Evidence of meeting #20 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We have an amendment put forward by Mr. Lessard that Bill C-265 in clause 5 be amended by replacing line 27 on page 2 with the following:
to a claimant is 60% of the average of their
On a point of clarification, both of the amendments do not remove the requirement for our recommendation, but we are going to debate them anyway and move forward on that.
Mr. Lessard, do you want to talk to the motion?
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, the figures we received were consistent with those provided by the deputy minister in 2004. That means that this measure would cost $1.2 billion. At first blush, this may seem costly, but you have to bear in mind that it is a measure that would apply to all EI recipients. You also have to remember that most of these people are low earners: 55% rapof an often very low salary is really not very much. Can we afford it? The same rationale applies. One cent extra in premiums equates to $100 million. That gives us an indication of the amount by which premiums would increase.
Could the fund cope with such a measure? Yes, it could. It has never registered less than a two billion dollar surplus over the course of the past few years. There are often three billion dollar surpluses. The surplus has stood at $3.3 billion for the past two years, and that is at the current premium rate.
Furthermore, let us not forget that members of this committee should continue to fight for the return of the money that was misappropriated from the fund. We certainly will not give up. We are not simply going to pretend that nothing happened. The money was used for other purposes when it ought to have been used to provide benefits for people who had lost their jobs.
My colleague used the word “theft”. It is, at the very least, a serious economic crime, especially from the point of view of those who were directly affected--those who lost their job, their family and their community. It also left the economies of each of our ridings $30-$35 million worse off. The EI fund is a powerful regional economic lever. You cannot talk about fighting poverty without studying our social safety net. The EI fund is a key element of our social safety net.
I am not really addressing the Conservatives this morning, as they do not have an anti-poverty policy. I am, however, addressing our Liberal colleagues, because they claim to want to introduce an anti-poverty policy. I would be interested in seeing the details. A credible policy has to pay heed to the need to improve the employment insurance system. I believe my suggestion to be a good idea. The fund can cope with it, especially given that this measure would benefit everybody.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I did not refer to 66% in my bill. As you are perhaps aware, I have tabled a number of bills. When I tabled one with 14 proposed changes, the Liberals nearly hit the roof. They said that I had asked for too much and that, had my proposals been more moderate, they would have supported me.
The conservative approach is straightforward; they do not want to do anything other than reduce premiums. They think that people are abusing the system, that it is just a slush fund, and that we simply want to give those who are too lazy to work the opportunity not to do so. That is how the Conservatives approach the issue. Yet the first cut to the rate reduced it from 66%to 50%. The minimum wage in New Brunswick is about $7.50, which means that somebody who is unemployed receives half of that amount, about $3.75 an hour. That is less than welfare. I am talking about seasonal workers here, for example those who work in the tourist industry, people who earn the minimum wage and do not get any tips.
In 2000-2001, the government increased the benefit from 50% to 55%. The 66% rate that we used to have was the same as that offered by insurance companies. If somebody falls ill, for example, insurance companies cover 66% of the person's salary. If compensation is due, it is paid at almost 80%.
This program belongs to the workers. Often the people who really need it are those in low-paying seasonal jobs. I did not mention the rate in my bill because I was planning on tabling a separate one on that issue. After all, the Liberals do not like to vote on a number of issues at the same time. Yet, this morning, once again, I see that they are turning their backs on the workers. I am going to support Mr. Lessard's motion, but I am not sure that it will meet with everybody's approval.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I think when we start talking about cents in the rate, most people have a hard time figuring out what that actually means. I know I've never really paid attention to the rate I pay into EI; I just know I pay too much. But I would point out that with Mr. Lessard's amendment, this would work out to almost $200 per worker across the country. I think that's something people can relate to--$200 more that they would spend on EI, either directly or indirectly through their employers. Again, I think that's completely unrealistic.
There is kind of an irony here. I wrote down Mr. Cuzner's quote here. He says, “Some Canadians do need help at times.” I acknowledge that. I think actually there is a reason we have an EI system, and in spirit, it's a good program. I would point out that the changes we're talking about here—and we've talked about many different changes over time in this committee—as with those other changes, will actually hinder our ability to help the people who need the help.
I will make the argument. The research shows that when social program funding goes out of control, poverty actually goes up, because there's a point at which you're actually hurting the people you're trying to help.
Think about it this way. As the economy grows, we have more opportunities for people to work and we have more money for social programs. The current situation is that most of the growth in the economy right now, the Canadian economy—we have to think about this in the big picture—is happening out west, but as we heard from one of the witnesses from Atlantic Canada, there are some areas of growth in Atlantic Canada as well. In what we're talking about with this particular bill, you can't deny that whatever you say about the bill, it certainly is not creating an incentive to work. If anything, it's going to create a disincentive to solving the labour problems we have in the country. It will help some people individually, but it's going to create a disincentive overall to contribute to the overall economy.
