House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prices.

Topics

Queensway Carleton HospitalPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Queensway Carleton HospitalPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

It being 6:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of, Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-280.

Before I propose Motion No. 1 to the House, the Chair has to make a statement about Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, which was reported from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on June 17, 2005.

I wish to remind the House that the Chair has previously addressed the need for a royal recommendation in this bill on two occasions: on February 8, 2005 and again on June 13, 2005. Members will remember that in his ruling on Bill C-280, given on Monday June 13, 2005, the Speaker stated:

—in its present form, Bill C-280 infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown for three reasons: first, clause 2 effects an appropriation of public funds by its transfer of these funds from the consolidated revenue fund to an independent employment insurance account established outside the consolidated revenue fund.

Second, clause 2 significantly alters the duties of the EI Commission to enable new or different spending of public funds by the commission for a new purpose namely, the investment of public funds.

Third, as indicated in my ruling of February 8, clause 5 increases the number of commissioners from four to seventeen.

The human resources committee adopted a number of amendments to the bill following the ruling. Notably, the committee has reduced the number of commissioners from seventeen to four. While the amendments have altered the nature of the expenditures called for in the bill, neither the amendments adopted in committee nor the amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage, assuming it were to be adopted, would remove the requirement for a royal recommendation.

As it has been indicated in the previous rulings, it is my duty to inform the House that in conformity with Standing Order 79(2), I must still decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today, consideration at report stage and debate on the motion for third reading will continue as scheduled.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

moved:

That Bill C-280, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 26 on page 1 and lines 1 to 38 on page 2 with the following:

“1. Section 65.3 of the Employment Insurance Act is repealed.

1.1 Sections 66 to 67 of the Act are replaced by the following:

  1. (1) Not later than November 30 in each year, the Commission shall set the premium rate that the Commission considers will, to the extent possible, over a business cycle,

(a) serve the best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries under the employment insurance system;

(b) ensure that there is enough revenue to pay the expenses authorized to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account;

(c) maintain stable rate levels; and

(d) ensure that the difference between the assets of the Employment Insurance Account and its liabilities does not exceed fifteen billion dollars.

(2) On the first day of October in each year, the Commission shall cause a report to be sent to the Minister containing

(a) the reasons for setting the premium rate for the year;

(b) any change to the amount of benefits that the Commission considers will, to the extent possible, over a business cycle,

(i) ensure that there is enough revenue to pay the expenses authorized to be charged to the Employment Insurance Account, and

(ii) maintain stable rate levels;

(c) a detailed description of the assets of the Commission on the first day of September in each year;

(d) a detailed description of the amounts that have been paid into or paid out of the Employment Insurance Account since the previous report;

(e) an estimate of the amounts to be paid into the Employment Insurance Account under this Act for the following year, calculated on the basis of the premium rate set by the Commission in the report;

(f) an estimate of the amounts to be paid out of the Employment Insurance Account under this Act for the following year, calculated on the basis of the amount of benefits to be paid set by the Commission in the report;

(g) any recommendations that the Commission considers necessary for the improvement of the employment insurance system, including amendments to Acts, regulations and policies with respect to employment insurance; and

(h) any other information that the Commission considers necessary.

(3) The Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first five days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives it.

66.1 Notwithstanding section 66, the premium rate for the year 2004 is 1.98%.

66.2 Notwithstanding section 66, the premium rate for the year 2005 is the rate set for the year by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.

  1. Subject to section 70, a person employed in insurable employment shall pay, by deduction as provided in subsection 82(1), a premium equal to their insurable earnings multiplied by the premium rate set under section 66, 66.1 or 66.2, as the case may be.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor as sponsor of Bill C-280, which is concerned with the creation of an autonomous fund.

To begin, I would like to say to all those listening to us that employment insurance is primarily insurance that is paid for by workers while they are working, in case they lose their jobs or stop working. The problem is that workers pay premiums thinking that they are insured, yet they are not. Since the 1994 Axworthy reform, under the Liberal government, insured persons who have paid premiums in order to be insured in case of job loss or separation have not in fact been insured.

The objective of the Liberal Party is to generate surpluses and deposit them in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The former finance minister, now the Prime Minister, used to crow that he was realizing annual surpluses of $9 billion, $10 billion or $12 billion. Again this year, revenues surplus to premiums and benefits have been generated in the order of $4 billion to $6 billion.

This motivated the Bloc Québécois, immediately upon its arrival in the House of Commons, to work on behalf of workers, the unemployed and the groups such as the Sans-chemise, and to defend their interests. This is not the first bill on the subject we are discussing in this House. The Bloc Québécois has felt itself obliged to make certain commitments to workers, the unemployed and the Sans-chemise. In the last federal election campaign, the Bloc Québécois promised to table in this House the bill we are debating today at the report stage, namely Bill C-280, which would create an independent fund.

