while the present Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, Canada chose the path of withdrawal from the agricultural sector, including the grain producers. Would anyone be surprised to learn that support to the agri-food sector went from 3.9% of the federal budget in 1991-92 to 1.6% in 2001-02, at the same time as Quebec grain producers were recording negative net incomes? When they came to Ottawa they hit a dead end with a Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who did not want to listen.

I also hear regularly from the young people of Drummond about their environmental concerns. I will take this opportunity to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for the excellent work he does on the environment.

The quality of our environment concerns each and everyone of us. Indeed, we must strive to improve things and every action is important. The recent announcement by the environment minister concerning the voluntary approach accepted by the automobile industry will not result in the attainment of objectives in the area of greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Who, in the final analysis, will foot the bill? It will be the taxpayers who will have to pay instead of the large polluters, because this government has opted for the polluter-paid rather than the polluter-pay principle. As to the implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol presented on Wednesday, it is overly timid.

In terms of social housing, the federal government has totally ignored the repeated requests of the Bloc. Why not use the surpluses of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which total $3 billion, in order to build new units of social and community housing?

Needs are great: such is the opinion of the representatives of the aid network Le tremplin, of the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation and the Office municipal d'habitation de Drummondville. On December 31, 2004, in Drummondville, the eligibility list consisted of some 172 applicants, the great majority of whom were receiving employment insurance or old age security benefits.

It is hard to find adequate housing with an annual income ranging from $9,000 to $13,000. The government must make a commitment to devote 1% of program spending to the development of housing.

Much more needs to be said, but I will conclude by saying a few words on the treatment given to our seniors. Any improvement of their financial situation is a good thing. However, part 23 of the bill does not in any way correct the injustice done by the Liberals to the most vulnerable members of our society when they unfairly deprived them of their guaranteed income supplement. The government is still refusing to give seniors full retroactivity, setting the limit at 11 months.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois are committed to continuing to pressure the government until seniors in Quebec and Canada get all the benefits to which they are entitled.

Employment Insurance Act

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Notwithstanding the outcome of the vote on Bill C-280, I would like to have struck from the list the names of three members of the Liberal Party who were recorded as voting against this bill, but had left their seats prior to the start of the fourth vote. The Minister of the Environment had even gone to the rear lobby.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, I wish to have struck from the list of the vote the names of the member for Cardigan, the Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario) and the Minister of the Environment. After the voting had started they returned to their seats in the House of Commons. I therefore demand that their votes not be counted, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at second reading of Bill C-280.

And the Clerk having announced the result of the vote:

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Manicouagan, it was a pleasure for me to be able to defend the interests of the unemployed by introducing Bill C-280. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois made a commitment to defend the interests of Quebec. To do that, however, one must first focus on defending the interests of the regions, the seasonal workers, the casual workers and those who work on call.

The Bloc Québécois made that commitment during its campaign, which was specifically that its members, once elected to the House of Commons, would introduce a bill on an independent EI fund. They also promised to speak on behalf of the workers.

This is diametrically opposite to the objective of the Liberal Party, which is to get $6 billion yearly out of the employment insurance fund in order to reduce its deficit. This has been the situation since 1993, first with Jean Chrétien and now with the former Minister of Finance, as well as at the time of the Axworthy reform in 1994.

As my colleague for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord pointed out, four people in ten who pay premiums think they are insured against the loss or termination of work, but they are not. New arrivals on the labour market are told they need 910 hours to qualify for EI. In the Bloc, we know that, with $4.8 billion annually and an accumulated surplus of $46.8 billion, the EI fund can be improved.

The Bloc Québécois proposes eliminating the two week waiting period, lowering the eligibility requirement to 360 hours for all contributors, and abolishing the gap, in other words, increasing the number of insurable weeks. The government has the money it needs to do so.

At this time of year, when people do their tax returns, seasonal workers on the north shore, in Charlevoix and throughout Quebec have to return money to the federal Liberal government coffers, even if they work only five or six months a year.

With the sponsorship scandal and the waste of public money, it is shameful to think that the Liberals will find a candidate in the next election campaign to defend the Liberal government's positions on the management of public funds and the EI fund.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that a person from that party would dare run in your riding or mine. It is a corrupt party without soul or conscience, capable of appropriating money from seasonal and casual and those who work on call to manage what I call a disguised tax.

As I was saying, four in ten who contribute to employment insurance benefit from it. That is 40%. All of them contribute, and only four people draw benefits. According to the statistics, the six who do not qualify for benefits are primarily young people and women. It is a disguised tax. Workers pay for insurance in the event of a loss or termination of employment.

A unanimous report by a House committee, composed of Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc Québécois members, proposes eight recommendations with regard to the creation of an independent fund.

We shall see their true nature during the vote. We really hope that the Liberal members, if they do not intend to continue to “govern” using the contributions of seasonal workers and at the expense of the Sans-Chemise and unemployment action committees, will be able to support this bill. If so, they will be saying that is ridiculous to continue appropriating such funds and that the money should, in fact, be placed in an independent fund.

We want the support of Conservative Party members too, who seem to agree in principle with the creation of an independent fund and perhaps on the number of commissioners.

I have a question for the Conservatives. Has anyone calculated how many thousands of people across Canada are currently administering the employment insurance program in the public service?

I will conclude here, and I hope that, when it comes time to vote, the members will support the seasonal workers and the unemployed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Let me also congratulate my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan, who sponsored Bill C-280.

What we are dealing with in terms of what the government has done is one of the most disgraceful acts of abuse of power that one could imagine. Let us understand the scenario.

