Debates of Oct. 31st, 2001

Employee Benefits

[An hon. member]

He is not the solicitor general.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

That is right. I have to be careful of disclosing confidential information.

The situation is going to lead to a tragedy. We can see it coming. There was a financial difficulty in the corporate setting. The workforce was gradually reduced, leaving at the end of the day about 15 or 16 workers, long term employees who, when the administration of the company was about to close, entered into an agreement on the pension. In effect it was a severance package that allowed those people to retire somewhat earlier. It did not disclose that there was a substantial surplus.

The company over a period of several sales always allowed for the surplus to be an asset, in fact the only asset that was being traded. All of this was unbeknownst to the workers and the people who were receiving pension benefits on a monthly basis. That matter was sitting there until very recently. The company has applied to have the surplus paid out. This is going to provoke a major lawsuit. Those employees are going to insist that they somehow participate in this fund, which they fully expected they were going to be able to do.

This situation is multiplied across the country numerous times. All sorts of situations and incidents either are occurring now or are going to explode at some point in the future. There is a crying need for legislation to take care of this situation as soon as possible. Again I congratulate my colleague on the work he has done on this private members' motion. I encourage the government to take it into account.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate very briefly in this debate to fully support the very important motion which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has put before the House.

Over the years I have had a number of instances in my own constituency in which working people have had their pension surplus stripped away from them.

The purpose of this motion is to ensure that those surpluses, which in effect are a kind of deferred wage, should accrue to those who are entitled to them, that is, the working men and women in that particular place of employment.

I will not make a lengthy speech but I am pleased to rise in the House today to commend my colleague and to indicate that I fully support this very important motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the hon. members who saw fit to join in the debate and share their views with me.

I am disappointed that the views that I hold on the subject are not more widespread, but I am interested in the fact that the debate at least has been held here tonight. It is information that we can use. It is information that we will benefit from.

I have to restate our original position: in the event of an actuarial surplus where the assets of a fund exceed the liabilities of a fund, those reserves should be used only to benefit the beneficiaries in the monthly amount or benefits they receive.

It is a straightforward issue. We view contributions to a pension plan as part of the employee's wage packet. Employees get their hourly wage or monthly salary and their pension contribution. Whether it comes out of the employee's pocket or comes directly from the employer, it is part of the employee's wage. It is being held in trust for the employee for a specific purpose.

To take that money and use it for anything other than the understood purpose is a breach of trust. There have been too many cases. Recently there has been an overwhelming number of cases. The courts are clogged with these cases, which is exactly the reason why the House of Commons should give some guidance to the arbitrators or the courts or at least say to Canadians that we have thought about this and it is our opinion that this money should be viewed as the employees'.

I want to thank the member from the Bloc Quebecois who pointed out a very important recent ruling in that province. I sometimes envy the members of the Bloc and the residents of Quebec for their attitudes on these social issues. Judge Guy Arsenault recently ruled in the Singer case, which is called Chateauneuf v TSCO of Canada Ltd., formerly known as Singer Sewing Machine, and directed that the surplus assets of the plan must be returned to the plan members. He went back retroactively from 1966 to 1984, when a private company used to say that any time a plan showed a surplus it used that for its own purposes.

That was wrong. The judge in Quebec ruled that it was wrong and was backed up further in that province by the social solidarity minister. How I wish we had a social solidarity minister. The social solidarity minister of Quebec, André Boisclair, said that the government will amend bill 102, the law which addresses the way private pension plans are to be administered, because it flirted with the idea of giving employers the right to dip into private sector pension plan surpluses. Partly because of this court ruling, they have now been convinced to back off and get their hands off private sector pension plan surpluses.

We had a glaring example in the House of Commons. As a union leader I have seen glaring examples all across the country. We had the ultimate example in Bill C-78, when the federal government knew it was on shaky ground. It knew this was a debatable issue. It was not black and white. It was a grey area as to who really had the claim on the $30 billion surplus of the public service pension plan.