In my riding of Manicouagan, I also have workers, unemployed people and students who pay EI premiums, yet unfortunately are not insured under the present employment insurance system.

I had the opportunity to speak at first reading, that is, when the bill was tabled, at second reading, as well as in committee, when this bill was studied. I was able to intervene, as did the hon. member for Chambly-Borduas and the hon. member for Québec, at the amendment stage. We agreed to huge reductions so that this measure would not be expensive for the government.

For example, we reduced the number of administrators. We would have liked to have seven representatives on the union side, as many on the management side, and three on the government side. As long as this fund is not administered by those who contribute to it, we will be faced with the problem we have today. The government takes the money in the fund and uses it for purposes other than those for which people contributed. It then becomes a disguised tax that is collected on the backs of seasonal workers and the unemployed.

I am now pleased to speak at the report stage. As I was saying, we have tabled some amendments. Our amendment that permits concordance with the budget has been accepted tonight. At the time we intervened in committee, the budget had not yet been passed and we were not able to make the necessary amendments. This evening, at the report stage, the Chair has deemed admissible an amendment we had tabled. This is simply an amendment to align Bill C-280 with Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act.

We do hope that cabinet, which has the authority to give royal assent, will give workers and the unemployed the money that belongs to them. For far too long, the government has been using that money for its own purposes and spending it on various programs. One might even wonder if this money from the EI fund—we are talking about $5 billion or $6 billion a year—was not involved in instances of waste of public funds. Put simply, I am referring to the sponsorship scandal. It would be disastrous if the government had taken money that belongs to workers and the unemployed to fund the sponsorship program in an attempt to pad the coffers of the Liberal Party. We are asking cabinet to give a royal recommendation with respect to this bill.

In addition, I hope that the House will get to vote on this bill at third reading stage, so as to show the true face of the Liberals. They keep promising to improve the employment insurance program, but no sooner do they get elected than they do the exact opposite.

The Bloc Québécois promised to introduce legislation. That is what we are doing today. That is what we have been doing ever since coming to Ottawa. If it is not passed and a majority of parliamentarians vote against it, the Liberals will pay the price.

Why is legislation necessary? It is necessary to stop the government from tapping into the surplus, these billions of dollars that belong to the workers, those who have contributed to an insurance fund they do not get to use because the government decided to undertake a much too stringent reform, which is increasingly preventing people from qualifying for EI benefits.

The independent employment insurance account management committee had the power to set premium rates and to pay out benefits, to administer and report to the House. It was also to recommend improvements to the employment insurance program. That is very important. It has the power to recommend improvements to the EI program.

Six women out of ten contribute to the EI fund, but are not eligible for benefits. That is disastrous. We are talking about 60% of women on the labour market, women and young people who are contributing to the fund. Six people out of ten do not qualify.

Why? Because the reforms are too strict. We are talking about new people on employment insurance. They need 910 hours of work. That is 910 hours in seasonal jobs. These are different kinds of jobs, and I find that everywhere in Quebec and Canada.

There are different kinds of jobs in which, as I was saying, six women out of ten did not qualify for employment insurance. These are women and young people. It is all the people who are on call, casual employees, replacements for workers on holidays, contract workers and even students.

I will be told that the act requires all workers to pay employment insurance premiums. However, the government knows very well that although everyone is obliged to pay premiums when they work because that is the law, the government is not obliged to pay out benefits to everyone.

We in the Bloc Québécois are proposing an independent fund, with administrators who would manage the premium and benefit rates. They would make recommendations and submit reports to the House. We also say that the 910 hours required to qualify for employment insurance should be reduced to 360.

We demand as well that the benefits be increased from 50% to 60%. We want to increase the number of insurable weeks to 50 in order to eliminate the gap.

Between the period when people receive employment insurance and the period when they return to work, there are workers in seasonal jobs in some regions who go as long as two months, two and a half months, often ten weeks, without any income.

There is also the abolition of the two-week waiting period. With a total surplus of $48 billion and annual surpluses of $4 billion to $6 billion, it is impossible to understand why the famous two-week waiting period cannot be eliminated. It really does take two weeks of waiting, two to three weeks if there is no investigation and all goes well. It takes about five or six weeks before people get their first employment insurance cheque.

In some families, when the employment insurance cheque arrives, it is certainly due. The banks do not wait, and neither do mortgages or grocery stores. Everybody needs it.

We also need a POWA program and a program for independent workers. I will let my hon. friend from Chambly—Borduas speak about that.

This bill is supported by unions and employers. Why employers? Because they are having difficulty recruiting employees. There is also the high cost of training employees.

On behalf of working people, on behalf of the unemployed, and on behalf of the Comité des Sans-Chemise, we ask the House to vote in favour of Bill C-280.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-280 concerning the Employment Insurance Act. I genuinely thank the member for Manicouagan for raising these important issues. It is important that we debate such things publicly from time to time.