The government, by virtue of changing the regulations and the qualifying factors for EI, has pushed virtually every worker out of the lineup for EI, whether the worker is deserving or not, because he or she no longer technically qualifies. Roughly one in four workers will qualify for EI.

At the same time, the government has taken all this extra money it has now acquired because it is not paying it out to as many workers because it has denied them access, and has used it to build up a surplus. That is a complete abuse of the consolidated revenue fund, the general accounts of the Government of Canada.

Personally I am not opposed to the notion of a consolidated revenue fund for the simple reason that government needs an opportunity to put money where it is needed. I suspect a lot of my NDP colleagues feel the same way. Crises do come up and priorities change. There are a whole host of reasons that a government would need to move money from a fund with a little extra to an area that needs help. SARS comes to mind. Money has to be found from somewhere, so it is moved around. I have no problem with that.

I give the government its due, although it breaks my heart to do it. The Conservatives in this country, regardless of whether they go by P.C. or Conservative, or in the case of British Columbia they are all wrapped up in Liberals and it is the same in Quebec, the fact of the matter is that the right-wing Tories think that tax cuts are the answer to everything. They think that cutting taxes is the answer and eventually we will not need to worry about things like the EI fund because lo and behold all these magical jobs will be created by virtue of corporate tax cuts.

We know from Ontario's experience that works great as long as the overall North American economy is booming, but as soon as it cuts back, what did the Ernie Eaves government do? It put its corporate tax cuts on hold for a year because it could not afford them. If the argument that cutting taxes generates jobs and that in turn generates new tax revenue is true and therefore they pay for themselves, then it seems to me that the worse off the economy is and the less money there is, the more we should be advocating for tax cuts because they will turn things around.

That is not the case. As soon as the North American economy went in the ditch, Ontario followed right behind. The Conservatives in Ontario were forced to put their tax cuts on hold thereby, in my opinion, putting the lie to their whole theory.

As I said, I do not have a problem with the notion of a consolidated revenue fund. However, because this tax cut mantra has reached fever proportions, at least until recently it was difficult for anyone to argue for any kind of increase in revenue to the Government of Ontario because it was a politically impossible thing to do on the doorstep.

The government and other right-wing governments across Canada have made it virtually politically impossible to run on a platform of new revenues. We need to find a way where the public will appreciate the transparency and see where the money is going. Dedicated taxes, I have already explained why I have a problem with that, but in this context it seems to be the only way that one can make a case.

The Liberals in Canada have so badly mismanaged and tainted the whole fund that it is necessary now to provide almost an artificial transparency for the public as it relates to this. Who can blame them? A surplus of $46 billion is not a bit of an overrun. Who is not in favour of running surpluses? It provides the means to reinvest the money in places in Canada that will do us the most good going into the future and will help the most people. That is no problem, but be up front about it.

What is obscene about this is that it is all being put forward as some kind of magical economic elixir that the Liberals have managed to do and that is how this happened. That is hogwash.

By the way, it bugs me that it is called the employment insurance fund. I have never understood why it is not called the unemployment insurance fund. One does not have insurance for a job; one has insurance for when one does not have a job, but that is just a personal thing.

The Liberals allow the money in the fund to accumulate, the same money over the years, but they start cutting back on who gets the benefits. They know there is going to be a huge surplus. They apply that to everything else they are doing and say, “Are we not wonderful?” No, they are not.

In the first place, the most obscene thing is that all the workers who have lost their jobs then find out the government is not even going to be there to help them out with a fund that the workers paid for. That is the maddening thing. All the workers have to pay into the fund and a quarter of them get to benefit. It was not that way when the Liberals took power. Here we are with a $46 billion accumulated surplus that the government wants to write off as being due to the Liberals being wonderful economic managers.

The only argument I have heard that to me has any substance at all is the issue of going from a four member commission to a 17 member commission. Let us understand that the commission is made up of a chair who is appointed by the House, two vice-chairs who could be the deputy ministers of two departments involved in managing the fund, and seven representatives on the employer and employee side. Why so many? The argument from my colleague who is sponsoring this bill is that one wants to ensure there is as much neutrality, impartiality and independence as possible and making sure there are appointees from outside government bureaucracy is a good way to do it.

I have heard some Conservatives mention it, but the Liberals--and I looked at the parliamentary secretary's remarks before I stood up--went on at great length to talk about how this is an abusive waste. I do not know whether it should be 14 members or 10 members, but I certainly do not think that quibbling over that number is important enough not to support the bill. It is such a small amount of money relative to the $46 billion that we are talking about that to me it is a red herring. The Liberals are looking for reasons to justify why they are opposed when in reality they just do not want their special little piggy bank to be taken away from them.

I thought my colleague, the NDP critic for EI, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, said it well the other night when he made his remarks. This is his opening comment straight from Hansard :

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.

That is the essence of this.

At the end of the day, the details over how big the commission should be is not enough, in my opinion, to stop anybody from supporting this bill. It is obscene that there are so few workers covered by the fund. It is obscene that the government continues to accumulate massive surpluses. It is obscene that the government says there is an overall government surplus because of good fiscal management when in reality it is because it shafted the unemployed workers of this country. This bill attempts to correct that. That is why I and my colleagues in the NDP caucus will be supporting this bill, because it helps unemployed workers, as opposed to the Liberals who have been hurting them.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-280, which seeks to make changes in Canada's Employment Insurance Act and the Department of Human Resources Development Act.

The bill raises two key issues with respect to our employment insurance system. One is the proposed creation of an independent 17 member tripartite commission that would replace the current 4 member commission. The proposed commission is designed to be at arm's length from the government.

