Debates of Feb. 12th, 2001

Employment Insurance Act

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to answer that question. There are almost no changes. Therefore, the list would be very short; I would have no problem at all with that list being presented to my constituents in Lotbinière—L'Érable.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you on your appointment.

In response to the question of the new member for Yukon, I could read the list, because it is indeed not very long. There is the abolition of the intensity rule, the abolition of discrimination in the rule of tax clawback, the change in the definition of new entrant, the indexing of the maximum yearly insurable earnings and the reduction of the premium rate to $2.25.

I hope that answers his question and his interest for this subject. In a spirit of co-operation, he too could oppose this bill, because that is what the people in his riding would ask him to do if they had the same information available to them. Unless he must follow the party line, which would be very sad for a new member.

First of all, as my colleagues did the first time they rose in the House, I would like to thank the people in the riding of Repentigny for putting their confidence in me. This is a riding that you know well, Madam Speaker, as you visit it regularly. Since you represent the other end of the island of Montreal, you have the opportunity to come by often.

So, the great riding of Repentigny is an urban riding composed for the most part of young families that have elected me and given me their confidence for a third mandate. To all those who voted for me I want to give my wholehearted thanks and assure them that I will work hard, as I have over the last seven years, to stand up for their interests here, in the House of Commons.

First of all, I would like to talk about the previous bill, because before we talk about this one, we have no choice but to put it in context and look at its background.

We are debating today Bill C-2, but it is really a new incarnation of Bill C-44. Technically, Bill C-44 died on the order paper, because the government House leader, with all his goodwill, made sure the Liberals did not call an election after passing such a revolting bill. He did not see fit to use closure or other parliamentary tricks to gag the opposition. He made sure the bill would die on the order paper so they could appear, during the campaign, to be more open on this bill.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, has disappeared. The Prime Minister, who is in China today, has made this comment about the bill: “We realized that this was not a good decision, and we should not have done this”.

The Prime Minister said that Bill C-44 was not a good idea, but one of his ministers is much more talkative. The minister responsible for amateur sport often stumbles in his public statements. Hon. members will certainly agree with me. He never misses a chance to voice his strong opposition when a government decision is not to his liking. If he does not agree with me, the minister will get a chance to say so during the questions and comments period, and if he does not say a word, it is because he agrees—

[An hon. member]

Silence is consent.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Silence is consent, says my colleague. This minister said that after the election of a majority Liberal government, I suppose he had a crystal ball at that time, it would re-establish the process and ensure that the right changes were made, those responding properly to the majority of the realities and needs of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and of all Canadians.

He must have made this statement in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which is why he named it. He concluded his statement by saying “I am committed—this minister is very big on commitments—to changes in the law, and we will make changes”. This is what the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said. I welcome his contradiction of my quotes, if he is not in agreement, during the question and comment period.

These are two quotes which strike me as very eloquent. The Prime Minister said that they were wrong. As for the eloquent Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, he said they were going to make changes—“I assure you of this, I promise this” he said. Still we find ourselves back with Bill C-2 and its very modest changes, as I have been able to confirm to the hon. member for Yukon.

This bill, brought back despite those two statements, despite all the promises each MP and each prospective MP made in their respective ridings, makes me think of a still more important promise made by the Liberals, one they have also broken. If I asked the Liberals to tell me which one I mean, I would have a lot of different answers. Some would say the GST, some free trade, but these are not the ones I mean. We will not hold a contest, because there would probably be too many responses.

The promise that was not kept, and the two quotes prove it, is the 1993 one in red book one, with respect to the public's trust in the government and elected representatives.

In this regard, all parties are in the same boat. In 1993, the government promised to restore the public's trust. I challenge Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and Canadian Alliance members to go to their ridings and check out the public's general level of trust in us. This level of trust is very low, even after a promise made seven years ago. Why? Because we have the proof, in the two earlier quotes, that politicians, especially when they are in power, too often make clear statements, but do not follow through on their promises. The Prime Minister said he liked clarity. Here was the proof: it was clear they were going to make changes, they said. They said it even more clearly in 1980 and 1995. These changes did not happen, however, and there is still no sign of them.

In my opinion, the most important promise this government broke was the one it made in 1993 to restore confidence in this institution. If we had statistics on the votes of confidence in 1993 and those of today, I think that the rate would be down, and it would be for reasons like this.

The red book also promised an ethics counsellor appointed by and accountable to parliament. This political adviser appointed to restore trust, is another failed Liberal promise.

To restore trust, we might have expected fewer criminal investigations; there are many of them, including several in the riding of the Prime Minister, among others, on a golf club he previously owned and on a hotel he also owned.

To restore trust, perhaps we should listen to the most eminent official in parliament, the one who, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, was not appointed by him, that is the auditor general. I believe the Prime Minister likes to say that we have the “best and most beautiful country in the world” and the “best Prime Minister in the world”. I congratulate him for the two Olivier awards that he won yesterday as the year's best international humorist.