I also thank the standing committee for its fine work on its ninth report in consideration of this bill. While the Government of Canada cannot agree with the key directions of the bill, we greatly appreciate the work of the committee. I personally thank the member for Madawaska--Restigouche for his passionate support of the unemployed and for unemployment programs, and for the advice which he has given me and other members of the committee during this process.

Bill C-280 proposes fundamental amendments to the EI Act. It is important to revisit the reasons for the present structure of that act. This historical context will, I believe, illustrate the importance, complexity and challenges presented by the proposals contained in Bill C-280.

Let me begin with the employment insurance account.

Both Bill C-280 and the committee's ninth report suggest alternative methods of accounting but I believe it is important to appreciate why the EI account is reported within the consolidated revenue fund and not, as the bill proposes, separate from the accounts of Canada.

In the 1980s the auditor general of that time expressed concerns about fragmented reporting of government activities. To rectify this situation, the auditor general was of the opinion that EI premiums paid by employers and employees were federal revenues and that given the government's control over EI policy and programs, they should be included in reported Government of Canada revenues, not in a separate account. On the advice of the auditor general, in 1986 the EI account was fully integrated into the government's general finances. This practice follows appropriate accounting methods consistent with the standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This reasoning still holds true.

It is important to note, however, that because the EI account has been consolidated with the other accounts of Canada, in reality it is not an actual account containing cash but rather an accounting method that keeps track of both premiums and benefits.

Bill C-280 would have significant financial and policy implications for the way in which the federal government finances and governs the EI program. A cash-based account, outside of the control of the government, would represent a significant fiscal liability to the government and the taxpayers of Canada, and potentially the first step in loss of policy control.

The government realizes the importance of keeping EI in tune with Canadians. That is precisely why in budget 2003 we committed to undertake a review of the premium setting process and launched public consultations. We promised that the new process would be based on the following principles: first, that premium rates should be set transparently; second, premium rates should be set on the basis of independent advice; third, expected premium revenues should correspond to expected program costs; fourth, premium rate setting should mitigate the impact on business cycles; and lastly, that premium rates should be relatively stable over time.

Consultations were held with a variety of stakeholders. We heard from business, labour, economists, technical experts, the EI commissioners for workers and employers, and individual members of the public. In budget 2005, the Government of Canada introduced a new permanent rate setting mechanism that meets all the five principles that I have outlined and takes into consideration the views of stakeholders and the views of the standing committee which studied this. By the way, this new regime already exists.

Beginning with the 2006 rate, the EI Commission has the legislative authority to set the rate itself. It will be able to obtain, as needed, the services of those with specialized knowledge in rate setting matters. In other words, it can go outside a government. And it will hold consultations on the premium rate prior to setting it. Gone will be the requirement for the Government of Canada to approve this rate.

This new approach to rate setting is based on the principle that the premium rate for a year should generate just enough revenue to cover expected payments during that year.

I think it is important to raise this here and speak to the motion proposed by the member for Manicouagan. The motion outlines a premium rate setting process that is identical to the one originally proposed. The only difference is that it removes the role of the Chief Actuary from the rate setting process. The motion in no way has a substantive effect on the problematic aspects of the bill ruled upon, Mr. Speaker, by you, and your ruling on the fact that the a royal recommendation was needed for the original bill as it was phrased.

Perhaps, given the ramifications suggested in the motion, it is important at this time to clearly articulate the key function played by the Chief Actuary in the new rate setting mechanism this government introduced in the budget 2005.

Under the new mechanism, the EI Chief Actuary annually calculates on a forward looking basis the estimated break-even rate for the coming year based on economic variables supplied by the Minister of Finance. The Chief Actuary then provides a report of this break-even rate calculation to the EI Commission by October 14 each year.

Clearly, the role of the Chief Actuary is a critical component of the new rate setting process, as he provides independent expert advice to the commission concerning the break-even premium rate. The Chief Actuary's report is a key factor the commission must consider in its decision on the rate. It is the only mechanism that factors in important economic variables. Further, the Chief Actuary's report provides the basis to ensure that the premium rate will generate just enough revenue to cover expected payments during the year.

It is important to recognize the important function the Chief Actuary adds to the transparency of the rate setting process. It is his report, providing details of the calculation of the break-even rate, that is made public and provides the basis for the commission's consultations with all stakeholders.

I appreciate the House taking the time to listen to this description of the role of the Chief Actuary. It is important because it explains why this government would not support a rate setting process that does not provide for sound actuarial advice as a fundamental component of the EI rate setting.

These new measures that I have outlined address issues both in Bill C-280 and the standing committee's reports by increasing the independence of the EI Commission in the EI rate setting and strengthening, and this is most important, the transparency of the entire process.