The other change is the treatment of the employment insurance account within the general accounts of the Government of Canada. The bill proposes to keep the account separate and under the control of the new commission.

These are important points. In fact, they are similar to issues that have already been raised by the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development which has made its own recommendations on these matters.

The government welcomes and takes seriously the standing committee's unanimous recommendations and is considering them very carefully. We pledge to report back to Parliament within the prescribed 150 days.

It is important to note that the government has already moved to address issues raised in the bill. In December 2004, the Government of Canada decreased EI premium rates for 2005. As a result, employee premiums are now down to $1.95 per $100 of earnings and the employer rates are down to $2.73 per $100 of insurable earnings.

This latest decrease represents the 11th consecutive reduction in EI premiums since 1993. This means employers and employees will pay some $10.5 billion less in premiums this year than they would have paid under the 1994 rates and, at the individual level, it means employees who make maximum contributions are paying $485 less this year in annual premiums than if the 1994 rates were still in place. This is good news.

The government has also committed to put in place a new rate setting mechanism for EI premiums. Our recent federal budget has done exactly that. Following public consultations, the government pledged to develop a new permanent rate setting mechanism based on five key principles: first, premium rates should be set transparently; second, changes should be based on independent expert advice; third, expected revenues from premiums should correspond to expected program costs; fourth, rate setting should mitigate the impact on the business cycle; and fifth, premium rates should be relatively stable over time.

The proposed new rate setting mechanism is built on the experience that has already led to steady reductions in EI premium rates and it takes into account the views of stakeholders and the standing committee of the House of Commons.

Under the proposed new mechanism, the EI chief actuary would estimate the break-even rate for the coming year. He would then provide a report of this calculation to the EI Commission. The commission would then make this report public as soon as possible. Stakeholders would be consulted, after which a rate would be set by the commission for the coming year. Fifteen cents would be the extent to which an employee premium rate could change from year to year. Our goal would be to ensure premium rate stability and limit any negative impact on the business cycle. The last thing we would want is to see a spike in premium rates during an economic downturn.

In addition, the legislation sets out that the rates for 2006-07 will not exceed $1.95. This is intended to provide additional premium rate stability through the transition to a new rate setting mechanism.

Finally, the Government of Canada would have the authority to override the rates set by the commission, if it were in the public interest to do so, through an order in council.

Let us look now at the proposal in Bill C-280 to separate the employment insurance account from the general accounts of Canada.

In the 1980s the government of the day, a government of a different political stripe than today, acting on the advice of the then auditor general, moved to consolidate the EI account with the government's general account. This was more than a bookkeeping move. It was based on sound public policy principles.

Consolidating the accounts, means the government bears the full responsibility for the obligations of the program.

It is important to remember that some years ago serious concerns were being raised that the old unemployment insurance account was not sustainable because it was operating at deficit. At that time, Canadians were concerned that the program's obligations were greater than its revenues, but were comforted by knowing that the payments were supported by the Government of Canada.

Today the EI account is on a much more sustainable footing and the principle of the government responsibility for paying benefits under the program remains.

Moving the EI account out of the government's general account and to an independent agency requires careful analysis of its effects on the accountability and the government's obligation to pay benefits.

I would also remind the House that from an accounting perspective, today's Auditor General, like her predecessors, also believes the EI account should be consolidated with the government's general account.

In testimony to the public accounts committee on November 2004, for example, the Auditor General said:

--this is the correct method of accounting and it complies with accounting standards for government as promulgated by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

She also said:

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

Separating the EI account from the government's overall accounts, as Bill C-280 proposes, may not be consistent with the opinions of the Auditor General.

Finally, there is the issue of structure of the EI commission that Bill C-280 proposes. The bill would replace the current four person commission that administers the EI account by creating a new 17 member commission. I am not sure how the number 17 was arrived at, but I wonder about the implications of this proposal. For example, would a commission more than four times as big cost more than four times as much to operate? If it did, would these funds not be better used to provide benefits to Canadians?

There would also be the issue of achieving consensus on decisions among such a large number of individuals. The current commission is composed of two senior public officials, along with one person representing employers and one representing employees. It is important to note that only one of the two senior public officials gets a vote, which reinforces the parity issue among the three partners. Having a much larger group requires careful examination in terms of cost and effectiveness.

The government is committed to monitoring and assessing the EI program to ensure that it remains responsive to the Canadian people. The Speech from the Throne reiterated this commitment and the February budget as well as the EI program enhancements announced following the budget acted on it.

Clearly, the government has demonstrated its willingness, indeed its desire, to assist workers to adapt to today's labour market, while keeping EI flexible and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

It is for the reasons I have outlined that I am unable to support the legislation changes proposed in Bill C-280.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-280. The purpose of the bill is to address the EI surplus that has been accumulating over the last six years since the Liberals set aside the rate setting process.

Bill C-280 contains two key elements: first, to establish a separate account to ensure that access to funds raised through premiums do not go to general revenue; and second, to ensure that the government cannot set aside the rate setting process without House approval.

The bill also proposes to increase the size of the Employment Insurance Commission to 17 members from the present 4. The proposal to increase the size of the commission is, I believe, an unreasonable request. It is both unwieldy and costly. I will not be able to support that part of the bill but I would strongly support it if an amendment were made not to increase the size of the commission.

The Conservative Party believes that the government needs to be held accountable for a cumulative balance in the EI insurance account, which continues to grow year after year despite repeated objections from the Auditor General that it violates the Employment Insurance Act.