It therefore introduced a bill and by act of parliament said that it was the exclusive owner of all of that $30 billion, that it was not negotiable, that it was not something the government was willing to share, that it was the government's, 100%. The government knew it was not absolutely right in that argument or it would not have had to introduce a special bill to do it. It would not have had to sacrifice Marcel Masse's career to make it his last act in parliament. The government could have done it legally.

We know it is a moral issue. It is a legal issue. It is an ethical issue. It is an issue of basic trust. When money is deducted from a person's paycheque for a specific purpose and is held in trust for them, even if it does grow it is still the exclusive property of the person on whose behalf it is being held. It should be used for nothing else but employee benefits. In our minds, it is a simple case.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, on October 3, I put a question to the Minister of Finance.

I asked him for an action plan to allow those who were affected by the events of September 11, those who lost their jobs and employees of small and medium size businesses, to be exempted, for example, from having to contribute for a month, in order to promote economic recovery by giving more money to small and medium size businesses and to workers so they could buy goods and services and get the economy going.

I also asked the minister to extend EI benefits by 10 weeks in the case of those workers who lost their jobs following the events of September 11.

That question was put on the day that U.S. President Bush made the same proposal to Americans, but with 13 weeks compared to the additional 10 weeks that we asked for.

The Minister of Finance replied the following about the surplus in the EI fund and I am quoting him because this is somewhat impressive:

—as the hon. member is well aware, the surplus in the EI fund is being used for health, for infrastructure programs, and for job creation.

The minister thus confirmed that, since workers only contribute to the employment insurance program up to an income of $39,000, those who earn more than that amount did not do their fair share for health, infrastructure programs and job creation.

The minister confirmed the unfair nature of the employment insurance program when seen as a payroll tax instead of what it should be, which is a true employment insurance program.

On October 3 we also asked the minister to bring down a budget. In the end, the government agreed with us on this score.

However, with regard to employment insurance, we had a real cold shower. The human resources development minister had in her hands the unanimous report of the human resources development committee containing 17 recommendations to improve the employment insurance plan and ensure it would act as a real social safety net.

The recommendations would have enabled people to enjoy reasonable living conditions while out of a job and have a decent income during an acceptable number of weeks. It would have been easier for young people to qualify and, at the end of the day, it would have ensured that older workers who lost their jobs and could not re-enter the workforce had access to a fund that would have allowed them a decent living while waiting for their old age security cheques or Quebec pensions. However, the minister said no and stated emphatically that the current plan was adequate.

I believe that today, as we are facing an economic downturn, we have the proof that this plan will not be an adequate social security net. A lot of people are all losing their jobs at the same time.

The minister said that when the economy is thriving, only one out of five people receives benefits during the maximum number of weeks they are entitled to. I am sure that in the current context, it will not be one out of five but two out of five.

While the number of unemployed workers is increasing, the government is sitting on a few hundreds of millions of dollars it could give the provinces for manpower training. The federal government has control over this money and will not put it in the system.

Could the government not be swayed by our arguments and at long last take concrete steps without delay? I hope it will do so in the budget. But there are things it could do right away, tomorrow morning, in view of the surplus that has been accumulating this year again in the employment insurance fund, even with the economic downturn, to the tune of $6 billion, which will be used for purposes other than what it was intended for.

I will conclude on that note and ask if in fact the government will accept our suggestions now that the downturn in the economy has unfortunately been confirmed.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, answering the question from the member opposite would take more than the four minutes allotted me because of its many sub-questions. However, I will try to give a more general answer.

The first important thing to remember is that the Government of Canada has looked out for all Canadian workers and is still doing so. It keeps a careful eye on the EI system in order to ensure that it always meets their needs.

It is particularly important to take a prudent approach during an economic downturn such as the one we are now experiencing.

It must be recalled that during the course of its existence the EI fund has varied from deficit to surplus. During the last recession the surplus of $2 billion in the EI fund at the end of 1990 quickly turned into a deficit of $6 billion at the end of 1993. We do not wish to return to this state of affairs.

Over the last seven years the Canadian population has benefited from premium reductions. We have gone from $3.07 in 1994 to $2.25 in 2001. Increasing premiums, as was done during the last recession would, in our view, be the worst solution from an employment point of view.