It is important to add that over the past 11 years premium rates have steadily gone down while benefits to Canadians have been enriched. With the 2005 rate for employees at $1.95 and $2.73 for employers per $100 of insurable earnings, consecutive rate reductions mean that employers and employees will pay $10 billion less in premiums than they did under the 1994 regime.

I appreciate the contributions of the hon. members and of the standing committee to the debates on the EI Act. I also welcome this opportunity to share ideas but for the reasons that I have outlined, the government cannot support Bill C-280.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important proposal to fix the serious problems we have seen for years in the employment insurance system. Employers and workers who have paid EI premiums have seen $48 billion of their hard-earned wages taken by the government and diverted to other spending purposes.

The Liberal government has been doing that for 10 years. It has consistently generated a significant surplus out of the employment insurance system by taxing workers and employers who create those jobs, and taking the money and using it under the pretense of collecting it for employment insurance while using it for other purposes.

We do not believe that is acceptable. In fact, it verges on being less than truthful in the budgeting processes of the government. If it were not for that diversion of surplus funds, members can rest assured that the government would not have balanced the budget as it claims to have done. It is through the pilfering of funds collected from workers and employers that the government has been able to do that.

The present employment insurance system continues to create a situation where employment insurance is not working for workers or employers. It is creating a drag on job creation. It is also creating a situation of overtaxation on workers earning a modest to middle income. EI premiums are capped at a certain level. A form of regressive taxation has taken place here through the theft of those funds from the surplus.

We hear from all kinds of people that it is a problem. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is concerned about this and has pointed out the impact on job creation. Garth Whyte, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

You had a $48-billion surplus in the EI fund. It's disappeared into general revenue. There's no reason EI premiums should be used to build up a new surplus. We would be extremely upset if you do that.

Although we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources that we would see a situation now where surpluses will not be collected but, guess what, that was the very situation under the previous legislation.

The premium rate setting mechanism was designed so the government would set a rate that would not exceed the amount necessary to maintain the EI program. Notwithstanding that provision in the law, we continue to see a surplus collected every year; an average of $4.6 billion a year. This overtaxation has gone on for a decade, none of which was contemplated in the legislation. That practice has hurt the economy and job creation, to say nothing of being unfair to ordinary workers.

Another group talked about the impact of this on the economy and on competitiveness, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, the research arm of Ontario's task force on competitiveness, productivity and economic progress, which is an arm of the provincial Liberal government in Ontario. The study was funded by that government through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

Let me tell the House what those experts said about the problems with the EI system as it is working now.

Our view is that EI is not an insurance program. Rather it is becoming a transfer that places a dysfunctional tax on productive labour and successful businesses. In addition, the excessive surpluses accumulated are a high cost to have provinces and to overall prosperity growth.

They are saying that the way the government runs employment insurance right now is hurting economic prosperity and growth, and taking that surplus is one of the biggest factors. They go on to say:

Our research indicates that the federal surplus surprises are leading to a loss of discipline in fiscal federalism, resulting in potentially unsustainable growth in federal transfers. This lack of discipline is also exacerbating the trend away from investing in future prosperity towards consumption of current prosperity. An important part of this lack of discipline is the growing surpluses in EI, a program that is less and less an insurance program and more and more a transfer program.

That study has some very interesting perspectives on how the transfer has actually discouraged job creation by employers, discouraged people from working and creates the reverse incentives. It creates incentives for people not to keep people employed. It creates incentives for businesses to lay off people, to cause them to lose their jobs. The entire structure has the wrong incentives. That is another discussion for another day.

The focus here has to be on the surpluses and the negative impact of those surpluses and the money that is being taken.

This bill sought to address that. An amendment that I was pleased to propose on behalf of the Conservative Party proposed to return the $46 billion that had been taken from those taxpayers, from the workers and the employers, those job creators. The amendment proposed to restore that money to the fund over a period of 10 years. This would create a genuine balance, money that could be there for a rainy day. It would allow for lower premiums and would encourage more job creation. Workers would have more money to take home at the end of the day. The money that was taken from them over 10 years would be returned to them over a period of 10 years.

We heard from the parliamentary secretary that in view of the Speaker's ruling on the need for a royal prerogative, the government has no intention of providing that royal recommendation. It does not wish to provide that royal recommendation. It is fully at the discretion of the government to do that.

The government could make the decision to be fair, to be equitable and return to workers the hard-earned dollars that they paid into the insurance program but which were taken from the insurance program to be used for other purposes. The government has the ability to do that.

I will make the same case today that we made at committee about why the government should provide that royal recommendation. The notion that the money is in general revenues and that it would be transferred to a separate fund is really a matter of bookkeeping. It has always been recorded as a figure in Canada's books. The money has been a surplus. It has been a recorded amount. That is how we know it is $46 billion. The government is required to record it.

In that sense it is not really new money. It is money that is there. It is money that has been identified. It is money that was collected for a specific purpose. It is money that should be spent for that specific purpose.

