House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but the hon. member must have an opportunity to respond. The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what to respond to since I have not heard any questions. The member took this opportunity to make a speech.
If people are paying employment insurance, it is so that if they lose their job, they can get benefits, thanks to their insurance. That is the purpose of employment insurance.
In some ways, it is good that we have this system and employment insurance. What is bad when we talk about employment insurance, is that the government has misappropriated it for other purposes. When the Bloc refused to support Bill C-44 in 1997, it was because the government was using this bill as a licence to steal. That was the issue.
In 2000, the government came up with Bill C-2, which made theft from the fund legal. That is what is unacceptable.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just said that she was waiting for the question from my hon. colleague, but we are in questions and comments. We can make comments. We do not necessarily have to ask a question.
However I do have a question. The member made a good point that if one is buying a car, one wants to get the full worth back, not just 55% or something. In the case of Canadians, right now we get about 79% back in services because 21% goes to paying off interest on the debt.
During her speech the member said and it sounded to me that she said, with some disdain, that if the government has money it decides to pay down the debt.
Is it the official Bloc position that we should not be paying down the debt? Or, did I misread the mood of the statement and it was not with disdain, and it really would like to pay down the debt?
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has always encouraged the government to pay down part of the debt, but it has never encouraged it to do so by taking money from the fund set up for workers and employers. There is a difference.
If the fund is not used for benefits, then it should be used to fund retraining and new programs, but at no time should it be used to pay down the debt. Misappropriating the fund for this purpose is a disgrace. If our surpluses were taken and 75% went to the debt and 25% for new expenditures, then fine. It could even be 50:50. But, stealing from the fund must stop.
Odina Desrochers Bloc Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report that was tabled today. I helped draft this report, since it is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I sit, that also examined premium rates and employment insurance surpluses.
We asked many questions in the House. The Department of Human Resources Development provided some explanations. So did the Department of Finance. This is the third time that the Auditor General has sounded the alarm and said “It really makes no sense that, with current premiums, there is a surplus which, on March 31, 2002, reached $42.8 billion”.
I invite members opposite to read the report. There are some very interesting conclusions and recommendations. We hope that, for once, the government will address this issue.
I want to say something about the first recommendation. When recommendations are made to this government, it is important to include dates, because this government has a habit of saying “Soon, soon, soon”. But for us, soon now means 2003, if not 2004.
The first recommendation is very clear and it includes a cut-off date. It reads:
That the government clarify and disclose to Parliament and the public accounts committee all the relevant factors used in setting the employment insurance premium rates, particularly with regard to determining the nature of the employment insurance account balance and deciding on its disposition.
That the government table the relevant information to Parliament and the Committee no later than March 31, 2003.
This means that the other side will have to wake up and begin to realize that there is a major problem with premium rates and the employment insurance surplus.
The second recommendation states that:
During the review of the employment insurance premium setting process, the government take all necessary steps to include consultations with employee and employer groups along with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission and the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada and all other relevant stakeholders.
We put a question to Human Resources Development officials. They told us “We will soon begin consultations and that is about it”. We asked where these consultations would lead us. They replied “If we cannot agree, we will go back to the old method”.
The old practice is the one that allows the government to keep on collecting the surplus and strangling the unemployed.
I will continue because this report is very important. The last time the Auditor General referred to the EI fund, she said, “This is the third time I have raised this issue. I hope that the government will deal with this very important issue once and for all”.
The third recommendation is as follows:
That the government prepare a status report on these consultations—
It should start with this. This is most important.
--summarizing each participant's position, contribution and conclusion to the review of the employment insurance rate setting process and table the document to Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee when the review is complete.
I think that the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts have once again found ways and methods for this government to finally resolve this problem that affects workers and small business. The way that premiums are paid hurts small business and creates problems in terms of competition. The members opposite do not seem to understand this.
I will continue with the fourth recommendation, and I hope the members opposite will take the time to read this report.
The Auditor General said that if the government did not act, she would have very harsh criticism when she returns before us in April, 2003. She has warned the government three times now and she hopes that they have heeded her.
The fourth recommendation reads:
That the government formally reinstate the requirement that the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada prepare and produce full and complete actuarial reports for the EI program for 2002-2003.
As my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, said earlier, since Bill C-2 was passed, the whole issue has been left in the hands of the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development. We do not know where the money goes, nor how the premiums are set. It is high time, therefore, to return to more transparent and more effective methods.
