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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bill James  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

9:40 a.m.

Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

Bill James

I wouldn't be able to speak to whether it would impact most negatively on a particular income group. It's certain that when you go to a flat rate, the vast majority of the reduction, if you will, the proportional reduction, is in areas of low unemployment than in areas of high unemployment.

The only income tested aspect of EI is the family supplement, which increases benefit rates to those with children and who have a demonstrated low income. It can increase the replacement rate from 55% to 80%.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

The only other clarification I'd like is on the EI surplus, because we always hear about this surplus. Mr. Godin went on about it today, and I'm not sure why because I think we're changing things so that the surplus no longer continues to build.

There is no surplus sitting out there. Am I correct? There is no $56 billion sitting there. It's notional.

9:40 a.m.

Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

Bill James

The balance—

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Just as clarification, we can't build policy around something that's in a dream or around some notional fund.

I just want that clarified, so we can quit talking about or referring to this $56 billion. This is why all these changes have to be made.

9:40 a.m.

Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

Bill James

The accumulated balance in the EI account is in fact an accounting record. It's the difference between the credits and the debits to the account, so it is in fact notional. That means there's not a particular amount of cash equivalent to that sitting in the CRF.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

We're going to move to Mr. Godin.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I very much appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's question because she is saying exactly the same as we are. This slush fund has become the government's slush fund. We are about to legalize the theft of $57 billion. They want to hear no more about it. The Parliamentary Secretary has clearly said that the time has come to stop talking about it. On paper, we have accumulated a surplus of $57 billion in the employment insurance account, but we are told that they want to hear no more about it. Yet when the Auditor General looked at the figures, she said that it could be put into general revenue but that Canadians must always know how much is in the account. So, we still have the $57 billion, and, by creating a Crown corporation, we are now legitimizing the theft committed by the Liberals in 1996. That is exactly what they did.

Over the last two weeks, I have spoken with workers in my constituency. Not once did they tell me that they wanted regional rules. They did not even mention them, in fact. But they did say that they wanted to be able to qualify for employment insurance benefits. The only thing I know is that the workers told me that they want 360 hours, and that would affect 40 million workers in Canada.

The Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec and The New Brunswick Federation of Labour as well as other federations across the country have taken a stand on this. At all the meetings I have attended, workers' representatives and workers themselves have always said that the number of hours must be reduced so that people can qualify. This slush fund has become the government's slush fund.

With all respect, Mr. Lake, the government tells us that there must be balance. In the budget, we are going to cut taxes for big corporations by $14 billion, but we are giving $1 billion to compensate for the shutdown of the forest and manufacturing industries. A billion dollars to try to fix all the economic problems in Canada, especially in the northeast. For example, UPM in Miramichi has closed its doors, as has Smurfit-Stone in Bathurst, AbitibiBowater in Dalhousie et Smurfit-Stone in New Richmond. Those were all good jobs that were lost.

We have been told that we need balance to fix our economic problems. So we are giving $14 billion to profitable companies like the Alberta oil industry and the banks. The others normally do not benefit from tax cuts when they make no profits. The companies that have benefited the most are the ones in the west. So, when we talk about balancing things, let us not take too much time listening to Mr. Lake. With all respect, I know where he comes from.

You see it as simple: if we can keep the Atlantic provinces in a black hole, the people will all have to move to Alberta. That is how we treat people who work in the forestry and the fishery, people who work hard from morning to night. We are not going to let them to stay at home, they are going to have to move, like it or not, because we want balance. Your idea of balance is to have everyone over near the Pacific so that the world tilts to that side.

The Conservatives say that they do not like social programs. You are opposed to things like that. But one day, it will be up to Canadians to decide your fate. You have not often been elected in Canadian history, and when Canadians wake up, you will not be elected again for a good long time.

Thank you.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much.

I now have Ms. Yelich.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

That's exactly what I was trying to say, that it was a slush fund that has been used. That's why we, as a new government, have changed the EI so that no more surpluses are run, and now we want to manage and run a program with integrity, and to encourage jobs and to create employment in the communities.

Also, there are only 30 million people in Canada. I don't know how many people you said were working—about 40 million? I think you made a mistake there, sir.

Anyway, I just think we have to build good and sound policy with the employment insurance program.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I think we've had enough discussion on this. Why don't we move to the vote on the Liberal amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

We'll now go back to clause 3.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

I have a point of clarification, Chair.

The Liberal amendment would have reduced the cost of this bill by about 40%.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Correct.

9:45 a.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

The government voted against that. I want to make sure that's clear. I'm not sure they understand that.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Go ahead, Mr. Lake.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

I have a point of clarification. With the Liberal amendment we would be spending $830 million more per year than the system will cost right now. That's what Mr. Savage wanted to spend, and you can add that to $64 billion in Liberal promises.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

This is the challenge. We'll let people add onto the list here.

Mr. Godin.

9:45 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

For clarification, it's not the government that will spend it. It's for the workers themselves, through the insurance they and their employers pay, when they are in trouble. It's not the government's money. That's what I wish they would realize.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Mr. Lessard is next. Let's get all the parties in here.

9:45 a.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

I do not have a calculator and I am trying to do the calculation in my head. All the measures I am proposing will cost $2 billion. In its present form, Mr. Godin's bill costs five and a half billion.

Sixteen million people contributing to one and a half billion dollars; how much will that cost each of them if we include the employer's contribution?

April 1st, 2008 / 9:45 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

I think it works out at four dollars.

9:45 a.m.

Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

Bill James

I think the member is asking how the cost of the bill would be translated in premium payers. A good rule of thumb--rather than doing that calculation per capita--is that an increase in cost of $100 million per year equates to about 1¢ in the premium rate. So as a rough rule of thumb, $2 billion is equal to a 20¢ increase in the premium rate.

9:45 a.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

That is about a beer a year!

9:45 a.m.

Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Social Development

Bill James

The current premium rate is $1.73 for employees.

9:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much.

(Clauses 3 and 4 negatived)

(On clause 5)