Until and unless the government is prepared to do that, then we know that the government is not taking to heart the interests of workers and employers and the government does not really mean what it says when it talks about running the employment insurance system as an insurance system in the future. Only if the government is prepared to do that will it do so.

We are concerned, as I said, that the changes by the government do not do what the government says they will do. Our amendments in the bill that is before the House would have the effect of ensuring that in the future any surpluses that were collected from employment insurance would go into a fund. There would be a fund that would be maintained. The money could never be taken away and spent for other purposes.

That will not be the case here. Much is made of the notion that by restoring the commission all of a sudden there will cease to be surpluses. The fact is there may be some conservativeness built in to the rate premium assumptions every year in the premium setting process which may cause a bit of a surplus. Any time it is a good year there will be a surplus and there is nothing in the government's reforms that will prevent it from once again, as it has for the past decade, raiding that surplus and continuing to divert moneys for other spending purposes.

The government will continue that unfair, unjust and inequitable form of taxation. It is the taxation that hurts the working families in my riding and typical families in our communities all across the country. They are hard-working people. They are honest. They play by the rules. They pay their taxes. They are trying to pay their mortgages. They are trying to get ahead and build a brighter future. They cannot afford to have additional taxes that are set differently every year, specifically for providing them the security of employment insurance and then face the loss of those premiums.

If a private insurance company were to do that sort of thing, it would probably be prosecuted by the government. However, because the government does it and the government sets the rules, it can get away with it. That is what is wrong with employment insurance today. That is what this bill should fix.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-280, introduced by a Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

This is a very important bill for the simple reason that it deprives the Liberals of the possibility of stealing the workers' money to pay their debts and reduce the deficit to zero at the expense of people who have lost their jobs. It is as simple as that. This minority government then wants to hide behind royal assent. This is regrettable.

I have listened to the parliamentary secretary's praise of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the great work he did on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. It must be kept in mind that the member had recommended that the EI fund become independent and out of the Liberals' hands.

Another thing that is regrettable is that the member for Madawaska—Restigouche was not the only one in committee calling for an independent EI fund. The Liberal member for Beauséjour did as well, Those same two made a recommendation to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that the 12 best earning weeks should be used for calculations

It is, however, no surprise that these same people are contradicting themselves in the House of Commons. In early June, I moved to consider the 12 best weeks, and they voted against it. Now they are contradicting themselves, which is regrettable.

It is a fact, the Conservatives want to have an independent EI fund. I agree. That is not all, however. They also want that independent fund to reduce EI premiums and do nothing else for workers, whom they consider to be a gang of abusers of the system. That is regrettable. It is to be hoped that those watching us this evening will remember that. That is exactly what the Conservatives are saying.

What is more, the Liberals support them in this, which is even more of a pity. They started with EI premiums of $3.04. This dropped to $1.98, then $1.93 , and they want to reduce them another 8¢. They claim that is what workers and employers want, which is absolutely false.

I have often said in the House of Commons that no worker has ever contacted me to complain that he was paying too much in EI premiums. What I have heard from workers is that they were even prepared to pay more if they had to, provided they could qualify for EI.

Employment insurance is a misnomer. It should be called unemployment insurance. It is the Liberals, in 1996, who changed the name to be able to steal the EI fund to pay for the national debt and reach the zero deficit. They did this on the backs of people who lost their job as well as on the backs of women in fish plants who have difficulty working for 12 weeks.

The Liberals then come bragging. The member for Madawaska—Restigouche rose in the House yesterday to congratulate the minister for the best 14 weeks changes. Yet, this same member, in committee, with the member for Beauséjour, recommended the best 12 weeks. I do not understand how they can be so uncaring. They cause suffering to families and children. Some people do not even receive $150 a week in employment insurance during winter periods. They have seasonal jobs.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said that some employers were laying off workers on purpose because they could then receive EI benefits. He does not understand that, in the winter, Chaleur Bay, in the Atlantic, is frozen and that we cannot fish. He does not understand that lobster cannot be caught on the ice, as opposed to Lake Ontario, where people fish for fun. This is not how the industry works.

It is the same for the forest industry. When there are five feet of snow in New Brunswick, loggers cannot go and cut trees.

In Toronto, when there are two inches of snow, the army is called in to clear it up. This is not the same in my region. I can guarantee you that these people cannot go to work.

The bill before us today would have prevented the Liberals from trying to take the money from workers.

I am certain that in 1986, when the Auditor General proposed that the money be put into the consolidated revenue fund it was not to allow the government to use workers' money as it saw fit.

It is ironic to see that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development voted for the bill at first reading, when she was Conservative, but votes against it now that she is Liberal. It is as if you caught a sickness simply by crossing the floor.

It is disgraceful. The minister who voted for the bill and believed in its objective changed her mind. She now believes that royal recommendations cannot be given, that we cannot help workers.

