Debates of Feb. 12th, 2001

Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my impression from the discussions I have had with our finance critic is that what the member says is only partly true. What he is not saying is that this really is setting up a process, not just for the rationalization of banks, but so the government can rationalize the rationalization of the banks in a way that it was not able to do under the previous legislation.

This is setting us up so that the next time this issue comes up, the Liberals can say that they followed the process in place and that due process was served. When only two banks are left, the Liberals can also say that they followed due process and what else could they do.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on being appointed Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole. I wish you all the best when you are called upon to referee our debates, which tend to be raucous at times. I know you are passionate about and attentive to the proceedings of this House, so I have no doubt you will do a very good job.

I feel like I am watching an old movie. Bill C-8, formerly Bill C-38, is one of these old movies being shown in the House these days.

We heard the same arguments a few months ago, the same issues were raised, and the same positions seem to be more entrenched now.

During the debate on Bill C-38, now Bill C-8, Bloc members had expressed several reservations regarding the bill, which were shared by the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance of Quebec.

Mr. Landry had stressed four main points. Before Bill C-38 was introduced we had been told not to worry. They were going to deal with it, everything would be all right, our concerns would be addressed.

We were somewhat surprised—I would even say disappointed—to find the elements we wanted to see not in the bill itself, or in any piece of legislation passed by the House, but in the regulations that will be appended to the bill.

As members know, unlike a bill that must be amended by this House in order to be changed, regulations may be amended at will by the executive or the Minister of Finance.

Finally, we are being asked to trust this government and in particular the Minister of Finance and to hand over a blank cheque. You will understand that we have some difficulty with that, to say the least.

Bill C-8 gives full power to the Minister of Finance to decide on his own the fate of Quebec banks without providing any guarantee in connection with Quebec's distinctiveness. Heaven knows Quebec is different. The bill provides no specific measure.

Although I do not always share the very 1960s rhetoric of my NDP colleague, who said “wicked Americans, wicked capitalists, let us turn the world upside down”, I agreed with him nonetheless on certain points, including the importance of giving the disadvantaged, who are often left out, greater access to financial services.

Finally, Bill C-8 has no answer to the very well directed questions of my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on community reinvestment.

My colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, we will remember, is the excellent representative of a region on the island of Montreal hard hit by poverty. He has introduced many good ideas on community investment—I will return to them—which, unfortunately were not included in Bill C-8. That is regrettable.

We can only be concerned by the fact that a single shareholder could, with the agreement of the Minister of Finance, hold 65% of the shares of the National Bank, the largest Quebec bank. It is the bank of the Quebec small and medium businesses. There is an economic model in Quebec, and the National Bank is one of the cornerstones of this model, based on entrepreneurship and the SMBs. Should Quebec lose control of as important a financial institution as the National Bank, I think it would be very bad for its economy.

We also need legislative guarantees against any negative impact these new ownership rules might have on the employment of professionals, consumer and small business services, decision centres and the role of Montreal as an international financial centre. The stakes are just too high for Quebec and its economy to be left to the sole discretion of one man, the Minister of Finance.

We want to make sure—and I would say our whole position on Bill C-8 is based on this argument—that the future of Quebec's banking system is not in the hands of one man. I think most people would agree with that. Giving anybody too much discretionary power is bad; giving a federal minister too much power over Quebec's economy is even worse.

Bill C-8 does not show a firm willingness to protect consumers, particularly low income consumers, on the part of the government. The bill provides for the establishment of the financial consumer agency of Canada. I have my doubts about the kind of authority such an agency could have in an economic climate which, unfortunately, does not look too rosy, as we know, as the United States are about to be hit by a recession. We must ensure that not only middle income people but also low income people have access to financial services. Unfortunately, Bill C-8 remains vague and has more wish than real policy with regard to accessibility and consumer protection.

Finally, I would like to return briefly to the importance of reinvesting in the community. As I said earlier, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve introduced a bill in the last parliament which would have required financial institutions to reinvest in the communities in which they are located. It was based on the community reinvestment act, American legislation—so we cannot be accused of being leftist.

As my colleague said, this legislation would require a regulated financial institution to show that its branches serve the deposit and credit requirements of the community for which they are chartered. This is where this issue becomes very important for, as my colleague said, and I stress this point, branches have an obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities for which they are chartered.