But in this “best country in the world”, there is a good auditor general. The latter said in 2000 and repeated in 2001 that the way the surplus in the employment insurance fund was being used was outrageous and almost illegal. The Employment Insurance Commission establishes a premium rate according to the economic situation. The chief economist of the Royal Bank, who is here, could confirm that the employment insurance premium rate has to be defined according to the economic situation, whether things are going well or not so well, according to the money that is already in the employment insurance fund, and according to the current rate and to the current surplus in this employment insurance fund, which is twice what it should be, that is about $30 billion.

The auditor general says this is outrageous. He repeats that is outrageous, and the Prime Minister says “It is the opposition that is wrong”. It is not the opposition that says that. The opposition is quoting the auditor general, who has been repeating that there is too much money in the fund.

What does having too much money in the EI fund mean for workers and employers? Thirty billion dollars is an impressive figure, but it has been said that this is too much. First, the money is not used to help the unemployed but to reimburse the Canadian government's net debt. Once again, the auditor general is the one who says so.

The Canadian government deliberately took money out of the pockets of the employers and the employees to eliminate the deficit. That is a tax on salaries. If the government really wanted to be clear and honest, it would levy a tax on salaries. But once again, it prefers to disguise the truth to hide the fact that it is not fulfilling its 1993 promise.

Since I have very little time left, I will conclude with this. I call upon the government members to accept that at the very least the bill be divided in two so as to allow members from the Bloc to vote in favour of the very minimal amendments proposed to the employment insurance. If they accept, they could reach a larger consensus. I would also ask them to give us the possibility to express our opinion on the outrageous theft of the EI fund surplus.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I remind hon. members that debate is now limited to 10 minutes and that there is no period for questions and comments.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill, formerly Bill C-44, which has generated a great deal of debate and discussion around the country. It is certainly a matter of great interest in my constituency in Nova Scotia, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The changes that we are discussing result from callous changes that were made by the Liberal government to the insurance plan in 1997 which resulted in a public backlash that was attempted to be remedied by the government in the wake of the 2000 election.

Now in typical Liberal fashion, the call of the election resulted in the death of the bill. We saw that with a number of important pieces of legislation. While on the hustings though, the Liberals dangled former Bill C-44 in front of the faces of Atlantic Canadians in particular. Seasonal workers of course were those who were most vulnerable on this particular piece of legislation.

Hopefully, this early calling of the bill, the debate that has ensued and the opportunity again to revisit these issues at the committee is an indication that the Liberals are in fact quite serious about passing this legislation and bringing about improvements that will enhance the ability of seasonal workers to benefit from the bill.

In my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the problems with employment insurance are major issues of concern. Whether I spoke to workers at Trenton steel plant, farmers in Lismore or fishermen in Canso, the same complaints were prevalent when addressing their EI concerns. The issue of undeclared earnings was by far the number one complaint throughout the riding and was given particular priority by those who engaged in shift work at the Trenton Works Ltd. steel plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia.

Just to elaborate, there is a loophole in the undeclared earnings section of the Employment Insurance Act which allows the government to claw back moneys from individuals as an overpayment even though the claimant never receives the benefit. That is the crux of the issue. In essence, the government is taking money back on earnings that were never actually realized by the employer.

I spoke to members of the HRDC local office who administer the EI claims in the maritimes and they too have expressed concerns over the manner in which this particular section is implemented.

For example, during the weeks where a shift worker is employed, the worker does not expect, nor does he receive any EI benefits. At the end of hard week's work, the worker then fills out an EI claim and sends it to be processed. However, the problem arises if the worker is then asked to work overtime. That is there is a change in the situation because of an overtime job that requires the worker to be called back in. The worker, in some instances, has already sent in the card. This is not an issue where the individual is trying to deliberately mislead anyone, it is simply a change in circumstance.

What then happens is the overtime hours will not be included in the declaration of hours worked. Often a worker does not bother to phone the HRDC office to report his or her additional hours because the person knows that he or she does not qualify for benefits for that particular week. The person knows that making a change in the original card submission will only cause delays in the processing. Sadly, those who are reliant on these government cheques are in a catch-22. They are afraid, in essence, that they will receive no benefits if they are forthcoming with this information. There is also a shortcoming in their ability to communicate this.

I know there have been attempts to deal with this anomaly by setting up a 1-800 number. Again, it is very difficult for the worker on shift work to provide that information to the local office. The delays often result in a longer wait for claims where individuals are not able to work or are not called in to work and are therefore in receipt of no income.

Still when an EI representative phones the employer to confirm how many hours the employee has worked, the discrepancy becomes evident quite quickly. The employee is then penalized for having submitted a fraudulent claim.

There is an issue that has to be addressed. There is an opportunity in this particular bill to address this anomaly. The penalties for fraudulent claims are enormous and unnecessary. The penalty covers the entire period of pay as opposed to the pay week where the infraction occurred. There is almost an issue of double jeopardy here. Thus the employee's penalty would claw back the much needed money even from weeks where the hours of work were properly reported and a blanket penalty would be imposed.

All of this may sound convoluted to any individual who has never availed themselves of seasonal employment and been on the EI system. For those who have, this is a real dilemma for seasonal workers.

I know my time is short. I look forward to the opportunity to continue participation in this debate when we resume the matter tomorrow. I know the time is here to conclude for the day, but I respect the Chair's indulgence and look forward to further participation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 6.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)