Bill C-56 (Historical)

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act and other Acts by establishing a scheme to provide for the payment of special benefits to self-employed persons who are not currently entitled to receive them.

Fairness for the Self-Employed Act

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would like to ask the hon. member to withdraw the word “stole”. It is unparliamentary.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was not sure what the word was, but my colleague from Edmonton said “transferred”.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Vancouver East. A quick question.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member for Elmwood—Transcona made the point very well that these EI changes are so long overdue. I know New Democrats have called for years for these changes to be brought about to help self-employed people with employment insurance.

It strikes me that this is a much bigger issue in terms of social programs in general. I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that the NDP has been the champion of trying to make sure that these programs are actually there for Canadians. Whether it is EI, child care, social housing or our health care system, we are so far behind on everything.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. We had a Liberal government in power for a 13-year period that never came up with a solution like this. The numbers of self-employed people were growing at huge rates. It is funny that, at the end of the day, it took a Conservative minority government and an NDP opposition to put this together. Maybe that is why the Liberal Party is so sour at this time of year over an issue like this.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Question and comments. The hon. member for Peterborough. A very quick question because there is one minute left, so 30 seconds.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mississauga South raises an awful lot of cautions and concerns. He says that he has been here 16 plus years and that he would not want to rush this kind of legislation. He says we need to really consider these things and give them a lot of thought. How much longer than 16 plus years does he think we should consider legislation like that? I would like to know.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has 30 seconds to respond.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, as our House leader has said, this legislation is long overdue. It is time we got with it and brought it in as soon as possible. Let us get it through the Senate. Let us hope that the Liberals do not tinker with it over there. Let us get it into law so that people can start realizing the benefits of our hard work here.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard some rather absurd things today, and I must speak to this bill. I was an accountant and also a self-employed worker in a former life. I started working in 1974, and in 1978, I started my own business as an accountant. Of course, I did many financial statements and tax returns for a number of self-employed workers.

For some businesses, there was a single owner, but some of them were incorporated. Over time, we could see how employment insurance in Canada—unemployment insurance at the time—could work when it enabled an employer, self-employed worker or small business owner to hire a spouse and to have them contribute to EI.

At the time, EI inspectors would often show up to inspect the business's books. They would see that the spouse worked for the business and did not contribute to employment insurance. So they asked them to contribute. If a spouse worked for the business—or for a self-employed worker—and contributed to EI, but, due to decreased sales, applied for EI benefits, the inspectors would show up again and tell them they were not allowed to contribute. There were some standards to be met if the spouse wanted to contribute to employment insurance and be entitled to it if, unfortunately, they ended up unemployed.

For years, each situation had to be examined individually. When I gave advice to my clients—to say whether or not the individual should be insurable—and despite the bad intentions of the employment insurance inspectors, I was always able to suitably defend my position and I always won.

This brings me today to how the Conservatives see the program and employment insurance as such. The Bloc Québécois is constantly calling for some very important adjustments and policy changes with respect to employment insurance. In order to impress Canadians and Quebeckers, the Conservative Party is doing things that make no sense at all. For instance, in the context of the economic downturn we just went through, and which we are still feeling, when we asked that the two week waiting period be eliminated, they instead added five at the end. We cannot criticize that, but it does not have the same impact as adding two weeks at the beginning. Then they accuse us of voting against many aspects of their employment insurance program, but none of it makes any sense.

Now they come to us with a bill that grants special benefits for self-employed workers. Of course the Bloc Québécois agrees with the principle of such a bill to support self-employed workers, since we have always believed these workers should have access to the EI system, as though they were salaried employees. So we agreed with the principle of the bill. However, we are being presented with a program whose intentions are unclear. Of course, we can see them if we carefully analyze the numbers. And naturally, the program proposed by the government would be voluntary.

Many have focused on that aspect, including the NDP, the white knight of justice and equality. The NDP wants the Bloc Québécois to change its mind and make sure that everyone votes for this bill. The NDP also pointed out that the program is voluntary, not mandatory. However, there is something I would like to say to the NDP members who tell us that if Quebeckers are not interested, they need not sign up because it is a voluntary program.

