Debates of Oct. 24th, 1997

Employment Insurance

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating today a private member's motion introduced by my hon. colleague from the Bloc proposing some changes to the new EI system. We find the change in wording from UI to EI just a little difficult.

What my colleague is proposing is to make “major changes” to the EI system. He is proposing lower contributions and increased benefits for both seasonal workers and for new entrants to the labour market. That is what we are talking about today.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for the government pointed out that since the new EI system is barely in its infancy, it is not the time to make major changes. He also argues that there have been some fairly significant elements of the new EI program to help both seasonal workers and to help those who are new entrants to the job market.

That is the point of debate, to have proposals for change, to have the merit of those debated. I hope I can add a few cogent and helpful thoughts to our deliberations on this motion.

The main point of this motion is to talk about the need for lower contributions, to lower the contribution, to lower the amount of money going into the EI system.

As has already been pointed out, the surplus in the EI fund will reach $14.9 billion by the end of this fiscal year. That is a fairly big chunk of money. In fact, it is about as much as the GST takes out of the economy. Now we have another $15 billion being taken out and in surplus with the EI fund.

It has been said many times in this House before—I do not think it has really been rebutted or denied—that high payroll taxes particularly discourage employment and discourage hiring.

Here we have a government elected on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs in 1993. That was their rallying cry for Canadians. Yet in the four years the Liberals have been running the affairs of our country they have done tremendous damage to the job creators of this country.

Taxes keep rising. Here we have a totally unnecessary chunk taken out of the hides of employers and workers in this country simply so the finance minister can brag about what a good job he has done in getting rid of the deficit. Sure, if you tax everyone to the max you should not have to borrow any money. That is nothing to brag about but that is essentially what has happened.

On top of the tax increases which have been $24 billion more revenue taken in by this government than when it was elected, there will be $15 billion from the EI surplus. There is another $10 billion a year coming out of our pockets for the increase in the Canada pension plan premiums. We wonder if the finance minister and the government think Canadians are made of money.

Then the Liberals play the violin and put their hands over their hearts about child poverty. It is no wonder our families are poor. It is a wonder our families are able to eat anymore with all the taxes, taxes and taxes this government seems to feel so free to rip out of our pockets on an ongoing basis.

Here we have one that has proven to be unnecessary. It is a surplus in a fund that is to help unemployed people. It is like being forced to pay $30,000 for a $20,000 car. We wonder why we must have a system that costs far more than it is acknowledged is appropriate.

We must agree with my colleague from the Bloc that there should be and must be lower contribution rates to the EI program. Cutting EI expenditures in terms of premiums needed to operate the system would save most working Canadians about $300 a year, and $300 could buy a lot of milk for poor children in the country. It could buy a lot of warm clothing for our children. It could make sure our mortgages get paid and the heat bills get paid. But no, this taxaholic finance minister needs that money to play with, and so of course we have to keep paying unnecessary dollars into the hands of this government.

Therefore the real engines of job creation, the small and medium size businesses, are actually penalized unnecessarily for every single person they hire. It is no wonder hiring is cut back. When every person you hire takes a big chunk of your profits and your business capital naturally you will conserve and hire as few people as you can possibly get away with instead of expanding your business and the economic opportunities in this country. I am not quite sure how long it will take some people in the House to realize that and to seriously deal with it, in particular those on the government side.

I would say to the government that as long as this government keeps EI premiums unnecessarily high, Canadians have every right to say that it is not really serious about job creation in this country.

The EI surplus has been used for fully 22% of deficit reduction, which means that over $1 in every $5 that the finance minister is bragging that he is no longer borrowing is made possible because workers and business people are subsidizing his deficit reduction efforts by 22%. Sometimes you have to balance the cost and the benefit of some of these measures.

Canadians' disposable income at the same time has decreased. It has decreased by about $3,000 per family since this government was elected. Three thousand dollars per family would buy a lot of milk, a lot of warm clothing and would make sure our families had adequate shelter. But this heavy increase in taxation, of which this EI surplus is just a part, is responsible for a tremendous amount of the suffering in this country.