In order to assess the current situation, the government has announced that it will review the methods used for setting premiums; changes deriving from that review will be implemented in 2004.

The Government of Canada is always worried when workers lose their jobs. In order to help Canadians who are laid off, the government has taken a balanced approach by providing income benefits and by encouraging people to work. We will use our programs to help workers take advantage of new job opportunities. As always, our goal is to help Canadian workers get back into the workforce.

I will also add that I am surprised that my colleague opposite would ask the government to apply the same standards as the United States with regard to social programs when we know that historically our social programs have always been a lot better than what the Americans have done. And it is still the case today.

For that reason, Human Resources Development Canada offers several types of support measures to employees and employers in cases of massive layoffs. That is what we have been doing since the events of September 11.

For example, we go to the premises of the employers or to mutually agreed upon places to help employees fill out their applications for benefits. Since we are on site, we can gather all the required information and process the applications more quickly.

I want to point out a very important aspect of our plan. Each month we correct the variable entrance requirement according to the latest unemployment figures. When the unemployment rate increases, Canadians need less hours to qualify for employment insurance and can receive benefits for a longer period.

Employment insurance benefits give Canadians who are laid off the time and resources they need to find another job that is appropriate for them.

Our follow up and evaluation process shows that the employment insurance plan produces the desired results.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government controls the plan. It controls it to such an extent that it has accumulated $34 billion in surpluses since 1993.

Today there is $34 billion in the government coffers and there will be a further $6 billion this year. With such an increase, and even being very cautious, it would take close to a decade to wipe out the surpluses. I would like the government to be aware of that and stop misleading us.

My question is straightforward. I understand that assessments are conducted every month. How is it then that in my area where the unemployment rate is on the rise, having reached 15.1% on October 8, recipients have seen their benefits cut by two weeks?

Claimants who used to be eligible for the minimum number of weeks, 32, are now only eligible for 30 weeks. Those who were eligible for 40 weeks are now down to 38 weeks. Is it not a blatant contradiction and an obvious example of the government's bad faith in this matter?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer with regard to the particular situation that exists in my colleague's region. However, to say that we are misleading Canadians seems to be a gross exaggeration.

First of all, I would like to point out the fact that the required number of hours to qualify for employment insurance is adjusted each month, in each of the 58 employment insurance regions, according to the local unemployment rate.

I will say again to my colleague opposite that during the last election campaign, in November, we promised Canadians that we would eliminate the intensity rule. That was the second bill that we passed, Bill C-2, when we came back to the House.

I would also remind my colleague that, with the employment insurance plan, Canadians who lose their jobs receive 55% of their insurable earnings and low income families can receive up to 80% of their insurable earnings.

I do not have enough time to answer this question in the way I would like but those were a few of the points that could be discussed.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to follow up on a question I asked the Prime Minister last month following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, on the Pentagon and on the plane that went down over Pennsylvania on September 11.

At that time and since, we have condemned, in the strongest possible terms, these terrorist attacks as crimes against humanity and have called for those who were responsible to be brought to justice within the framework of international law and under the framework of the United Nations.

Today in following up on this question, I want to point out that since October 7 we have witnessed in Afghanistan an illegal, immoral and profoundly destructive war. I rise this evening to plead with our government to end its support for this war and to end Canadian participation in it. This is a war which is creating many new innocent victims, innocent Afghani civilians. How many hundreds have already died as a result of this destructive war?

As well, we know that UN deminers have been killed. We know that Red Cross and the United Nations' warehouses have been bombed and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Afghani people are fleeing the terror of the bombing and the terror of the Taliban regime. Canada's response to those refugees has fallen far short.

I was particularly concerned to learn that Canada is involved in the military coalition with respect to the use of cluster bombs. The United States is dropping cluster bombs from B-52 bombers on Afghanistan. The shameful response of our Prime Minister to this is that we have to let American generals fight this war. He said that Canada would let American generals decide on the appropriate weapons.