The government is proposing social policy on a voluntary basis. I will not say that anyone is intentionally seeking to rob people, but I will say that someone is seeking to exploit people. If all Quebeckers were to sign up for this program tomorrow morning and pay the set premium, $1.36, they would be financing the sickness and compassionate care portions of this insurance scheme for the rest of Canada. They would be footing the bill for everyone else in Canada.

Why should Quebec have to do that? Earlier, the Conservatives said that what they are doing is strictly political and that they are doing it because they are gaining ground in Quebec. Obviously, they are daydreaming.

Not a single Quebecker would want the Bloc Québécois to make it possible for the rest of Canada to exploit Quebec on such an important issue as sickness and compassionate care benefits.

Their behaviour is just so sad. They were not even interested in hearing what the actuary had to say to the committee. He was in the position for many years and dealt with this issue and contribution rates. In fact, he was the one who did the calculations at the government's request to reduce contribution rates so that the government could say it reduced the rates. The government also made deep cuts to benefits.

Now, what the Conservatives are trying to do with this bill is look like the heroes and make everyone believe that they have done something good for self-employed workers.

I may have lost my train of thought a little, but I have lost none of the anger that I want to convey to the Conservative Party. What the Conservatives are trying to do here is appalling. As I said earlier, they want to look like heroes and make everyone think that they are helping self-employed workers. They finally realized that self-employed workers are strategically, even critically important to Quebec's economy and Canada's.

Quebec already has maternity benefits and parental leave, which cost us 86¢.The government is adding $1.36 to that, for a total of $2.22 for all the benefits, while self-employed workers in the rest of Canada will pay $1.73.

There may seem to be something wrong here. I would say that there is something wrong, but we also have to consider the fact that Quebec is slightly more progressive than the rest of Canada. It has more suitable parental and maternity leave programs.

Still, there is an unaccountable difference that I would describe as almost dramatic. I wonder how a Conservative member from outside Quebec would explain that to Quebeckers.

Quebeckers would certainly like to enrol in such a program, but how will they react when they find out they have to pay for the rest of Canada in addition to themselves?

The proposed rate of $1.36 is three times the actuary's estimate of 41¢. Every self-employed worker who signed up for this insurance would pay for three Canadian workers. I had not thought about it, but maybe that means that one Quebecker is worth four Canadians. But that is not what I want to say.

It comes down to the same thing, because Quebeckers account for 25% of the population. One country represents 25% of the population of another country. But that 25% is actually 100%.

I am stunned that even a single federal member from Quebec could support such exploitation of self-employed workers in Quebec. I am convinced that the NDP member from Quebec, the member for Outremont, will vote against this bill. He will never agree to tell self-employed workers in Quebec that they can get ripped off by voluntarily purchasing this insurance. Does the member for Outremont really want to tell Quebeckers that he is voting for insurance that literally exploits them? Is there something wrong with his idea of fairness and equity?

In speaking of fairness and equity, I would like to point out the contribution of the member for Mississauga South who clearly stated, as did other Bloc members, that we must do much more. We cannot give up. Just because we are at third reading today does not mean we must give up. Some things need to be clarified and others need to be challenged. Some changes may even be required. It begs a fundamental question: should this measure be mandatory? What would have happened if the bill had stated that the measure was mandatory?

Obviously the rate of $1.36 for Quebeckers would not have been acceptable and would not have been implemented. I even wonder if the intent of this premium rate is to have Quebeckers say no to this bill. It is important to ask this question. The Conservative Party constantly introduces bills that seem wonderful but that are at odds with Quebeckers' interests and do not work at all. That always happens. They are always sugar-coated and unfortunately the image projected almost never corresponds to the reality.

Once again, I appeal to all the members of this House and the Quebec members. I am convinced, even though these members sit in cabinet, even though they are ministers, that Quebeckers would never accept that they would agree to a bill to create a program that would shamelessly exploit them.

We actually were in favour of a program providing sickness and compassionate care benefits, but not on these terms.