Through the continued suspension of a fair and transparent rate setting process, the government continues to allow the surplus to accumulate. The Conservative Party believes that this surplus is the property of those who contributed to employment insurance, that being the workers and employers.

The $46 billion accumulated national surplus from the employment insurance system reflects a deliberate program of overtaxing workers and their employers to divert those moneys to fund other government priorities. This practice is misleading, dishonest and violates the law. It has attracted the criticism of the Auditor General and is an unfair and regressive tax. Yes, it is an actual tax.

Instead of funding government spending increases out of a more progressive income tax, the use of the EI surplus for that purpose takes proportionately more from the working poor and small businesses. As such, it taxes those who can least afford it and shifts the burden from those with the means to do so.

The EI program has a problem and that problem is the fact that it has a $46 billion surplus.

Another part of the EI program, which is called compassionate care, is another example of sloppy government legislation and mismanagement. The compassionate care program, which was announced two years ago in the budget speech and became effective on January 1, 2004, was established to ensure that dying Canadians could receive compassionate care in the last days of their lives. The unfortunate part of the program is that the sloppy legislation did not appropriately define who could take care of that dying person. The people who qualify as caregivers are the children and the spouses or the common law spouses. Sisters and brothers do not qualify.

The compassionate care program was funded last year for $190 million but only $11 million of that was actually used. A large number of people who applied for compassionate care were denied it.

I have a story involving a constituent named Sue who came to my office and told me her story about applying for compassionate care. Sue, who is 43 years old, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Sue was taking care of her 73 year old mother. Her sister came down from the Okanagan to take care of Sue. She got released from her employer and went down to Human Resources Canada to apply for compassionate care. However she was told by human resources that although they felt sorry for what was happening to her sister, she did not qualify for compassionate care because a sister was not considered part of the family.

That sounded absurd, so we checked it out. We found out absolutely that human resources does not consider a sister to be part of the family.

I immediately brought this to the attention the Minister of Human Resources and was told that the program was under review. I asked the minister to use discretion and to keep Sue and her sister together. I was informed that there was a category called “other”. What is “other”? I found out that the EI program never defined “other”. It was announced, as I said, two years ago and started in 2004. One can apply online right now for compassionate care and, sure enough, the word “other” is one of the categories. However If one clicks on the “other” button the application goes through but pretty soon the answer comes back that since there is no definition for “other” the application is denied. It became very frustrating.

I started receiving emails from other Canadians. I received an email from Olga in Ontario. Olga, who had a sister in a similar situation, went out to Richmond, British Columbia to take care of her sister. She also applied for compassionate but was denied because the minister defines a sister as not part of the family under this program.

Olga appealed the decision and went before the Board of Referees, which is the appeal board for the compassionate care under the EI program. The appeal board did the right thing and said that a sister was absolutely a part of the family. It told Olga that she should be able to take care of her sister in her dying days.

However the unimaginable happened. The government appealed the appeal board decision. It is saying that Olga cannot take care of her sister because, why? Because it has a program where it has not defined “other”?

It is wrong, it is confusing and it leaves Canadians who are in the last days of their life not being taken care of. The government is keeping families apart.

It was very frustrating to find out that $190 million was budgeted for this program last year and the review process that is going on with this EI compassionate care, and the government is denying families to stay together. Sisters cannot take care of sisters and brothers cannot take care of brothers. Do members know what the government has done? The government has reduced the $190 million down to $11 million. This is how it reviews this program. This is how it is dealing with families who are pleading for compassionate care.

We must remember that the EI fund has a $46 billion surplus and the government is not accountable. It allows $190 million for a compassionate care EI program and the way it is reviewing this is by saying that instead of the program having $190 million, it will only be $11 million this year.

When I asked to be part of that review process I was told that I could not because the minister's staff was dealing with it. I want to be part of that. Canadians need to be part of that.

The solution to this is to keep it simple. People who are dying should be able to decide who takes care of them in the last days of their life. This may be a sister or it be may a mother or father, but I believe people who are dying have the right under the Constitution of Canada and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say who they want taking care of them.

The review we can look at is whether six weeks long enough. The compassionate and easy thing to do, which I believe the minister has the discretion to permit, is to allow the people who are dying to decide who they want taking care of them. Of course the care provider has to qualify for EI benefits, which is reasonable, but not permitting family to take care of family because that has not been defined is beyond comprehension

This program is just another example of a government creating sloppy legislation. It knows the right things to do but it does not carry them out. It is broken promises. It promised to take care of Canadians but it does not follow through. We hear a lot of rhetoric and excuses while Canadians are dying.

I support the accountability that the bill presents.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak this morning on Bill C-278, introduced by my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières and so aptly defended earlier by my hon. colleague from Chambly—Borduas, the Bloc Québécois critic for human resources.

Before outlining the benefits of this bill for the workers, and the unemployed, I will take a moment to reply to the Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who said earlier that the Bloc Québécois should get up to date because there is no independent EI fund any more. I would just like to remind the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and all the Liberal members in this House that we are well aware of that. In fact, Bill C-280 will be introduced to restore the independent EI fund. We are well aware of the fact that it was abolished by the Conservatives.

The Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell neglected to say, however, that since 1996, the Liberal Party of Canada has been skimming off the surplus in the contributions paid by employees and employers to finance other initiatives. Since 1996, the Liberal government has skimmed off nearly $54 billion from the program surplus to use this money for totally different purposes.