In Alberta, we have some significant challenges. We're bringing over temporary foreign workers to help solve that problem, but we're not even close. Mr. Godin talked about people coming out west to work. We're not even remotely in the ballpark in terms of the labour we need; therefore, the economy of the country is hurt by that, because the economy is not growing at the rate at which it should be. Therefore, taxes aren't being collected, money is not going into the EI program to fund some of these things you're talking about funding, and the overall economy is hurt. The overall ability to fund social programs is actually hurt by that in other parts of the country, because of equalization.
The solution isn't necessarily to force people to move. I know you like to use that kind of talking point, but the reality is that that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who want to move coming out, not necessarily even moving but coming out and working and perhaps going back to their ridings and using the money they make to create jobs, by spending it in their own ridings, as we've seen in Cape Breton, as we've seen in Newfoundland, in some recent stories. That's helping the situation in those ridings. In fact, there are now people who are able to work in construction in those ridings, building houses or whatnot, who otherwise wouldn't be working, because of that situation.
I have a constituent with a company in my riding, a friend of mine, who actually expressed the same concerns you have about people moving across the country. He said, “You know, there has to be a way that we as employers can tap into the situation right now and maybe come up with some creative solutions to transfer some of the advantage we have, some of the labour needs we have, to other parts of the country so that people can actually work and contribute in their own part of the country and do things that are transferable. We have to be creative in that way.”
I think this kind of approach actually creates a disincentive to that creativity. That's what I believe. At the end of the day, if we shrink the economy overall in the big picture, if we shrink the economy in certain parts of the country, whether it be out west or whether it be parts of Atlantic Canada where they need workers and can't find them, no matter where it is in the country, we have less opportunity for people and we have fewer dollars to spend on social programs.
At the end of the day, that's exactly what this bill is going to accomplish—less opportunity, less money for social programs.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I wasn't going to respond, but I think this relates to a view of how the government sees its role in the social infrastructure of Canada. In large part, they would just as soon abdicate that responsibility. They would rather say, “It's not our job”, because it's connected with what they refer to as social engineering. I think the federal government has a big role.
The premiums that go into this fund come from employers and employees. This is not money that comes from the general taxpayer. Rather, money that comes from employers and employees goes into the fund. It doesn't mean it's inappropriate to make changes to it, but I think we have to be careful in how we go about it.
Employment insurance changes can hurt places like Atlantic Canada. We saw it yesterday—a cut of $150 million in ACOA that the government hasn't publicly acknowledged yet. There are a lot of changes reflecting how this government views Atlantic Canada. This is different from how we view it or, I would suspect, how the other parties view it.
As to the amendment of Mr. Lessard, at a cost of $1.2 billion it's very expensive to go for 55% to 60%. This is an index of salaries. If you're looking at how to spend $1.2 billion, there are a lot of ways you could do it. Is this the most effective way? I would argue that it may well not be the most effective way, that there are other ways we can help, and that we should put money back into the pockets of workers' families.
I believe the best 12 weeks is worthy of support. That makes a lot of sense, and we'll support it. When we discussed this before, in the last bill, we supported 60%. The Bloc and the NDP supported the regional rates. So there's been a little moving around of position here. But from a responsible point of view, do we think $1.2 billion should go back into the pockets of working people? Yes, we do. Do we think this is the best way to do it? No, we don't.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Just for the record, I'd like to thank the Liberals for finally supporting the best 12 weeks. In June 2005, when we had a motion in the House of Commons on the best 12 weeks, they voted against it. I mean, they're coming along.
I'd like to thank Mr. Lake, my big brother, for helping us in the Atlantic by saying he's the saviour of the Atlantic and he thinks well of us and how we behave. But that's not how the family thinks. It's not how the women think, who call me and say they're missing their husband who's living out in Alberta and if he doesn't come back soon the family's going to separate. It's not how husbands think, who call and say, “If I go home I have to quit my employment, and if I don't go home I'm going to lose my marriage”. In life, people have to work. But they're still human beings, and we have to look at the effect on the person.
The idea of working, of moving some stuff from Alberta, maybe some jobs, to other places in the country, that's the great thing. We're working on that point. That's what it's all about. In the meantime, we cannot let the workers suffer. We need to develop these methods. That's how we will cut down on unemployment insurance, by training and changing things.