In a global context, with people looking at the broader picture, there is also a tendency to move closer to one's own neighbourhood and community. While we believe that the Canadian financial system must be strong and able to withstand the buffeting of the global economy, this globalization must not leave out individuals and entire neighbourhoods who are unfortunately ignored in the rush to prosperity.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the government to include the four points we raised during consideration of Bill C-38 not in the regulations, where they would be subject to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, but in the actual legislation which will be passed in the House. I also urge it to include the main features of the bill on community reinvestment introduced and strongly defended by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

With these inclusions, the government could expect a much more co-operative attitude from the Bloc Quebecois.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The vote on the motion is deferred until tomorrow.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, kudos go out to my critic from Acadie—Bathurst, a member who travelled the country to debate the EI changes of 1996 and the affect it had on workers, families, businesses and communities clear across the country. I honestly believe it was his report that pushed the government into movement and to understand the terrible assault, for a lack of a better word, it had on workers, their families and small businesses.

It is most unfortunate that the member from White Rock, in her opening statement about the EI changes, said that the bill was nothing more than a Liberal Atlantic Canada re-election strategy. That is an insult to all Canadians. In fact it is a graver insult to those of us in Atlantic Canada. After the comments from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill, from one of their colleagues, John Mykytyshyn, and now comments from the respected member of the House from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley basically slamming Atlantic Canada for the EI changes in the bill, as if the changes to EI only affect Atlantic Canada, it is simple nonsense.

The fact is that western Canada, to use their words, drains more from the EI fund than Atlantic Canada. The fact is that the sooner the Alliance Party realizes and understands that, quite possibly it may have some success east of the Manitoba border.

Some of the changes in the new EI reforms, such as the intensity rule, are very positive. We are quite glad that the minister and the government have realized and recognized the error of their ways and will change that.

A very crucial aspect of EI funding is the labour training. In a changing economy, our party, and I am sure many parliamentarians, are encouraging young people to not just have one academic aspect in their lives, such as computer training for the new economy, but to have a vocational trade as well. Many young people take vocational training but those who take the EI training are penalized for two weeks in the initial start of their training.

My colleague from Winnipeg has indicated that we should eliminate the two week clawback during training because it penalizes workers who are trying to adjust to the new economy by upgrading their skills. We believe the government should recognize, honour and commit to that amendment. Workers should not be penalized for trying to upgrade their skills. All Canadians want to be productive members of the economy but they need assistance. Some need literacy training while others need training in social skills and various labour skills.

Everywhere we go in the country we see help wanted signs in most service areas. We have a tremendous amount of help wanted signs in my own area of Sackville, Nova Scotia which are more or less entry jobs at Burger King, Swiss Chalet and so on, paying the minimum salary. The workers in those areas, although proud to have those jobs for now, want to upgrade their skills and improve their lot and their family's lot in life. They want to be able to move forward and be more progressive in the so-called new economy and the demands of the new century.

We as legislators should provide people with the assistance they need to get training, especially in the cases of single women with children. It is very difficult for them to move forward and get the training they require, not only vocationally but academically, when they also need adequate care for their children.

In some cases, especially in the rural parts of my riding, the father has taken off and has abdicated all his responsibilities. The mothers are left behind to raise the children. It is very difficult to get child support from the father if he is not working. What else can she do? She does not want to be a drain on society. It is not something she wished upon herself or her children. It is a circumstance of today's reality.

What should we do as government, as opposition members or as legislators? We must ensure that we can offer that woman and her children hope. We must provide the resources she needs to care for her family and to get the proper training she will need to get a decent job. We must ensure that she can become self-reliant, look after her children and move forward. That is the least we can do when there is a surplus of over $30 billion in the EI fund.

We know that the money is technically gone and spent. The Liberals have admitted that. I also believe the member from Mississauga, who is a great speaker in the House when he gets up on his hind legs and bellows out the Liberal rhetoric, has also admitted that the money was spent on other programs and initiatives.

The fact is that it is not the government's money. That money belongs to employers and employees. It does not belong to the Liberal government to do as it wishes and give, for example, tax cuts to major corporations, to the gun registry or anything else it proposes to do. That money does not belong to the government. It did not have the moral right to take that money and put it into any program it so desires.

That money belongs to employers and employees. It is up to the workers and the businesses to decide collectively what should be done with a massive surplus like that and what should be done about the future of the EI concerns.

Unemployment insurance is sometimes called employment insurance. It is the Liberal way of reversing itself on its head. When it first came in it offered great protection for workers and their families in the unlikely event that they lost their job either through a layoff, a company closure or anything of that nature.

The auto sector is going through a large upheaval. Thousands of workers, especially in the Windsor area, are about to lose their jobs. What would happen to those workers if there were no employment insurance fund or payments in order to look after them?

That money is essential to maintain their families, to maintain some income for their households, and to look after small businesses in the surrounding communities. It is essential that the government get it right this time. Instead of pounding away at workers and small businesses, it should start to realize that unemployment insurance fund or employment insurance fund is a vital part of the Canadian economy.

It is the workers and the businesses that put money into the fund. It is certainly not for the Liberal government to decide what to do with it.