It goes against our principles of fairness and equity to tell Quebeckers that we have managed to secure a sickness and compassionate care program but that they will have to pay so much and pay for the rest of Canada. I find that unacceptable and if no significant changes are made, if no adjustments are made to reflect the reality then, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, as one from outside Quebec, I would not attempt to explain this to someone in the province of Quebec. I will leave that to my colleagues, the MPs from Quebec and also the candidates from Quebec in the next election.

However, I will try to clarify for the people who live outside of Quebec, who are watching this debate, lest they be misled by the member for Sherbrooke.

The point the member is making is this incredibly low price Quebeckers have for the benefits that already exist in Quebec. I submit that the only reason these programs are still operating and operating with a horrendous loss every year, and they are grossly underpriced, is because of the massive subsidies the province has to put in to support them. That is the reason the taxes in Quebec are the highest of any province in Canada.

The member for Sherbrooke said he was an accountant. He surely must know that we do not get something for nothing.

Where the employers and the self-employed may be paying a small premium for the benefits they are getting, the fact is their property taxes are more and every other tax in Quebec is almost higher than any other provinces in Canada.

Lest the people watching are misled, that is the whole point. The member is not being clear on that.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am one of those who think that everything is worth something and that we have to pay a fair price. That is not the case here. Obviously the hon. member can tell the rest of Canada that Quebec has voted against this. With the figures they are presenting, the premium is being subsidized.

We have more progressive policies in Quebec because we pay for them and the federal government never pays us more than our share. We are not here to beg the federal government for money. We are here to get our fair share. We do not intend to finance the rest of Canada for things that, in some cases, do not concern us. This matter does concern us, but it is not up to us to finance self-employed workers in the rest of Canada. They too have to realize that everything is worth something and that they have to pay what this insurance for sick leave and compassionate care benefits is worth. They will benefit from four forms of insurance for $1.73, while we are already paying 86¢ a year for two that are much more comprehensive and more in line with the needs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers are prepared to pay for what they get, but they should not have to pay for what they are not getting. It is only fair.

Everything is worth something and we will see what the Bloc Québécois is worth to Quebeckers in the next election. Through you, Madam Speaker, I invite the hon. member to come sell his plan to us in Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can see what is happening here. There seems to be a dispute in facts. When there is a dispute in facts, let us resolve them. Let us get to the facts because the facts will speak for themselves.

If we took the current salary for people in Canada, here is what they pay and here is what they get and apportion that premium, the $1.73 to each of the elements of EI benefits and special benefits, and if we do the same for Quebec, we will find a couple of those special benefits that Quebec does not participate in the EI program because Quebeckers already pay for them and they are provided by the Quebec provincial government. There is the disparity.

If we put in self-employed people from across Canada, we have to build on that model. There already is a differential for good reason. They are paying for it through their provincial taxes.

However, the numbers and the methodology for the proposed inclusion of Quebec self-employed persons does not build on the basic framework of cost of benefits and that is the problem. It is not subsidizing anything. It is fairness and equity and the numbers will show it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to once again recognize the contribution of the member for Mississauga South. There are conflicting ideas and positions because there is a very big disparity between the Conservatives' assessment and ours. We heard them. They are convinced that their assessment is the correct one.

There is about a 1¢ difference, but we believe that our assessment is the correct one. Furthermore, the former EI actuary supports us. For years, he gave the government exact figures so that it could assess the situation and, ultimately, so that it could dip into the EI fund.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate and a couple of points stand out.

The first is about the question of vision. I just heard from the government side what I consider to be a small and narrow-minded vision of the kind of services that government can provide to our citizens. The Government of Quebec has an expansive vision in many areas and one of them is child care. Quebec has led the country in providing child care services at an affordable rate. Quebeckers have decided to pay for that service and it serves as a model for the rest of us. I agree services for Canadians should be paid for and valued.

I would like to hear about the member's vision for EI with respect to these benefits. We are talking about giving maternity/paternity benefits, sickness benefits and compassionate care benefits to self-employed people. Would he not agree that self-employed people have children, they get sick and they have family members who they have to take care of? Are these not the kind of programs that provide a good vision for our country, similar to the child care policy?