For example, if a person works in Alberta for three months, we could have a program that allows him to go home for a month, so that the employer could lay him off instead of saying he'd quit. You would be able to get your earnings and go back. Instead of working 10 weeks, he might work nine months, but he would have an opportunity to see his family and be able to tap into those companies that make good in some other places in the country. The way the program is, if you go, you're worse off than if you don't. That's why some don't go. They think that if they go, that's it, they'll lose their family or their earnings. Some base their decisions on that.
We could look at different things, but if a person loses his job he should qualify for this program. I think it's the responsibility of the government to work towards economic development. If there's growth in one place in the country, how could we move it to another place? I think things could be done in different places in the country. We've been working on it. We have endorsed a company that's fabricating stuff in New Brunswick and sending it out there. It has started to work that way. It's not the employment insurance that's going to force this. In the meantime, we have workers who are suffering. It's their program, not the government's program.
I'd like to thank my big brother from Alberta for the way he spoke. I thank you on behalf of all the Atlantic people and the people of the Gaspé coast. You people have good thoughts about us and we appreciate it.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're going to move to Mr. Lessard now; he has a comment.
Maybe we can wrap it up, and after this comment we can have a vote.
Mr. Lessard, you have the final word, sir.
10:05 a.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I am always happy to have the last word. I just wanted to clarify one point. I heard Mr. Lake say, on behalf of the Conservative Party, that, if we adopted this measure, there would be less money for social programs. That it is a choice we are making. But Mr. Lake's comment contradicts his government's plan to set up a Crown Corporation to administer a stand-alone employment insurance fund in order to ensure that money is not misappropriated. His argument does not, therefore, make any sense.
It is essentially a question of political and social ideology. This is something that we have already seen with the daycare program. A daycare program was getting off the ground across Canada, but the Conservatives chose to abandon it. That illustrates the sort of choice that they make. And they are entitled to make decisions as they see fit, Mr. Chairman. Our choices give expression to our values. What are the values that define them? Will they be remembered for their humanitarian values and their desire to help those who are currently paying premiums should they one day lose their job? Or will they be remembered for their pro-nuclear, pro-war, pro-oil company values? That is their right. However, those who vote for the Conservatives have to know who they are voting into power.
To my mind, Bill C-265 gives us the opportunity to improve the lives of workers using their own money. In doing so, we also help employers, as such measures often allow for a skilled workforce to remain close to businesses that have to lay off staff temporarily. That is something else that should not be overlooked.
That is the rationale behind my amendment and it reflects the spirit of the bill. I would once again urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Actually, I have a couple of comments on what a couple of people have said.
I noticed that Mr. Savage pointed out that employment insurance changes can hurt people in Atlantic Canada. I think I have quoted what he said. I would just point out that the most significant fact is that the only significant cuts to the employment insurance program were made by his previous Liberal government, so I found that to be interesting.
In terms of Mr. Godin's comments--
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I think it's a point of order. It started with Brian Mulroney in 1986--
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
All right, that's debate. I'll put you back on the list, but...anyway, go ahead.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
The second point has to do with what Mr. Godin said.
It's been interesting sitting on this committee over the last two years because it is a real learning experience to hear from different perspectives from across the country. Certainly on this issue there's a significant difference in perspectives from people across the country. I would just share the experience I have in meeting with people on a very regular basis. You talk about it being tough for a spouse to move across the country and work and then come back and be away, and I agree, I think that would be very difficult. I'm not advocating forcing anybody to move. It's all about choices, the choices we facilitate, and the good of the country.
I would just point out that the common experience for me in terms of meeting constituents is with the employer who's working 16 to 18 hours a day to try to keep his business running because he cannot find anybody--anybody--to work, and his spouse is working with him. The kids suffer from that. They have a choice: their business dies or they work 16 to 18 hours seven days a week, every single day, because they don't have anybody to work. If the business dies, yes, that's a correction, I suppose, in the economy--you could look at it that way--but it's not a correction that I think we want. I think we'd rather have those businesses stay afloat, maintain the employment, and allow them to contribute to the economy.
I'm reluctant to even comment on what Mr. Lessard had to say, because obviously he was totally misrepresenting everything I had to say. I will point out that I was talking more about economic corrections in the big-picture economy when I was talking about money we have to spend. What I would be looking at is revenues, as opposed to money specifically for social programs. If we implement these measures, the long-term effect economically is going to be less government revenue for provincial and federal governments across the country. Those governments are going to have to decide what they spend that money on, but purely, all other things being equal, the impact of this kind of legislation is less revenue for governments across the country.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Let's move to the question on the Bloc amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 5 agreed to)
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That takes us to our last clause, I believe. If there's no discussion, I'll just call the question.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
10:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:10 a.m.
An hon. member
There were no amendments.