The Business Council on National Issues states tax cuts would help alleviate the problem of child poverty. The BCNI also said it is terrifying that many low and middle income Canadians face this steep tax burden and that this government is sitting on a time bomb on taxation.

I urge the government to recognize the suffering and the hardship being caused to Canadians by its insatiable appetite for our tax dollars so that it can politically brag about what it has done or is going to do. It is nice to do these things, but they must be done in a way that is fair to the only source of revenue in the country, hard working Canadians.

The government really must be serious about this change. The parliamentary secretary said in the debate that the new hires program waives or does not collect the UI premiums for jobs that businesses create this year under the program, absolutely underlining and acknowledging the fact that these job taxes are keeping new jobs from being created. If these job taxes were not a significant factor, why did the government tell businesses they will not have to pay them as long as they hire new people? It knows this is an impediment and that is why it has removed it under the new hires program. It has also put in place the family income supplement for low income Canadians, again acknowledging that under our tax regime low income Canadians cannot make ends meet.

On behalf of struggling families I appeal to the government not to continue taking these dollars out of the pockets of hard working Canadians who are trying desperately to care for their families and make ends meet.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today and join with my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques in demanding, as stated in his motion, that “the Government of Canada make major changes in the employment insurance system, particularly by lowering contributions and improving benefits for seasonal workers and workers who have joined the labour market only recently.”

During the last election campaign, we in the Bloc Quebecois made a commitment to press the government into dealing with these issues, and we will keep doing it through special initiatives.

I would like to remind you of a few figures, if I may. The EI recipient-unemployed worker ratio dropped from 77% in 1989 to below 41% in 1996. Under the Liberals, this ratio has fallen from 60% in 1993 to 36% in January 1997.

Since 1990, successive cuts have deprived thousands of people of EI benefits, and many of them are now on welfare. Under the current system, the unemployed in Quebec will receive $316 million less in 1997-98 and $534 million less in 2001-2002. As a matter of fact, this new employment insurance plan is a systematic impoverishment programm, and a hidden tax affecting many families in the Jonquière riding.

It looks like one of our initiatives will meet with great success in the Jonquière riding. Like my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, I have mailed out to my constituents in Jonquière postcards they can send me back to indicate their support for changes to the employment insurance plan.

More specifically, we ask the federal government to stop unfairly penalizing seasonal workers and new entrants to the labour market by amending the Employment Insurance Act and lowering contributions significantly by 35 to 50 cents.

The people of Jonquière as well as the local community and labour organizations, which are sensitive to the situation of seasonal workers, reacted positively to our initiative. In several parishes of Jonquière the priests invited their parishioners to send back their cards on employment insurance to make the Liberal government aware of the very harmful effects of the present employment insurance system on the workers.

Many times during the last campaign, people from my riding told me they were outraged by the reduction in benefits while the premiums paid by workers allowed the government to collect around $5 billion a year in revenues that are not used to help the unemployed, but to reduce its deficit.

The people across the floor brag about this, but they should be ashamed of the mess they created. The federal government and the Minister of Finance may benefit from the cuts, but such is not the case for low income people.

It is now clear that it is the workers and the employers who make it possible for the Minister of Finance to artificially lower its deficit. But the Bloc is there to remind you of the interests of the men and women of Quebec. And believe me, we will constantly remind the government of the facts to bring it back to the people's true reality.

Together with the Government of Quebec, we are asking for changes to the EI system. Premier Lucien Bouchard, the head of the Government of Quebec, said that he will, at the next federal-provincial meeting, make a proposal to change the EI system for the benefit of both employers and workers.

He wants to put forward the following changes: reduced premiums for employers and workers and increased benefits, or a combination of both. We are in favour of such an initiative, which would improve the situation of Quebec workers. Mr. Bouchard said that these changes would allow seasonal workers to escape the terrible conditions they are living with now, and which increase welfare budgets.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its proposal that the Liberal government substantially decrease the EI premium rate and at the same time improve the program, which has become too restrictive, particularly for seasonal workers and new entrants.

I hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will take action on this issue. He will shortly have to respond favourably to Quebec workers' demands and needs, because year 2000 is fast approaching and he might be unprepared for what is coming.

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the motion be deemed votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the House consent to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate. The member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in support of the motion of my colleague from the riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—like the name of some families down home, the Basques—proposing major amendments to the employment insurance system.

My colleague proposes that the benefits for seasonal workers and new entrants be improved.

These are serious problems, and the government must address them immediately. I believe the Liberals have forgotten that these are real people who are suffering, that entire families have nothing to eat because of the changes to employment insurance. I will give you examples of the government's insensitivity and incompetence.

First, I would like to point out that we have a bit of a problem with the matter of reducing contributions. Allow me to explain what our problem is. Before reducing contributions, I think the first problem needs to be solved, the problem of employment insurance and the employment insurance formula. After that has been done, then would come the time to look at contributions, if there is any money left to reduce contributions.

I think it is really important to look at the employment insurance formula in order to be certain that it meets the requirements of the people who need it.

If we look at what employment insurance reform has brought to our area and other areas in Canada, we see mostly problems. I am going to give you a few examples from back home, which I am very familiar with.

First, when the government decided to make changes to employment insurance, what did it do? Not only did it decide to make changes for the future, but it suddenly decided to look at people's files, people who had been told by its officials they were eligible for employment insurance. Surprise, they found they had made a mistake three years back. They wrongly told some people they were entitled to employment insurance. The people concerned were poor—I will give you examples—they were not rich.

I will give the example of a man who came to see me in my office shortly after the elections, a man with a child. There were also a father, and a mother with 11 children from Caraquet, in New Brunswick. Because of the problems in the fish plants, that man went to see the government to find out whether he qualified for employment insurance. You know, employment insurance is supposed to provide some money to feed families. He went to the government and was told “Well, you have to work, to work hard. Go out there and find some work”. The man said “I would be glad to work, but I cannot get a job”. And he was told “We are creating jobs in New Brunswick now. We are making Christmas wreaths. Go and see the employer, he will give you a job”. And he did get a job making Christmas decorations.

The poor man went to work and put in a number of weeks in order to qualify for employment insurance. The guy, his wife and his kid would have loved to keep on making Christmas wreaths all year long, but that is not the way it works. After Christmas, wreaths are no longer in demand. So, they are out of a job again.

They applied for employment insurance to see if they qualified. “Of course. You are entitled to employment insurance, and your son too.” So they get benefits for a year or two and then, all of a sudden, department officials come to their senses—I mean senior officers, I make the distinction because I do not want to offend low-level public servants who have no authority whatsoever—and ask for an investigation on these poor people because it would seem a mistake was made two years back. They tell these people they owe the government $10,000 or $15,000.

That is what Canadians got from the Liberals. The Liberals told seasonal workers back home to make Christmas wreaths, that great new job in New Brunswick.

I call on the Government of Canada not to blackmail Atlantic Canadians by telling them they are going to make them work full time.

[An hon. member]

That is a terrible thing to do.

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

Yes, it is terrible. Better yet, they should deliver on their threat, because our people want to work.

In any event, back to the Christmas wreathes, because this is an interesting case. This is what happens to our industries. We cannot get at the fish in the winter because of the ice, there are no Christmas wreathes in the summer, blueberries do not grow under the snow, and there is no peat on top of it. These are the kinds of industries in which the government invests.

There are secondary and tertiary industries, but that is too complicated for the government. They want to leave that for their friends in other countries: the Japanese and the folks in Boston get a crack at the secondary and tertiary sectors.

Back to the Christmas wreathes. The government told these people: “You do not have enough hours. Go and make Christmas wreathes”. Off went 130 or 150 people to work for someone in New Brunswick. All of a sudden, the government decided this was not insurable employment, once again, three years later. Three years later, it decided that 130 to 140 of these people were not eligible. What the government has done is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, these people went to the employment insurance offices and explained how they were making the wreathes. For the information of wealthy Canadians who do not have to make Christmas wreathes, this is not something that you go into the woods to do. You do not strip the boughs off the tree in the woods and make the wreath with a supervisor standing beside you. For those who do not know about these things, you go into the woods, you cut branches, and then you have to strip them. Somebody then makes the wreathes. People went back home, opened their garage doors, set up tables and began turning out wreathes.