I do not wish to get too carried away this morning, but the Gomery commission is exposing some of the purposes for which the Liberal Party skimmed off the money. I can understand why the unemployed and the workers in Quebec as well as Canada are angry: since 1996, part of that money has been used to finance the sponsorship scandal. That is totally unacceptable.

That is what happens when people use money that does not belong to them. That is what the Liberal Party of Canada has done: it has taken money paid into the independent EI fund by the employees and employers and used it for other purposes. We can see the result. It has used this money that did not belong to it for all sorts of inappropriate purposes. Now, the Liberal Party will pay the price for that, as it did in the last election.

Why has the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-278 in the House? It is so we can finally restore order to the entire employment insurance program. The name says it all: this is insurance for workers in the event they lose their jobs. That is the reality.

They are paying for insurance; however, since 1990, the federal government has not put a single dime into the fund. It is completely independent; in other words, even if it does not exist, the employers and employees contribute to it, so they can benefit from such a program.

All the Bloc Québécois wants to do is return control of the EI program to the workers. To ensure that it is truly insurance, my colleague from Trois-Rivières is proposing, seconded by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, a series of measures that I will list for the House. It is worth reviewing them one by one.

The first measure reduces the minimum qualifying period to 360 hours of work regardless of the regional rate of unemployment. Currently, it depends entirely on the region in which workers live and on whether it is the first time they have contributed to EI. The threshold varies between 420 and 910 hours of work. A total of 910 hours of work represents over 20 weeks of work.

However, regions such as mine, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, depend heavily on agriculture, tourism or forestry. These are seasonal industries. The workers are not seasonal, the jobs are. Given the local climate, agriculture, tourism and forestry are industries providing seasonal employment. It is not the fault of the men and women working in these industries; these are seasonal jobs. When these workers pay for insurance, they deserve to be compensated during periods of unemployment.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a single threshold of 360 hours of work. It is not complicated. This is one of the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Second, Bill C-278 proposes increasing the benefit period by five weeks. With regard to the most disadvantaged regions with the highest unemployment rates, we are asking that this five-week increase be universally applicable.

So the system would continue to pay EI benefits for a variable number of weeks. There would be variations among regions, but there would be a five-week increase. In the most disadvantaged regions, where the rate of unemployment is at its highest, people were entitled to collect benefits for 45 weeks. This arrangement created a gap. The effect of the additional five weeks is to enable seasonal workers to fill the gap. Employees and seasonal workers, especially, have been asking us for this for a decade now.

Earlier, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell mentioned that the Liberal party had cut contributions. That was not what EI contributors were asking for. They wanted something in order to avoid having times of the year when they had to turn to social assistance in Quebec. Both employees and employers were calling for this. There was no call for a reduction in contributions.

Workers and employers called for a review of the plan. The Liberal party, however, decided to cut contributions with an eye to getting good press and some of the windfall produced by the plan. It has always talked of money, while the workers were talking about the conditions of the plan. This was established by two unanimous reports of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

The third measure involves increasing the rate of weekly benefits from 55% to 60%. Currently, benefits paid represent 55% of the previous salary. What we are saying is that the unemployed deserve indexing, and their benefits could be increased from 55% to 60% of the salary they were earning. That is what they would receive as EI.

Under the fourth measure, the waiting period would be repealed. This is probably the only insurance in the world with a two-week penalty period. That is what was done, and it was called a waiting period. Ultimately, though, everyone who lost their job faced a two-week penalty period. They were not entitled to remuneration in the first two weeks.

Considering that the program belongs to them, it is high time, as the hon. member for Trois-Rivières and the Bloc Québécois are proposing, that the two-week penalty period, the waiting period, be abolished.

The fifth measure seeks to eliminate the distinctions between a new entrant and a re-entrant to the labour force. Of course, this refers to the difference between 420 hours and 910 hours of work to qualify for employment insurance benefits. These people are workers. Whether it is their first, second or fifth job, they must work a minimum of 360 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits.

As the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas said, the cost of all these measures was calculated and, given the contributions made to the fund by employees and employers, there is enough money to implement what the Bloc Québécois is proposing.

We are not exceeding any limits and, unlike the federal Liberal government, which used the money of employers and employees, we are not spending any additional government money. We are not doing that. The money that is in the fund would allow us to implement these standards and new conditions.

The sixth measure eliminates the presumption that persons related to each other do not deal with each other at arm's length. In other words, when persons working in a company hire people they know. If they work as an employee, they are entitled to employment insurance. In seasonal, agricultural, tourism, or forestry work, or any other sector that offers seasonal employment, the employer's close circle of friends or relatives should not be penalized just to create work for public servants.

The seventh measure increases the maximum yearly insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500 and introduces an indexing formula. The maximum insurable earnings are $39,000, or currently 55%. We want the maximum to be increased to $41,500 and for it to be indexed.

We need this more and more. Many plants have had to close because of globalization. We have talked about this in this House. The Bloc Québécois has always decried the Liberal government's policy on job losses in light of other global market economies. More and more people go from having good jobs with good pay to being unemployed. That is why we want to increase maximum insurable earnings from $39,000 to $41,500.

We also want to require the Employment Insurance Commission to pay out, as workforce support measures, at least 0.8% of the insurable earnings—as estimated by the Commission—of all insured persons. We want to have a true workforce support policy. Like all the parties in this House, we want all Quebeckers to have employment.

The problem is that because of Liberal policies, the unemployment rate in Quebec is still between 8% and 8.5%. It is the same in the rest of Canada. We have to be able to help those who need help the most and that is what my colleagues from Trois-Rivières and Chambly—Borduas are proposing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

I hope that all my colleagues in this House will show a little respect for the unemployed and vote in favour of Bill C-278.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today in order to debate Bill C-278. This bill is the initiative of my colleague from Trois-Rivières, who has made a timely presentation illustrating the need to pass this bill quickly.