It is sad to see how the Liberals operate. When there were problems in the eastern part of New Brunswick, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac asked me personally to come to the assistance of people in the southeast of the province who were having problems. Everybody agreed that they should be helped.

However, when comes the time to vote in the House, they do not respect their own name and they are not courageous enough to vote for what they believe in. They even lied to us. Shame.

Back home, the unemployment rate tops 20%, because people have never received any help from the Liberals, who were elected for 100 years. If people in our ridings threw the Liberals out, there must be a reason. There has to be a reason, also, why the Conservatives would stand no chance of getting elected in our ridings, given their mindset. They are unable to acknowledge the fact that work is seasonal in some regions.

When I was in Forestville, in Quebec, on the North Shore, 2,500 people took to the streets and they were not just workers. There were also store owners. There were even priests, and I thought it was great when they said that it was no longer a political story, but a human story, and that it was about time that people rallied in the streets and marched to protest decisions by the federal government.

Today, in my opinion, the Liberals should be ashamed to grab $48 billion—that belongs to folks who have lost their job—when today in Canada, there are 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance benefits, but pay the premiums.

Only 32% of the women who contribute to employment insurance qualify for benefits. They are the ones who were most affected. How can the government not recognize that?

Yes, this is insurance for when a person loses his job. This is insurance that lets people in today's labour force take parental leave, for example. Forty or fifty years ago, only five percent of Canadian women were working. That is no longer the case. We have to recognize the reality of today's labour market, and we have to adjust to this market, not do what the Liberals did.

In 1986, when the Auditor General, under Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, suggested that the employment insurance account be part of general revenues, the Liberals were in the opposition and they opposed the idea.

In 1989, my predecessor himself told New Brunswickers to fight against any change to employment insurance, because it would spell disaster for New Brunswick.

Jean Chrétien himself wrote a letter to the people of Rivière-du-Loup, to a group of people receiving employment insurance,and told them, “It is the Conservatives' fault, because they do not look after economic development, they are targeting the wrong people, they are targeting workers”.

When this same government boasted about using the money in the employment insurance account to pay down the debt and achieve zero deficits, it showed that did not care about those who no longer had access to employment insurance.

The Liberals did the same thing as the Conservatives and that is shameful. But I think people will remember. However the idea is not just to remember. The Liberals should know that there are 1.4 million children in Canada who are hungry. It is their fault, because when they cut employment insurance benefits for working men and women who lose their jobs, they worsened poverty in this country. They had better not boast about being a good government because of today's surpluses.

I am asking in all sincerity that changes be made to the employment insurance program for the well-being of workers, families and children in this country.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Manicouagan for the bill he introduced and for his speech, which sums up the situation quite well. Today, we can debate it while receiving the amendment for concordance with the legislation that was passed in June.

I also want to add that I share the opinion of the hon. member who just spoke with great ardour. He made it quite clear that workers are outraged at the injustice against them. It is totally unacceptable to leave these people in misery when they paid for insurance to avoid being in such a situation, if ever they had the misfortune of losing their job.

The basic reason for Bill C-280 is indeed to take away a fund that does not belong to the government and hand over its administration and management to its rightful owners. That way, we will be sure that its original purpose is being met.

This is not unlike what is happening with investment management companies. Over the past two years, we have seen scandals at Norbourg and Enron in the United States. Now that we know that collective assets belonging to the average citizen, to the workers, are mismanaged and misappropriated, we make sure that a regulatory body is in place to protect this fund. What do we do with people who were responsible for administering the fund, but misappropriated the money? First, we take the fund away from them. If it turns out that they misused it, they can end up in prison.

That is what is happening here with the employment insurance fund. We certainly cannot put the government in prison for its management as such, but we can at least question the legitimacy and honesty of what the government does. That is what we are doing now.

This has been going on since 1994, when the current Prime Minister took his post as finance minister. Is that a coincidence? Since 1994, in good years and bad, the fund has been generating surpluses of over $3 billion, which have been used for other purposes.

In her annual report last year, the Auditor General indicated that, in the past eight years, the government had accumulated a $46 billion surplus, by misappropriating funds. That was the amount as of March 31 of last year. By now, this figure is several billion dollars higher. We now estimate it to be $48 billion in funds that belong to the workers and employers who contributed to the EI fund.

How have these surpluses been generated and misappropriated? By slashing EI benefits to the unemployed and tightening up the eligibility rules so that people no longer have access to employment insurance. In 1994-95, 88% of those contributing to EI were entitled to receive benefits. Today, the Canadian Labour Congress estimates that only 38% of contributors qualify. The fund's chief actuary sets that number at 46%. Even it was 46%, that would mean that 54% of all workers contributing to EI are excluded, due to unacceptable rules.

This money is being used to generate these surpluses and is the reason why the government is patting itself on the back and saying that it is dedicated to sound fiscal management and able to pay down the debt.