As New Democrats, we are not prepared to agree with the use of cluster bombs, which have been condemned by the Red Cross. In fact, the Red Cross has called for cluster bombs to be banned. We are not prepared to say that Canada should be part of a military coalition that allows and sanctions the use of cluster bombs. In many cases they do not explode directly on impact and are like hundreds of little landmines.

Canada has led internationally in the campaign against landmines and yet this is a blatant contradiction when we are prepared to support the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. What is even worse is that cluster bombs, which are yellow in colour, are the same colour as the food packages. Now the Americans are warning Afghani civilians that they had better be careful because they might be picking up a cluster bomb instead of food.

For Heaven's sake, what has happened to Canada's historic role? Why will we not speak out for the rule of law and for bringing this under the umbrella of the United Nations, even at this late date, to end the suffering and the creation of more innocent civilian deaths? As the parents of one of those young men who died in the World Trade Center said during a memorial service, “Why on earth would we bomb Afghanistan and create even more innocent civilian victims? That doesn't bring back the life of my son”.

I appeal for a peaceful solution; a solution of peace and justice.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all join with the member in sympathizing with the innocent victims of the war, however we did not start this. Here I am on Halloween night doing a late show with the member for Burnaby--Douglas, so that in itself is worrisome to some people.

There seems to be a misconception in the House that supporting the United States and our allies in this campaign against terrorism means that we are failing to support international law and the United Nations. This is simply not the case.

All states have the right to individual and collective self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations charter. The United Nations Security Council has stated very clearly that the horrific attacks of September 11 constitute a threat to international peace and security.

With specific reference to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the individual and collective right of self-defence was expressly reaffirmed by the security council of the United Nations on September 12 and September 28 through security council resolutions 1368 and 1373 respectively.

Consequently, rather than acting outside the UN framework and international law, the United States, Canada and its other allies are taking action with the support of international law, the United Nations and the United Nations charter.

Canada has informed the security council that it is acting militarily in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter. One of the ways in which Canada is working together with its allies in this effort is by committing 2,000 Canadian forces personnel to the campaign against terrorism.

Our contribution includes one Airbus, two Aurora maritime patrol, three Hercules transport aircraft, a component of our Joint Task Force Two special forces and a naval task force group consisting of four of Her Majesty's Canadian ships, plus another ship in a U.S. formation, all told over 1,000 sailors.

These deployed forces could be tasked and are capable of performing a wide range of missions, including surveillance, transportation, humanitarian aid, maritime operations and security and escort duties.

The international military coalition, to which Canada belongs, has a simple, clear and just mandate to defend ourselves against terrorism. Within this mandate, we are working to identify the terrorist threat, disrupt and destroy its networks and bring its organizations to justice.

The minister has made it very clear that terrorists and the Taliban regime are targets of the current campaign and that the Afghan people most certainly are not. The government is committed to helping the Afghan people and to this end has already allocated $16 million in humanitarian aid.

While the military contribution is an important aspect of the campaign against terrorism, it is by no means the only aspect. We are also contributing diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, political and military aid with the single objective of creating a safer more secure world, safe from terrorist attacks like those we witnessed on September 11.

We are acting with the sanctions of the UN and within international law so that we can continue to be a country and a world that is a safe place in which to bring up our children and our children's children.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the United States in particular had thought a bit more about the safety of the world when it financed and supported the Mujahedeen and Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. We are now, unfortunately, reaping some of the consequences of those decisions.

I note as well that the member talked about not targeting Afghani civilians. The fact is that we have once again that terrible concept of collateral damage. We saw it in Kosovo and in Iraq where we continue to see it.

I ask the parliamentary secretary very specifically to respond to the fact that the Red Cross has called for the banning of cluster bombs. Canada has contributed men and women to the coalition, and we certainly wish them a safe return, but what role are we playing with respect to the decisions around the deployment of cluster bombs in Afghanistan?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is acting strictly in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter and article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty and collectively exercising the right of self-defence.

The international military coalition, to which Canada belongs, has a simple, clear and just mandate to defend ourselves against terrorism. Within this mandate, we are working to identify the terrorist threat, disrupt and destroy its networks and bring its organizations to justice for the good of the free world.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)