I will finish by quoting the fifth recommendation from the report:
That the government consider legislative amendments that would require the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada to produce on an annual basis actuarial reports on the EI program. That these reports be made available in a timely fashion to all stakeholders and the public on the Human Resources Development Canada website.
There are five major recommendations in this report, which are to my mind logical and necessary if we are to get to the bottom of this problem with employment insurance, which affects workers and small businesses. The current employment insurance rates are strangling them.
I am directing this message to the government, and to the present Prime Minister as well, if he really wants to leave a legacy, an image of someone who cares, who has given some thought to the fate of the jobless and the small and medium size businesses that are struggling. He has an opportunity, in my opinion, to leave us as the mark of his passage through here as Prime Minister, the proof that he is humane, a man of compassion and one who understands the suffering in our society.
I do not think this will happen, because there is a conspiracy within this government, the present Minister of Finance, his parliamentary secretary who has just spoken, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Liberals, or the Quebec Liberal caucus, to keep on digging into the employment insurance fund.
This government's sole objective, in maintaining the premium rates and the surplus in the fund so high, is to keep its hand in the till so it can pay down the debt. It is doing this at the expense of the unemployed workers and the small and medium size businesses. This is unacceptable, heartless, totally arrogant.
I trust that the Liberals over there, the federal Liberals from Quebec, will take time to read this report so they will understand what poverty is, and will get moving once and for all on solving the problem with the EI fund and its surplus.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I guess the member's colleague was in a jovial Christmas mood in saying that when there is a fund there is a fund and when there is not a fund there is no money in the fund. The member was laughing. I think the member was stating the obvious. In different debates, a number of members on the other side have made this confusion. Under the Financial Administration Act of Canada all the revenues come in to one source and then Parliament decides what the government expenditures will be and then they go out. Every time the Government of Canada gets a revenue it does not go into a separate bank account or fund.
The question I want to ask relates to disabilities. A constituent approached me a couple of weeks ago and suggested that people with disabilities--
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Is the member not interested in helping people with disabilities? He is only going to heckle.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Your government passed an act to do that. Ask your question.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
I must put an end to all this. The hon. member for Lotbinière—L'Érable has the floor if he wishes to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon.
Odina Desrochers Bloc Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to comment on such incoherent remarks, because they make no sense. He told me “Fund, fund, fund”.
The only fund that I see is the virtual fund, the fund into which the Liberals are dipping to pay down the debt. I call this a virtual fund because, as my colleague said, there is no fund. It is gone; it has disappeared.
To the member who is trying to tell me that Bloc Quebecois members are not sensitive to the plight of the disabled, I say that my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre, toured Quebec precisely to see things firsthand, and she has found once again that this government is targeting society's poorest.
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think that members opposite did not read the report. They did not see it. Either they cannot read it, or else they cannot understand it.
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC
Perhaps they do not know how to read. I thank the hon. member. He may be right.
What the Auditor General says is simple. Premium rates are too high. They are unusually high, since the employment insurance fund is designed to provide insurance for workers, not pay down the debt.
The fund stood at $42 billion on March 31, 2002, and it may be $44 billion or $45 billion now. The report says that the maximum amount needed to maintain and operate the employment insurance fund, even during an economic crisis, is $15 billion.
This means that this money was stolen from workers and small businesses, because not even 40% of the unemployed qualify for employment insurance. Yet, it was for them that this fund was created.
This was not a question; it was a comment.
Odina Desrochers Bloc Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this comment, because it shows both realism and perceptiveness. It fits exactly with what we are experiencing in Quebec at the present time, and in the rest of Canada, as far as this EI fund scandal goes, this scandal of excessive contribution rates, this misappropriation of the funds of the workers and small and medium businesses to pay down a debt. I will not start repeating everything the Auditor General has had to say since the beginning of the year, for it would take me hours and hours.
Already in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay and Berthier—Montcalm, the people of Quebec have indicated clearly that they want nothing to do with the Liberal government.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the Auditor General's report.
As the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane said, I think that the Liberal members opposite cannot read. I do not want to be too insulting, but the Auditor General stated that they have $30 billion more than they need. That is the issue. There is a $40 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund and only $15 billion is needed for emergencies.
During the last election, in 2000, the Prime Minister toured the Atlantic provinces saying, “We will fix the employment insurance problem. We will make changes because the Liberals lost seats here. We have to fix this”.
When the House resumed, the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok told the Minister of Human Resources Development, “This is a cry from the heart. Changes must be made”.