Last year, of the $9.1 billion surplus in the general fund, the Consolidated Revenue Fund, $3.3 billion came from the EI fund. That is more than one-third.

In the meantime, the unemployed no longer have any income. My colleague said it perfectly earlier, it is making families poor. It is causing family crises. Some people are even committing suicide.

Today, we heard from five groups representing workers who were laid off when their plant closed in the past two years. They had been working in the textile, softwood lumber and electric stove manufacturing industries. There were five different groups.

These people said that the older workers have been unable to find other employment. In 1997, to save money, the government passed a motion eliminating POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. It did this to save money. As a result, once these people reach the age of 55, they can no longer receive EI, but have no income until they are eligible for the Quebec pension plan. In 1986, a program serving that purpose was created, but the current government abolished it in 1997.

What happened to all the workers who have been unable to find other employment since? The government did not bother finding out.

Today, we have heard testimonies. In one plant, there has been five suicides over the past year. In the last 30 months, 15 suicides were reported in another plant. That kind of information is not publicized. There is a sense of decency among people. Workers are embarrassed to find themselves without an income after working in a plant for 30, 35 or 40 years and contributing to the EI fund during all those years. They bought insurance for themselves, figuring that it would at least enable them to have a decent income to support their families with, should they be so unlucky as to lose their jobs. Let me qualify this notion of decent income. At present, it represents 55% of insurable earnings. That is not much. That is what was taken away from them.

Workers who are laid off find themselves with nothing. They have no choice but to eventually go on welfare, but they first have to use up whatever they had saved. When you have worked all your life and end up in such a predicament, you are not only insecure, you are also embarrassed, afraid of what tomorrow may bring, and you feel excluded from the labour market and cheated from recognition for a lifetime of work. This is all very serious, and that is what drives people to commit desperate acts like the ones I mentioned earlier.

On the other side of this House, they are insensitive to such a situation. Remarks like the ones we heard earlier are unacceptable. All they care about is lowering premiums. As my hon. colleague pointed out, that is not what the people who pay the premiums are asking for. The government has not invested a cent in that fund since 1990.

The word theft was used. I know that the word is unparliamentary, but there are ways around it. In the private sector or anywhere outside this House, that is how the actions of anyone with a similar behaviour would be described.

That is why Bill C-280 has to be passed. We must put an end to this injustice.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to check the blues tonight because the language that has been used by my colleague across the way, plus previous speakers, certainly has been borderline. I would ask my colleague to refrain from using unparliamentary language.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary. I caught some of it on the translation and I think the hon. member caught himself in the middle of the debate. For the concluding remarks, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has 30 seconds remaining.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the problem is not about premiums, but about the way they are being used.

Let us give justice to workers. Let us restore the EI program by implementing eligibility requirements that are reasonable and adequate, as well as benefits commensurate with the labour invested, in case of job loss. In doing so, we will start recognizing those who have contributed so much to society. Only then will we be able to think that the government is starting to show some sensitivity.

This government must start concerning itself about all the unemployed who did not receive any help until now. Otherwise, we will have something that is quite dreadful and the Liberal government will be responsible.

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

October 26th, 2005 / 7:35 p.m.

Scarborough—Agincourt Ontario

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program is one of Canada's largest and most visible programs. It matters to Canadians. Everyone wants to ensure that this program is one that Canadians can continue to count on.

Bill C-280 proposes amendments to the Employment Insurance Act and recommends key actions by Parliament.

It calls for the Employment Insurance Commission to explain the rationale for the premium rate and to present that rationale on an annual basis in a report that the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development would table in Parliament.

It recommends that the employment insurance account be reconstituted as an independent account under the control of a new tripartite commission.

It also proposes that a new independent EI account begin with a balance equal to the current accumulated surplus that has been credited to the EI account over a period of 10 years through contributions from the consolidated revenue fund.

Having read and considered Bill C-280, I must say that I have strong reservations about the proposed legislation. This bill raises some very important issues.

Budget 2005 responded to many of the points raised in Bill C-280. My concern is whether the proposed amendments will help to improve this program. Canadians expect their government to run programs as efficiently as possible. EI is no exception. The bill would be costly to taxpayers, employees and employers.

The proposed legislation would require the government to contribute a cash amount equivalent to the current accumulated surplus credited to the EI account, in equal amounts, over 10 years, as soon as the bill becomes law. This change would present itself on the Government of Canada's ledger as a new and very substantial fiscal liability.

The existing federal fiscal framework would be affected and would require new money to fund it. An immediate consequence of Bill C-280 would be that the Government of Canada could lose a significant measure of control over the way employment insurance is managed and EI programs are maintained. Many aspects of EI would become the purview of an independent commission, as proposed in the bill, which would raise questions about accountability.

Changes in these areas ultimately limit the government's ability to deliver important benefits to Canadians. This would limit the significant progress that Canada has been making over the past decade.