What is the urgency? People are deeply hurt, on a personal level, by the fact that they are being denied the employment insurance benefits to which they have contributed for their entire lives and to which they are entitled.

It is also a welcome initiative because we know that the federal government definitely intends to maintain the status quo and continue to dip into the EI fund, which is totally unacceptable.

There is the occasional serendipity or somewhat disturbing coincidences. Today, April 4, is the 70th anniversary of the relief camp workers' strike in British Columbia. These workers went on strike to demand a number of working conditions and measures that would provide them with income if they lost their jobs. This happened on April 4, 1935, and the strike began at 11 a.m., just as my speech this morning was scheduled for 11 a.m.

In a fortuitous and also very unusual coincidence, at 11 this morning, an initiative by the Mouvement des sans-emploi called “En marche” was launched in Montreal and other places throughout the province. It calls upon the government to substantially improve employment insurance. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it is certainly a nice reminder to this government that the Bennett government was defeated in the 1935 election, after adopting a position and measures quite similar to those adopted by the current government on the unemployed and people facing employment difficulties.

This government could very well meet the same fate. Currently, the problem for people in Canada—but which does not exist in Quebec—is that there is no viable political alternative with which to replace this government. That is the only thing missing. Otherwise, this government would have been defeated in the last election on June 28.

There must be a viable political alternative even with regard to employment insurance. I invite the Conservatives, today, if they want to improve their image, to vote in favour of Bill C-278; otherwise they will be tarnished with the same brush as the Liberals.

Obviously, the unemployed are the ones affected, but so are their families and their children. We know that, in Canada, the quality of life of children has deteriorated, because children have gotten poorer. And children are getting poorer because parents are poor. One factor contributing to family and child poverty is denying the unemployed what they are owed, despite the fact that they have an insurance fund guaranteeing them benefits should they have the misfortune of losing their job. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has used this insurance fund for other purposes.

This is the same Liberal government that tightened up EI eligibility criteria in order to finance or to balance its budget on the backs of the workers. The Bloc's position is to start by creating an independent fund and an independent commission so that the government can no longer get its hands on it.

In ten days or so, we will be looking at Bill C-280. The government needs to pay back, over ten years, the money it has got its hands on, and that is what is in our Bill C-278, along with having the commission set the contribution rates. The commission must have a balanced representation of employers and workers because they are the ones who contribute to it. As well, the entire employment insurance system needs to be improved.

The position of the present government, the public needs to be reminded, is devious and dishonest. Why so? Because, having pillaged the fund, the Liberal Party made the commitment in the 2000 election campaign to fix what it had destroyed. It did not do so. In 2001, Liberal Party representatives on the Standing Committee on Human Resources and Skills Development, which was addressing the situation with EI, voted unanimously in favour of correcting the situation. Not only was that not done, but as well the Liberals have continued to betray the public by dipping into the fund for other purposes.

Speaking of devious and dishonest, in the last election, barely a year ago, the Liberal government again made a commitment to remedy the situation. Not only did it not do so, but this House, on the initiative of the Bloc Québécois last November, recognized unanimously that the employment insurance fund must not be used in future for any other purpose than unemployment, because it is contributed to by workers and employers and no one else. One might then have expected the fund to be left untouched. But no, the government continues to help itself to money for other purposes. Even the Auditor General pointed this out in her report last November. Liberals on the Human Resources and Skills Development Committee voted unanimously to remedy the situation, based on the set of measures set out in Bill C-278. Since then, the Liberal government has again been doing everything it can to get around these recommendations and enact measures that are contrary to that recommendation.

I want to go back very briefly to the measures proposed in Bill C-278. We have to ask ourselves if we have the money to implement these measures. We do and that money is in the fund. As I said earlier, what needs to be done to restore sustainability, not for the fund but for families, is first to give special status to seasonal workers by setting a single minimum qualifying period of 360 hours for all those who contribute to the fund. We must remove the existing discrimination caused by the disparity in the number of hours required, eliminate the gap by extending by five weeks, from 45 weeks to 50 weeks, the maximum benefit period, and provide special benefits for older workers under POWA, which is a program to help older workers who lose their jobs.

We should also amend the Employment Insurance Act so that persons related to each other are no longer treated as if they had cheated—if somebody cheated, it is definitely not workers. We should also increase the training fund to 0.8% of all insurable earnings; abolish the 910 hour rule for those who become part of the labour force or who rejoin it; increase from $2,000 to $3,000 the threshold of insurable earnings to qualify for benefits; increase the rate of benefits from 55% to 60%; and increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings to $41,500.

In conclusion, all these measures could easily be implemented with the surpluses that the fund will generate again this year, which are in excess of $3 billion, while the proposed measures would only cost $1.8 billion.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 17, 2005, by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, concerning a decision of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during clause by clause study of Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. members for Montmorency--Charlevoix--Haute-Côte-Nord, New Westminster--Coquitlam, Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, and Mississauga South for their contributions.

Bill C-23 establishes the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. It defines the powers, duties and functions of the Minister as well as those of the Minister of Labour and of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

In his presentation the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst asked the Speaker to look at the rulings of the committee chair on the subject of the requirement of a royal recommendation, even where there is a previous statutory authority. He submitted that the committee chair and procedural staff had failed to take into account the ruling made by Speaker Parent on February 12, 1998, when they were determining the admissibility of an amendment from the hon. member for Chambly--Borduas presented in the committee on February 10 during clause by clause consideration of Bill C-23. The disputed amendment to Bill C-23 sought to increase the number of commissioners on the Canada Employment Insurance Commission from four to seventeen. The chair ruled that the proposed amendment was inadmissible because it lacked a royal recommendation.