I remember Bill C-2. When it was introduced following the 2000 election, the Liberals opposite came to us and said, “It has to be passed quickly. The government is willing to pass this right now. We will work in committee to make other changes. We know that the workers need changes”.
How can this government proudly say, “We took your $30 billion in surpluses that we did not need. We paid down the debt, we balanced the budget, we lowered income taxes and we invested in social programs”. But who gave them permission? That is the question.
The Auditor General said herself that this was not right. Now, the Liberals want to justify themselves. Is it because they cannot read or because they do not know how to listen?
They come in with cheap shots in saying, “You don't believe the people who have a handicap”. Which party not too long ago cut their income tax credit? It was the Liberal Party that did it and it almost split the House. We know what happened to the motion that came from the NDP. The people who care about the handicapped people are on this side of the House and not on the government side.
As for the bill we wanted to present to the House on the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee, all parties agreed that changes were necessary.
Either we accept our country the way it is, or we do not. Our country is diversified. This is obvious when hon. members rise in this House and say “The money was used for this and for that”. Yet, when it comes to taking money from employees who worked hard for it, that is something else.
There is a small fund called the EI fund. If workers lose their jobs, they are eligible for employment insurance benefits that come out of this fund. The government is taking this away from them.
As if that were not disgraceful enough, as if they had not taken enough money away from workers without asking, the government is so greedy that on July 1, 2002, it added interest to EI overpayments
We are talking about people who are out of work. The woman from Tracadie owed $15,000 to employment insurance. She thought her employment insurance benefits had been calculated properly. She had a small business. She worked. During the off season, she did not receive any money. She paid her bills and made deposits at the bank.
One day, the government, through the Minister of Human Resources said “It is too bad. You did not declare your employment, now you owe $15,000 and you are disqualified from receiving EI benefits”.
It is a disgrace that today the government turns around and says “That is fraud”. This person did not even receive any money and she is being treated like a crook. The woman from Tracadie paid $120 to the federal government each month to try to repay her debt. She took this $120 from her employment insurance benefits.
With the interest the government is charging on the overpayment, guess how much money goes to his debt? Twenty dollars a month and $100 in interest. It is a disgrace to see how the Liberals go after poor people's money.
They cannot even monitor the GST, with the result that some companies rob them on a daily basis. It is a disgrace to go after the country's poorest. I would like to see Liberals rise and challenge what I am saying here this evening.
It is estimated that the government deprives New Brunswick of $278 million in benefits every year. It is small and medium size businesses that lose these $278 million. These are benefits that were spent in stores and restaurants, benefits that helped people make a living.
Instead of taking action and helping people get organized to find work and stimulate regional economies, the government cut support to the country's poorest, because they cannot protect themselves, they cannot afford to hire lawyers and they do not contribute to the Liberal campaign fund. This is the only reason they are punished. This is a disgrace.
It is a terrible disgrace to see a government manage our country in this fashion. It is disgusting. The government should be ashamed.
A recommendation was made by all the parties in the House to make changes to the employment insurance program. The Prime Minister travelled across the country. He went to the Gaspé, to Belledune, in New Brunswick, to Cape Breton, to Halifax. He promised to make changes, but he did not make these changes. Now, the only thing that the government says is, “Ah! we are giving that money to Canadians”.
I have no right to steal money from my child and give it to someone else to please that person. This is no way to run a family; this is no way to run a country. This is a disgrace.
That money is deducted from people's paycheques. Workers get up every morning to go to work and they receive their paycheques on Friday. The stub shows their gross earnings, their total earnings. Then, they can see how much taxes they paid. These taxes are used to fund our social programs and to manage the finances of our country. As for the Canada pension plan, it is for people, when they are ill or when they retire.
Employment insurance is for when one loses his or her job. It is not for balancing the budget and attaining a zero deficit. It is not for giving the former Minister of Finance a reason to pat himself on the back and boast about what a great finance minister he has been. “I was careful with public funds. I have no deficit. We are paying down the debt.”
But at whose expense? We have a government spending a billion to register firearms. We know that Groupaction got its hands on $22 million, and that scandals abound. Then the poor little workers are grabbed by the throat and told, “You have no right to a living. Your family does not have the right to have food on the table tomorrow morning”.
The government would have the House on the idea that 85% of qualified EI recipients in fact receive benefits. They say that 85% of qualified workers receive benefits, but that figure should be 100%. They ought to be ashamed that 15% still do not qualify. What they are not saying, however, is that only 40% of people who pay into EI are actually drawing benefits.