A couple of members in the House who have since been defeated, Peter Mancini and Michelle Dockrill, two great members from Cape Breton, fought very hard for fairness in the employment insurance fund throughout the country, not just in their region of Cape Breton. They fought hard not only for the Devco miners but for the Sysco workers, fish plant workers and other workers in their area. Their eloquence and their stand to defend and fight for what was right have finally moved the government in some ways.

We also know that the Canadian Labour Congress is supportive of the initiative in some aspects, but it does wish to have some amendments go through. We are hoping that eventually the government will listen to some sound amendments by our party to make the EI fund more accountable to businesses and more receptive to workers and to communities throughout the entire country. If the government does that, it would be very positive indeed.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to inform the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

Therefore under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and the disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am a little puzzled. There has been no attempt by the Canadian Alliance to slow the bill down. We are eager to get it into committee.

I do not know about these consultations. Certainly from our side, from our point of view as the official opposition, let us get the bill into committee and let us get some witnesses in on it right away.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. As a matter of fact, it is not his party that refused. It was another one. Nevertheless, upon verifying twice within the last few hours, that is still the condition I am forced to report on to the House, and I just did.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, first, as it is the first time I have had the floor during this 37th parliament, I am very happy to begin by thanking my constituents of the great riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, who have returned me as their representative in the House of Commons. This victory by the Bloc was reflected in all of the 50 municipalities of my great riding and this victory is due to the 500 volunteers who worked hard to keep the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable with the Bloc.

Speaking of the campaign, I would like to remind the House of certain things that were said at the time, specifically on employment insurance. Before going deeper into this bill, I am going to bring forward some facts that marked the last election campaign. During the next minutes, I am going to show, once again, that the Liberals have not been true to their word, to their promises.

We all remember the interview on an English language network where the Prime Minister apologized and was very remorseful for the devastating effects of the EI system reform.

That week, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport adopted a similar tone when he said that, when the Liberals returned to power, it would be time to propose major changes in order to meet the expectations of the unemployed.

I also remember that one week before the election, when the Prime Minister was in New Brunswick and spoke so eloquently about his election commitments, he forgot to mention that he would look after the unemployed. One of his advisers immediately reminded him that he should talk about the issue.

All this confirms that once again we have been the victims of a real misinformation campaign. The unemployment issue has indeed created confusion in parliament. No one has a clue. Everybody is looking for the facts. We are trying to find out what the government intends to do, but to no avail.

Let me reflect on the highlights of the reform, on certain recommendations that the Bloc Quebecois intends to make. I will also deal with the report tabled last week by the auditor general.

For a few years now the Bloc Quebecois has been openly critical of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. Only last week, the auditor general said:

In his 2000 report, the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada has estimated that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion should be sufficient to guarantee the stability of EI premium rates over a business cycle.

In the meantime, the Employment Insurance Account's accumulated surplus has grown to $28.2 billion, almost twice the maximum amount considered sufficient by the Chief Actuary.

We wondered. What did the Government of Canada, what did the Liberals do with the surplus? The auditor general told us in a rather direct manner:

The Account's operating surplus, in effect, provides a source of revenue and cash flow for the government and helps reduce its net debt.

This means that the government has taken money from the unemployed, it has taken EI contributions to pay off the debt and particularly to set up programs that often infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions.

What is going on in this parliament is totally unacceptable. A few moments ago, the government House leader announced a first time allocation motion, a first gag order.

What should we make of this whole issue? During the election campaign, the big names in the Liberal Party of Canada said that parliament would take its time to discuss the employment insurance issue. Now that we are back here in the House we find that the House leader is again playing the same game that he started during the last session by moving gag orders to prevent democratically elected representatives from saying what they have to say about the Employment Insurance Act.

The Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to Bill C-2, a pure and simple imitation of Bill C-44. However, it would be interesting if the current government divided Bill C-2 in two, to ensure it would respond more realistically to the expectations of unemployed people.

We have a series of recommendations to make. I would like to say that, already in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois had been very forward looking, since it had introduced six bills to improve the operation of employment insurance, to try to find better solutions to respond to the needs of unemployed people.

The Bloc's requests are very clear. We ask for the elimination of the intensity rule. This bill talks about this. We also ask that the maximum insurable earnings be increased from 55% to 60%, which would be much more realistic. We also ask for the elimination of the discriminatory clause towards new entrants to the labour force. We know this applies to young people and women. We also ask for the elimination of the qualifying period.

In Bill C-2 it is announced that the premium rate is to be reduced to $2.25, but the auditor general's report has much more precise calculations. This government is already late when it says it wants to reduce premiums to $2.25. The chief actuary, an employee of the Department of Human Resources Development, believes that employees' premium rates should be between $1.70 and $2.20, which would cover the long term costs of the employment insurance program.