In summarizing the ruling of Speaker Parent, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst stated that a royal recommendation was not required for an initiative for which there was already a statutory authority. In the case of Bill C-23, he stated that there was statutory authority for a set number of commissioners and that an additional royal recommendation was therefore not required for the numbers of commissioners to be expanded since there was existing statutory authority for such expenses.

In speaking to the same point of order, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord noted that a primary mandate of committees is the clause by clause study of bills referred to them by the House. He submitted that if committees can not amend clauses dealing with financial commitments, it is difficult to justify the continued existence of committees. He also stated that there is a need for more complete instructions from the Speaker on matters that entail monetary commitments on the part of the government.

A further representation was made by the hon. member for Mississauga South who felt that there had been incorrect advice given to the chair of the committee by the procedural staff. He stated that the chairs and members of committees rely on procedural staff to provide them with advice, but if that advice is incorrect then there must be a remedy to rectify it.

I should say that I appreciate that the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst recognized that Speakers have on numerous occasions ruled that committees are and must remain masters of their own affairs. The hon. member is absolutely correct regarding any Speaker's traditional hesitation to comment on committee proceedings. Nonetheless, he asked the Chair to shed some light on this matter and, in this case, the member's complaint has offered me an opportunity to address a number of important points fundamental to our procedure, not only in this particular situation but in the broader context of the proper functioning of the House in this minority Parliament.

First, I want to address the role of members vis-à-vis financial matters, in particular the nature of the royal recommendation; then, I will deal with the 1998 ruling by Speaker Parent.

The initiation of public expenditure is and has always been the prerogative of the Crown. That is to say, neither committees nor private members can initiate the spending of public funds.

The government has responsibility for managing the public purse, which means, in parliamentary terms, that the government has the exclusive initiative for proposing new taxes or for proposing how public funds should be spent. For new taxes, the government must first move a Notice of Ways and Means Motion and have this adopted by the House. Once this happens, the government may bring in a bill legislating the new taxes set out in the ways and means motion.

For new spending, the government must provide a royal recommendation from the Crown's representative, Her Excellency the Governor General, which recommends a bill that includes provisions for spending public funds. This principle is enshrined in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, whose wording is virtually identical to Standing Order 79(1), which reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

Hon. members will note that the standing order relates to bills for “appropriation”. This is the operative word. There is a second important word in Standing Order 79 and this is “purpose”. It is not in order to vote on a bill for an appropriation to any purpose that has not first been recommended by a message from the Governor General, that is, the royal recommendation.

What this means is that the financial initiative of the Crown includes not simply the spending of public funds but the spending of public funds for a particular purpose. A government bill that proposes public spending requires a royal recommendation for public spending for a stated purpose. Accordingly, it is not open to the House to change the purpose unless, of course, Her Excellency were to provide a royal recommendation in respect of the new purpose.

I will not elaborate further on the origins of the financial relations between the Crown and Parliament but I refer the House to page 848 of Erskine May, 23rd edition, for a useful description thereof. Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes.”

Even in our current circumstances, with the government party not having a majority of the seats in the House, it is still the sole prerogative of the Crown--that is, the ministry--and not that of the House of Commons, its committees or its members to initiate financial expenditures.

This sole prerogative of the Crown underlies all of our procedures. The principle holds true in committee in respect of the admissibility of amendments at clause by clause study of government bills and applies equally to amendments at report stage. It also applies to private members' bills at committee and report stage.

Committees studying estimates must also respect this principle: committees may adopt the amounts requested by the government; they may reduce them; or they may negative a request entirely. However, committees can neither increase the amount of money assigned to a particular department or program, nor redirect money from one purpose to another.

I would now like to address the specific case of the requirement for a royal recommendation for the proposed amendment to Bill C-23 to increase the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission.

On February 10, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities began its examination of Bill C-23. The committee immediately began to look at the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas instead of proceeding through clause by clause consideration in the usual fashion.

One of these amendments, an amendment to clause 20, proposed to increase the number of EI commissioners from four to seventeen. It was ruled inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown. In other words, the member proposing it had not obtained a royal recommendation. The next amendment contained a similar proposal and was also ruled inadmissible. Neither of these rulings was appealed.

On February 15, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst attempted to revisit the proposed amendments disposed of previously by the committee, but was unsuccessful in that attempt. The committee then completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and the next day the chair of the committee presented the report on Bill C-23 to the House.

In his argument here in the House, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst noticed that the chair of the committee had referred to page 655 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice as the justification for ruling the amendment out of order. The appropriate section reads:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

In his submission, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst made reference to the February 12, 1998 ruling of Speaker Parent and claimed that the committee staff had failed to take this ruling into account when advising on the admissibility of the amendment to increase the number of commissioners. I have therefore reviewed the 1998 ruling with great care and would like to summarize it for the House.

On February 4, 1998, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Mr. Morrison, rose on a point of order concerning Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability). The member was concerned, first, with the introduction of public bills in the Senate and, second, with the fact that the bill represented a breach of the constitutional principle that money bills must be introduced in the House of Commons.

The member argued that the bill violated Standing Order 80 because it substantially increased the limits of liability upon the government, thereby infringing on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. He concluded by requesting that the bill be removed from the order paper. After the intervention of other members on the question, the Speaker reserved his decision.