What has happened in regions like the Atlantic region? Young people could have seasonal employment and have some hope of staying in the region. But they are told, “No, you need 910 hours. If you don't have them, go work in Ontario or out west. That is how we will treat you”.
And what about the construction workers? “This is how we will treat you. Go to Alberta to work, leave your wife and kids behind. If you quit your job after that, there won't be any EI”. The general theme was, “Tough luck, you can starve to death.”
These are very proud people, good people. My colleague over the way comes from PEI. I am sure he agrees with me, but he cannot rise and talk about what is going on in PEI.
What is happening to the fish plant workers and the forestry workers? They depend on EI. How many times have I repeated here in this House: big city people like to have 2x4s to build with, and the lumber comes from trees cut down in our part of the country. Big city people like their blueberries, and they are picked in our region. Berry picking does not go on when there is snow on the ground. How many times have I said the same thing?
It is not on Yonge Street, in Toronto, or on Sainte-Catherine Street, in Montreal, that fishers catch cod, but in Chaleur Bay, in the Atlantic or in the Pacific. This is seasonal work. We need to understand this. And so do Canadians. To build a united country, we need to work together. The Liberals ought to be ashamed.
Frankly, my concern is not with EI premiums. I have seen no worker or demonstrator in the street, shouting that the premiums were too high. I have seen no employer in the street, shouting that the premiums were too high. What I have seen is people shouting, “I no longer qualify for EI. The Liberal Government of Canada is picking on me”.
In 1989, when Doug Young, my predecessor, was in opposition, he criticized the Mulroney government for making changes to the EI program. He said,“I encourage all New Brunswickers to fight any changes to the unemployment insurance system with vigour, because they would spell disaster for New Brunswick”.
In February 1993, when he was in opposition, the current Prime Minister of Canada stated that the Progressive Conservatives were not acting properly in connection with the changes to EI.
What did he tell, in Rivière-du-Loup, a group of people opposing the changes to the EI system? He told them that the government was not acting properly, that it should not be attacking men and women, that it was discriminatory. He said that, instead, it should be dealing with the economy and creating jobs, and that those who went back to work would no longer need employment insurance. We must give these people a sense of pride, and stop putting them down.
I find it disgusting to hear that $50 million going to Toronto described as an investment, whereas $6 million going to Atlantic Canada is described as social assistance. We have had it. There is no place for this kind of language in a united country. It is not fair to say that people in Atlantic Canada are abusing the system. These are proud people; they want to work, but they need job opportunities.
If millions of dollars were pouring into New Brunswick, as they are in the pockets of Groupaction, there would be jobs in New Brunswick and no one would be unemployed. If the government were serious about economic development, we would be able to develop our economy.
Last week, the Liberal Minister of Labour said in Belledune that there was $90 million set aside for northern highways. This week, she said, “What I meant to say is that this is $90 is part of the $500 million that were promised last year”. Announcements cannot be made two or three times. That is not how announcements should be made. When you make an announcement, it is done. The $500 million that was announced was for highway 2 in southern New Brunswick, not for northern New Brunswick. Now, we hope that they will keep their word. They cannot move forward by going back on their word.
In New Brunswick, people believe in economic development. We believe that infrastructure needs to be put in place. We need to stop cutting and invest in people and the economy. That is how to solve the problem.
We cannot cut the Gaspé Peninsula, or the Atlantic regions off and tell the people there that there is nothing left for them and that we no longer believe in them. It does not work like that.
I quite like Toronto. It is a fine city, but the folks from back home do not want to live there. It is not where they come from, it is not their home. When a government is in power, it has a responsibility: it cannot look after just one province, it is responsible for the whole country. It has to understand how people live. That is what a real government is all about.
These days, the government has forgotten all about this. It does polls. It asks itself, “Will we get enough votes? If so, we are fine. Did we cut enough? We cut too much; we will give back a bit. They are hungry; we will solve it with a few crumbs”.
In human terms, we need more than this. Back home, small businesses want to succeed. They want to create jobs. There cannot be jobs if the government does not build the infrastructure to get people to work.
For example, in northeastern New Brunswick, they want the government to build a natural gas pipeline. They say, “Where the natural gas pipeline is being built, there will be job creation”. When you look from out west all the way to Bernier, in Quebec, there are jobs. Any further, and there are no more. Which means that if there were natural gas back home, the region would prosper. It would pave the way for businesses and people could work. People would give anything to work or to create jobs.