In its planning documents, the Department of Human Resources Development predicts that the accumulated surplus will reach $34.6 billion by March 31, 2001. On August 31, 2000, the unaudited balance of the fund's accumulated surplus was $32.4 billion. These figures disgust the public. These surpluses are upsetting, they make no sense.

We understand that the Liberal government is trying with Bill C-2 to hide the truth. It is trying to legalize what has always been called the hold-up of the unemployed and the small and medium businesses. If Bill C-2 ever passes, no one, including the auditor general, will be able to intervene to bring this government back to order.

Of late we have witnessed all sorts of operations making this government, this parliament, increasing antidemocratic. In the riding I represent and in all ridings in Quebec, there are seasonal workers, men and women who return to the labour market, young people who come onto the labour market. These people, because of measures that are very difficult to understand, cannot draw employment insurance.

Just imagine that a young person has to work 910 hours before being entitled to draw benefits. A worker paying benefits—depending on the region—must accumulate between 420 and 700 hours to be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

The current act, which will not be amended by Bill C-2, discriminates seriously against young people and women, who are affected by this rule, that is, they must work 910 hours if they return to the labour market.

If I look at Bill C-2, especially if I refer to the many promises not kept by the federal Liberals in the latest election, it is very thin in content. It offers no hope to the unemployed waiting for major changes, which could have met their needs and corrected the injustices committed against them by the Prime Minister and his government in the last session.

When I think about what happened during the election campaign and when I hear all the balderdash on employment insurance coming from the other side, I wonder who knows the truth. Fortunately, the Auditor General of Canada brought back some kind of order last week. He gave some indications to try and clear things up.

This bill is an insult to the unemployed. There is nothing in it for them. It only mentions the abolition of the intensity rule and some minor changes when everyone in Quebec and in Canada was expecting so much.

The Liberals are laughing at the unemployed. They did it throughout the election campaign and continue to do so here, in the House of Commons.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois will continue to fight for improvements for the unemployed. Fortunately, we have in the House of Commons 38 men and women to protect the interests of Quebecers. Even with the government trying to muzzle us and take away our freedom of speech, I hope that, in the little time we have, we can prove that Bill C-2 is an empty shell, that it brings almost no changes to the system and is an insult to the unemployed in Quebec.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit stunned. I am a new member and I think the debates we have in this House in which we criticize certain aspects of a bill are very useful.

I just learned from the House leader that the government intends to limit debate on this bill. It is the first time that I witness such a request. I think this request comes rather quickly in that each comment I heard and each speech made by members of all parties, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, have clearly shown that there is abuse. That is why I am very surprised to hear this request at this time.

The auditor general's report dated February 6—today is February 12—confirmed some of the questions we have been asking about this bill. So it has been only six days, and the government has already decided to limit debate. I am sorry, but we are in the House of Commons where there are 301 members, including 38 from the Bloc Quebecois, and each of these members would have something more to say. I have not counted the exact number of members who have spoken so far, but I am sure there are speeches that should be heard.

I have a question for my colleague from Lotbinière—L'Érable. In his riding, as everywhere in Quebec, figures are circulated saying that the fund has a surplus of $7.2 billion for an accumulated surplus of $28.2 billion. The auditor general has told us that this was double the authorized amount.

However, we are forgetting the numerous self-employed people in Quebec and in Canada. There are also the young students. We hear fine speeches about young people, and the desire to help them. Why then do they have to pay employment insurance premiums, when we know that 30% or 40% of them will not be able to collect any benefits?

The question has to be asked. How do these people react in Lotbinière—L'Érable and across Quebec when they are told that surpluses of over $28.2 billion have been accumulated, as the auditor general said? And yet, the government says we do not have enough money to say “Let us amend the act. Let us at least take this opportunity to discuss it, to try to improve it and to draft a clearer bill that will give people access to this money”.

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

Madam Speaker, my constituents have been the victims of a partisan misinformation campaign.

On television, during the campaign, they accused the Bloc Quebecois of not fighting for the interests of Quebecers. In spite of that misinformation, 40% of Quebecers put their trust in us. They knew that if they sent 38 members to the House of Commons, these members would continue to fight for their interests.

I have found a new word to describe what is happening on that side. We hear about autocracy and democracy. I would call whatever happened in the House of Commons during the last session and during the last campaign and whatever is going on right now “chrétinocracy”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

This is a new word for the dictionary.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member said that this bill offers nothing and that there are no substantive changes, so I would have to assume that he would have no problem if someone wrote to his constituents, listed the improvements that are in the bill and said that the Bloc was against the improvements.