When they reported back to the employment insurance office, they explained all this. They were insurable. But, as I am telling you, the government needed money to pay down the national debt. It was not enough to cut employment insurance. They said they would digging into the pockets of the poor.

Reform Party members are asking for a decrease in premiums because companies are having a rough time. They never say that Canadians are suffering because of employment insurance cuts.

These people went to EI offices, and they were told they were eligible. In the Acadian peninsula today, for one company alone, 150 families owe between $10,000 to $15,000, and on top of that, they are seen as cheats. What the government has done to these people is totally unacceptable. That is what it did.

That is not all. They are now saying that we must encourage small and medium-sized businesses. If I had a small business today, I would naturally start by hiring my children. It would be normal because it would be my company and my investment. What did the government do? Relatives are not eligible for EI. So why encourage the development of small and medium sized businesses when their owners face such total discrimination in Canada? I thought we could expect fair and equal treatment in Canada.

There is also this black hole, this vacuum created because the government promised to make changes and to take care of them but did not follow through with the 910 hours now required, which people cannot accumulate.

To conclude, as I said over and over in my remarks, changes must be made immediately to the employment insurance plan. Seasonal workers are expecting the federal government to show some degree of compassion by passing immediately the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, thereby ensuring that Canadian workers can look for work with dignity.

I want this motion to be a real motion that we could debate, instead of hiding like the hon. member for Moncton. During the election campaign, she promised the unemployed she would fight to improve the employment insurance system, but she now refuses to support the motion before us.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to debate of this motion. I support it fully, and I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois for introducing it.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, there are serious problems in our region. The Liberal Party member mentioned earlier the dependence of the unemployment insurance—which they want to call employment insurance—system.

I should ask a question, perhaps. When you live in a region where the economy is primarily seasonal, people depend on employment insurance in order to live and to eat. This is dependence. They have a choice: either employment insurance or meagre social welfare. Most of them are not eligible for social welfare if one member of the family earns $800 or more a month.

From what I understand, the government does not like having people depend on the employment insurance system for sustenance. In other words, it says that they should starve. As a member of Parliament, I disagree. Having something to eat is not a privilege in this country, it is a right.

When I get calls from people in my riding who receive $39 a week from employment insurance I can see there is a problem, especially when there is a surplus of nearly $12 billion in the employment insurance fund, which was paid by employers and employees.

The government says it is going to take it, and we will use the word “take” today, to pay its deficit, that it will decide to pay a debt, the deficit, on the back of the unemployed, people who have lost their job, small and medium businesses that have closed their doors. New Brunswick's economy has lost a lot of dollars because of the cuts to pay the deficit.

Many businesses today say “enough is enough”. People don't have money any more. So now more people than just the seasonal workers are suffering. There are seniors as well. If we look at the example of the man making $39 a week at home, with his 73 year-old mother looking after him. Do you think that this woman is earning enough to provide for her son?

Don't tell me that cuts don't hurt anyone; they hurt everyone. Take a good look of how much money it costs for our health care program today because of people who are stressed and end up in hospital because they cannot find a job and can no longer get employment insurance. It is easy for us, who make $64,000 and $70,000 a year to say: “No you do not get paid for three months of the year”.

Today, I am not hungry, but I have experienced hunger. I am not hungry today and I may forget what happens at home, if I like, as some people on the other side have done in creating reforms without thinking. There are children who go to school without breakfast, who will have no lunch or supper.

And yet they are saying people depend on employment insurance, that employment insurance should be eliminated because it creates dependence. I say that I was proud to depend on employment insurance when I needed it. I was unemployed until June 2, 1997. I needed employment insurance to feed my son and daughter. I am not going to turn around and tell people at home that they will lose their right. I can guarantee them today that I will fight to the last, because what the government is doing to our people is utterly inhuman.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I note that the time provided for consideration of Private Members' business has now truly expired. The item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 2.16 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.16 p.m.)