Last week, I met with representatives of the local chamber of commerce. They asked me what they could do to create employment. I told them the only way would be to have infrastructure and to get the wheels turning to attract companies and create jobs.
As I was saying before, all of a sudden one week they announced $90 million. This dropped to $77 million on Monday, and today, Wednesday, there is no money left at all. Some announcement. That will create jobs.
People do not just want employment insurance. It exists and was created for cases when the government cannot fulfill its responsibilities or else for companies to find employment for people. People do not want to go on social assistance. People are eager to work. People from back home go to work in northern Ontario, in Toronto. You meet people from my region everywhere you go, and some of them have left their family behind in order to find work.
It is a disgrace to hear people say they are all lazy and no good and do not want to work, as my predecessor said. I answered back, “If you worked for $5.50 an hour, you would be lazy too”.
People want a good job, they do not want to be on employment insurance. That is not what they want. It is a program that belongs to them to help them out when they are going through hard times.
As I have said before and am saying again, 35 days before a general election, the Liberals believe in everything that I just talked about. But the day after the election, and for the next four years, they forget all about it. They become true right-wing Liberals and say, “We will look after our major corporations and people like those who run Groupaction. We will throw money at them, to the tune of $20 million or $22 million a shot”. Now, these people have fun; they are not on social assistance and they have food on the table every morning. Their children are not hungry. These people have no problems.
But that is not the case back home. I meet people; every day, my office receives between 50 and 100 calls from people who are in dire straits. On the government side, it seems that they only get a couple of calls, usually from Groupaction, Bombardier, GM or other corporations. Now they have noting to worry about: one call, and everything is settled. As for the others, let them starve to death.
Let us hope that the government will realize what needs to be done. It is not about benefits, it is about having a system that works, and it is about beginning to give money to remote regions, to regions that have seasonal workers, so as to help them and create jobs. At the same time, we could have a program to ensure that these people can survive during those periods when there is no work to be had. We cannot let them down.
We do not live in that kind of country, I think. It is said that we live in the best country in the world, but today there 4.1 million children who are going hungry in this country. Three hundred thousand children depend on food banks each month. That is nothing to be proud of.
Therefore, I am asking the government to do some soul searching, particularly since Christmas is coming. Perhaps the government will have some good news for us in January.
Serge Marcil LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Acadie—Bathurst has earned his Christmas vacation, after the speech he just gave.
I read the report tabled. There is often a tendency to separate things, to divide reports into sections, in fact, not to see the big picture with regard to Canadian public administration.
Employment insurance was mentioned, but what was not mentioned is the fact that the unemployment rate has dropped dramatically over the past five years, which has led to the creation of over 500,000 new jobs this year in Canada. That obviously has to be taken into consideration.
These things cannot be separated. A public administration does not have dedicated funds. People might say, “The gasoline tax should be used to pay for roads, this other tax for the health care system and this other tax for something else”. That is not how a country is run.
Has the premium rate not gone down over at least the past decade? It is lower now in 2002 than it was in 1994. Even if it went up to $3.07 in 1990, it is now $2.20. There has certainly been a decrease. I would like to know what the member for Acadie—Bathurst has to say about this.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, what I have to say is that they ought to be ashamed to have the contribution rate at $2.10 and have $30 billion they do not need at their disposal. That is what I have to say.
They ought to be ashamed to be taking the money from the disadvantaged to pay down the debt or pay for programs that ought to financed of some other source. They ought to be ashamed that they are not going after the big businesses that are getting away with not paying the GST. They do not even have a system recover that money. They will, however, go after some poor little lady in Tracadie or Petit-Rocher, who does not have two cents to rub together and who owes $15,000. She has to pay $100 in interest every month out of a payment of $120.
This is what they ought to be ashamed of. That is what I have to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. If he wants to solve our problems and put our money to good use, let him do so by creating jobs. That is how it will be done.
I would like to remind the Liberal government that, when the Conservatives took money and put it in the consolidated revenue fund back in 1986, the Liberals were against this. They said that, if they were elected, they would put an end to this theft and would change things. The present Prime Minister said this to the women of Rivière-du-Loup, and to the country as a whole.
Again in 2000, he said to have lost votes in the Atlantic provinces because he had cut EI. When a few seats were won in Halifax and in Cape Breton, his reaction was basically, “Take that, you guys”. I will not say what came after.
It is a pity that families are struggling because this government sings two different tunes, one before the election and one after. The ones who get it in the neck are the poor.
