Evidence of meeting #60 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cancer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I think the bill you're referring to is the one we're going to deal with next. You're on Bill C-269?
Liberal
Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON
What type of impact would that have in terms of your bill? And could you talk about any other legislative changes that would be required?
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
May I make a suggestion, Mr. Chair?
This question has to do with Bill C-278, which was introduced by his own party and will be debated immediately afterwards.
Conservative
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you.
I can answer the first question. You asked approximately how much an additional five weeks will cost. Our calculations of the additional costs associated with Bill C-269 indicate that increasing the maximum from 45 to 50 weeks would cost $11 million. I spoke earlier about the total costs, which are in the order of $1.7 billion.
As for your second question, concerning the people who can access insurance if they lose their job, you will have a clearer picture once the second witness appears. In any case, we are talking about insurance. Bill C-269 definitely has to do with employment insurance. All workers who pay into EI are paying into an insurance system.
Imagine that, as a good home owner, you purchase insurance for your house. You pay into and abide by a system, knowing that you can count on it in the event of a disaster. But somewhere along the way, your insurance company completely alters the system, deciding that certain parts of the house are no longer covered. When a disaster occurs and your house is ruined, you go to your insurance company to make a claim, but you are told that the criteria have changed, that the living room and dining room are no longer covered.
This is similar to what our workers are currently facing. They are paying into a system for which they will no longer be eligible, because the requirements have been tightened up over the years.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Ms. Dhalla.
We're now going to move to Mr. Asselin for four minutes.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I would like to provide some clarification.
On December 5, 2004, with the Liberal government in power, at the request of the committee, we heard Malcolm Brown, who was at that time the Assistant Deputy Minister of HRDC. He provided us with the following information, based on studies conducted by his department.
He told us that it would cost $11 million to increase the maximum number of weeks from 45 to 50. I am point this out for Ms. Dhalla, who asked a question about it. We have the amounts associated with each amendment proposed for the bill.
My colleague would like to ask a question. Please go ahead.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Chair, during the last election campaign, the Conservative government acknowledged that there was a fiscal imbalance. The imbalance was caused by cuts made to transfer payments. At the time, the Liberals, who were cutting the transfer payments, made cuts to the EI fund. There was a surplus of $6 billion a year, which led to an accumulated surplus of some $51 billion. Those are the Auditor General's figures.
As Ms. Bonsant was saying, six out of ten people pay into EI but do not qualify when the time comes to receive benefits. I am sure we all recall Minister Axworthy's reform, followed by that of Minister Young. They helped themselves to the surpluses from the EI fund, while tightening up the eligibility criteria. Fewer and fewer workers were eligible. The primary goal was to create a surplus of $6 billion a year in the EI fund and then move it to the consolidated revenue fund. You say that this $51 billion no longer exists? They used it to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. It became a hidden tax, on the backs of seasonal workers.
At this time, six out of ten workers are not eligible for employment insurance. With the reforms and the bill proposed by the Bloc Québécois, can we estimate that at least eight or nine out of ten will qualify?
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The improvements proposed in Bill C-269 are aimed precisely at restoring that balance. The goal is to ensure that the majority of people who wish to be eligible can indeed receive benefits.
I cannot say that the results will equal 100%, but we can probably say that the majority of workers will qualify for the EI system following the improvements that we would like to make.
Conservative
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I would like to ask our analyst, Mr. Kerr, to give us a report in the next few days of what was said during previous committee meetings, when representatives of HRDC said that the people who pay into employment insurance—Mr. Lake was quite clear. He said that 83% of people who are eligible for EI receive benefits.
He just told us that the government is in the process of stealing another 13%, because he said that only 83% of those who are eligible actually receive benefits. It should be 100%. Things are going from bad to worse.
Some people at this table are worried about how much this is going to cost. Are you not more worried about the human cost of this, how much this has cost families, and how much this adds to the suicide rate in the regions, where people work mainly seasonal jobs? People work in fisheries, in forestry or pick blueberries, and berries cannot be picked in January. Nor can Christmas trees be cut down in July. People in Calgary seem to have a hard time understanding this. People seem to think that, since Calgary is doing well, the rest of the country is doing well.
We see what happened as a result of cuts to employment insurance. Last year, Russian workers came to work in fish processing plants in PEI. Then they flew back and spent their money in Russia. Canada lost all that revenue. Is it not the same where you are from?
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That is the most serious aspect that stood out during the tour that my colleague Yves Lessard and I made. We are in the process of impoverishing our regions. They are feeling increasingly isolated.
Over the past year, there have been massive closures in the forestry and textile industries. Many factories are closing their doors because of international competition.
For instance, we met with people in Mauricie. In that region, the workers are poor precisely because of the few hours worked, because the industry is seasonal. The people are very dependent on that industry. I have a figure here. We are told that the economy of Gaspésie is losing some $50 million a year. There are approximately 8,000 eligible people, and if there were 40% more, that would mean a real improvement for the local economy.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Ms. Deschamps, at the time, did Brian Mulroney not introduce the GST in order to pay off the debt, and not to steal employment insurance from workers? That is how they pay off the debt and reach zero deficits, on the backs of workers, by accumulating surpluses.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Do you agree with me? I also toured the country. I, too, saw people crying in Toronto, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince George and Yellowknife. I saw those tears.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
You have just reinforced my testimony, Mr. Godin. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you. That's all the time we have.
We're going to move to our last questioner, Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Ms. Deschamps, a thought occurred to me today as we were discussing this. As members of this committee know—most of the members who are here know—I have a son with autism. In the fall we voted on a private member's motion, motion number 172, by Andy Scott, regarding a national autism strategy. It was a very well-thought-out motion.
All three of the other parties voted for this motion, except yours, on the basis that it had the word “national” in it and you couldn't support that. Now you're introducing a bill that deals with an exclusively federal program. To me, it sounds a little bit like a political game. I'm just wondering how you justify that.