On February 12, 1998, the Speaker gave his ruling on the point of order. I refer hon. members to the Debates for that day at pages 3765 and 3766, where, noting that there were few decisions in the area of liabilities and how these relate to the financial privileges of the House, the Speaker said:

My understanding of the procedural implications of Bill S-4 is the following. The increased limits of liability are set out in the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act but the actual compensation available to claimants is subject to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act....

He went on to quote from Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 717, which states:

Where sufficient statutory authority already exists for payments to which bills relate, no further resolution and recommendation is required.

In other words, the Speaker concluded that the bill did not require a royal recommendation and was in order because statutory authority for the payments already existed. The amendment merely altered the maximum amounts of individual claims.

The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst quotes this same citation from May and argues that the case before us is analogous to that one. But is this a parallel situation or does the amendment proposed to Bill C-23 to increase the number of EI commissioners go beyond existing financial provisions?

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst argued that the bill gave statutory authority for commissioners so an additional royal recommendation was not required for the number of commissioners to be changed. That argument would hold true if the hon. member sought to reduce the number of commissioners, but increasing the number increases the charge on the public purse.

As it stands, the bill, and the royal recommendation that accompanies the bill, provides statutory authority for four commissioners. Since the hon. member wants to increase that number to 17 and since there exists no other legislative provision against which the costs of these additional commissioners could be charged, the Chair must conclude that the amendment is not in order: that it does indeed infringe upon the financial authority of the Crown.

There have been numerous occasions in committee where amendments to increase the size of boards or commissions have been ruled out of order. In the House there have not been as many, but the principle still stands. There are two rulings which I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members on this matter.

The first is from April 7, 1982, at page 9052 of the Debates , when Deputy Speaker Francis made a ruling during report stage of Bill C-42, the Canada Post Corporation Act. Before proceeding to propose Motion No. 2 in the name of the minister to increase the size of the board of directors, the Deputy Speaker rose to point out a procedural difficulty. The bill, as reported by the committee, had been amended to increase the board of directors from seven to nine members.

Deputy Speaker Francis stated:

It is obvious that one of our most basic and fundamental procedures is that only a minister of the Crown may originate legislation which proposes a charge upon the revenue and this can only be done when accompanied by a recommendation from the Governor General. Indeed, amendments made in the committee cannot go beyond the terms of the original recommendation. The amendment which was adopted by the committee offends the financial initiative of the Crown and, therefore, I must rule it unacceptable.

Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Postmaster General to all intents and purposes has the same effect as the amendment I have just ruled unacceptable and this motion is accompanied by the appropriate Royal recommendation.

The second relevant precedent is a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Fraser on June 12, 1989, at page 2912 of the Debates , on the report stage motions for Bill C-2, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. Two proposed amendments sought to increase the number of board members and had been ruled out of order in committee. Mr. Speaker Fraser endorsed the decision of the chair of the committee, finding that the amendments infringed the royal recommendation and ruling both motions out of order.

Interestingly, the issue of the Employment Insurance Commission and its composition has already arisen in the House in the current session. On February 8, 2005, the Acting Speaker ruled on the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another act, a private member's bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Manicouagan.

In his ruling, which is found on page 3253 of the Debates , the Acting Speaker noted that, among other provisions, the bill mandated the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. He pointed out that the parent act of the bill in respect of this amending provision, the Department of Human Resources Development Act, provides that the commissioners receive remuneration for their services.

He pointed out that since section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as Standing Order 79, prohibit votes on bills appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues.

The Acting Speaker noted:

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.

He therefore stated that the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Thus, based on our practice, I must agree with the decision of the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities when she ruled the amendments to Bill C-23 out of order. She said:

It is being asked that there be 17 commissioners, and the government would have to spend more to compensate those commissioners. Royal recommendation does not permit this in view of what is contained in the bill. So,—the amendment—is ruled inadmissible.

From my review of events, I have concluded that the advice given to the chair of the standing committee by procedural staff was absolutely correct and well founded on practice and precedent and that this advice was reflected in the reasons the chair gave for her ruling on the matter.

Finally, I would like to address two other points. The hon. members for Acadie—Bathurst and Mississauga South both suggested that errors had been made in the advice given by the Table and by procedural staff assigned to assist the committee. Then, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord stated that there is a need for more complete instructions from the Speaker on matters that entail monetary commitments on the part of the government which are not amendable by the committees.

The role of procedural staff is central to our work in the chamber and in committee for they are always available to assist members in understanding the body of parliamentary rules and practices that the House has adopted to govern its proceedings. This is especially true at times when members may not have had the time to study a matter closely and seek advice on tackling an issue or understanding a ruling.

A member may disagree with the advice he receives or the interpretation of the rules she is given without jumping to the conclusion that members are being misled or poorly served by procedural staff. When in doubt, members are not without recourse. In unusual circumstances when disagreements persist, members are always free to seek the advice of the chair in a committee, to discuss a matter with the Clerk or the Table, or even in certain instances, to raise a point of order in the House for the Speaker's decision.

In closing, let me offer another word of caution. Like me, most hon. members will have had direct experience in majority Parliaments so the current minority situation—although the frequent subject of discussion and speculation—is less well understood.

All hon. members should bear in mind that, while the dynamics of a minority House might be quite different from the dynamics in a majority situation, the constitutional basis of our parliamentary system has not changed and the prerogatives of the Crown remain intact.

Once again, I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity to clarify our practice. I hope that members will find the information and explanations I have provided useful as they continue to carry out their work both in the Chamber and in committees.