Monte Solberg Canadian Alliance Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his impassioned speech. Obviously it is a subject he cares about a lot. I want to say to people watching this on TV that they should not adjust their sets. That was actually the colour of the hon. member's head. He got a little red during his speech, but we cannot fault him for that. He cares about this. He is sporting Christmas colours a little bit, so that is fine.
I want to argue that the discussion we are having today is essentially about trustworthiness. If people were to take the time to go through the Auditor General's report or through the public accounts report that deals with the employment insurance fund, they would find that starting in 1996 the government disconnected the connection between benefits and premiums.
The result is that over a period of time we saw the fund build up to the point where there is a notional surplus of about $40 billion. It is completely disconnected from where the premium levels are supposed to be. In fact when the chief actuary of the fund commented on it, he said that the premium levels should drop to a point where they are about 40¢ lower than they are today, which takes into account the 10% cut that the government has just proposed.
I want to argue that a big part of this has to do with being trustworthy. I think a powerful case can be made that the government is not trustworthy when it comes to the EI fund. However it is not the only example. There are many other examples.
I want to draw the attention of the House to other ways that governments have taken big pools of money in the past and used them for things that had nothing to do with the original intention. The Canada pension plan is one example. The excise tax, which my friend mentioned a minute ago, is another example. The GST and the public service pension plan are two other examples. There are many examples.
I just wanted to draw the attention of my friend to this and to ask him to comment on the trustworthiness of the government when it comes to these big pools of money.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that it is not a pleasure for me when my head turns red. I am glad Christmas is coming because I am afraid my colleagues would think that I was going over to the Liberal Party. I can assure my colleagues that it is not my intention to do that.
I have to agree with the member when he says there is a problem with trust. We just have to look at the lack of trust that people have in government and politicians. It is too bad that it has come to that point. We just had an election and only 30% of the people in the ridings voted. It is a shame, but the reason for that is that they have no trust in government any more. The government is not leading. It is not looking after the money and the affairs of the people.
The government is supposed to represent the people and people are not happy. The previous Conservative government put the GST in place to pay the debt. The Liberals said that they would get rid of the GST. However, when the Liberals came to power they not only kept the GST but they took away employment insurance from people who have lost their job. They are bragging now because they say they have a $7 billion per year surplus but at the same time there are $7 billion in the EI account that is part of the general fund. How can they be proud of taking money from people who have lost their jobs? It is as simple as that.
I gave the example of the GST. The Liberals said that they did not need the GST but they kept it. Even the Prime Minister said in the House that he never said that. CBC ran the tape again and he did say that he would get rid of the GST.
It is one scandal after another and Canadians are not happy. The polls show that in the last election there were some ridings where only 50% of the people voted and in other ridings it was less than 50%.
We are the best country in the world and we are losing it. It is a shame that we are losing the best country in the world to live. This country is supposed to have no hungry children but we have 1.4 million hungry children. We have 300,000 children going to the food bank every month. Should the Liberals be proud of that because they brought the income tax down? On the other hand, they take money away from the poor people who have lost their jobs, letting them starve, forcing them to go on welfare and cutting off everything they have. They are losing their house and everything. Are the Liberals proud of that? I would be ashamed of myself if I were a Liberal today.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like the people who are listening to us today to understand how it works.
Employment insurance was created. It is the same in the private sector. The government cannot use taxes to pay benefits when someone loses their job. Therefore the employment insurance fund was created. In other words, “Pay a premium and I will give you benefits”. It is the same thing in the private sector in terms of insurance.
My question is simple. In the private sector, a company could say to people “I am going to make you pay premiums so that if the need arose, you could receive benefits”. If that company had a lot of debt, it would raise premium rates in order to make a profit. People would pay and at least have the assurance that they would eventually receive benefits.
What would happen if, several years later, this company, knowing it had a lot of debt, took this money out of its profits and, without telling people, paid off its debt? In the event that people needed their benefits, the company would say “There is nothing left in the fund”. What would happen to this private company?
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, although he is out of time. However, I will be indulgent and give him a minute or two to answer the question.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, here is what would happen. People could lodge a complaint and turn to the court for a ruling.
As for employment insurance, the Prime Minister has been informed of the situation, but he boasts about having used that money for other purposes. This is what happens in our public system, as opposed to the private sector. This is why opposition parties are agreed that the employment insurance fund should be managed by an independent commission run by workers and employers. That commission should be managed by these two groups, not by the government, because the government spends its time trying to balance budgets and achieve zero deficits at the expense of those who have lost their jobs.