Let us consider what EI has been able to achieve over the last 10 years.

Canadians called for a better balance of work and family responsibilities. Our government responded through EI by extending maternity and parental benefits for one full year.

We also introduced a new six week compassionate care benefit so that eligible workers can take a temporary leave of absence from work to provide care or support to a gravely ill or dying close relative.

Canadians wanted more support for acquiring skills and experience. We have eliminated multiple waiting periods for apprenticeship training programs.

In addition, the Speech from the Throne contained a commitment to review the EI program and ensure that it remains well suited to the needs of Canada's workforce. To this end, on February 23 of this year the government announced enhancements to the EI program that take into account the many recommendations put forward concerning changes to EI.

To give some examples of the action we are taking, I would like to describe the three new pilot projects announced for areas of high unemployment.

Through these projects, we are testing the labour market impact of: enabling access to EI benefits after 840 hours of work rather than the present 910 when linked with EI employment programs for new or returning entrants to the labour markets; calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks of earnings over the 52 weeks preceding a claim for benefits; and increasing the working while on claim threshold to allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of benefits to encourage individuals to take work without a reduction in their benefits.

The enhancements we are putting in place are possible thanks in part to the Government of Canada's ability to ensure that EI's policy and program framework remains responsive to the labour market needs of Canadians.

I am further concerned that Bill C-280 may not be effective in achieving positive changes in the way EI operates.

The legislation calls for the creation of a separate EI account that is not consolidated with the government's budgetary revenues and expenditures.

To do this, careful consideration would be required to change the elements of appropriate comptrollership and financial responsibility that exist, in particular, how they would correlate with measures put in place to respond to concerns expressed by the Auditor General of Canada. Since 1986 the EI account has been consolidated with the accounts of government.

Under our current system, EI program revenues and costs are tracked in the EI account and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. The accumulated EI surplus is notional and not supported by any other assets--

Unemployment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

7:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Unfortunately, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, home to CFB Petawawa, and in recognition of the fact that this is the Year of the Veteran, I am pleased to request this debate regarding veterans and their families who have been exposed to the so-called rainbow herbicides, agents orange, purple and white, and a variety of other toxic substances.

There is a need for the government to be honest, open and transparent with individuals who suspect they have been exposed to these substances.

In many ways, the government reaction to these individuals parallels the treatment of Canadian soldiers who were subjects of chemical warfare experiments during World War II.

The first response was years of denial. Then, even when the testing was admitted to, efforts to remedy this were met with an all too common inertia or an all too common inadequacy, and there was no admission that all of this was simply wrong.

Much information remained buried because of the threat of five years' imprisonment made to veterans under the Official Secrets Act.

As time passed, some veterans were accused of fabricating their stories and their ailments, even being called delusional.

It was 60 years before those individuals finally received justice. Unfortunately, for many of those victims, justice came too late. This must not be allowed to happen again.

I am pleased to inform the Minister of National Defence that today's victims of chemical spraying, unlike many of the World War II veterans who were threatened into silence, have no intention of letting this government off the hook when it comes to finding out the truth.

Individuals who have been affected by the spraying of chemical defoliants have come together to form a group: the Agent Orange Association of Canada. They assure me that their members will be in the government's face at every opportunity. Rest assured that there will be tough questions for government candidates in the next federal election, which could be called as soon as next week once the general public has an opportunity to fully digest the waste and corruption of the Liberal Party that the Gomery inquiry is about to expose.

The new association asked me to put this question to the Minister of National Defence, which I am pleased to do:

The recently formed Agent Orange Association of Canada has received many enquiries from people across Canada wishing to provide documented information to help in determining the truth regarding the spraying of deadly toxin-laced defoliants at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. These people are frightened to step forward with information without the protection that a public inquiry would offer.

When will the federal government start a public inquiry that will allow these people to do the right thing and provide information under oath that will reveal the truth to the people of Canada about the spraying of deadly defoliants at CFB Gagetown?

If the government really is intent on arriving at the truth about the spraying of chemical defoliants on or near Canadian military bases, there has to be some sort of protection for those who do come forward to provide information. There is no lack of people who wish to testify. Many have documentation and are prepared to make several revelations.

They fear to come forward at this time. Some are silenced by the Official Secrets Act, others by confidentiality agreements, and still others are bound by a non-disclosure clause in compensation packages that they have already accepted. Individuals are afraid of losing their pensions and compensation packages and are even afraid of doing jail time. These are the same threats that were made to mustard gas veterans.

If the government is sincere in all of its public statements regarding the issue of exposure to agent orange and its other forms, a blanket of immunity must be announced today in order for all the facts to be made public. Failure to do so brings with it the suggestion that the government does not want the truth to be made known. The public is left with the conclusion that a government cover-up is going on.

Many individuals who have contacted me have come to the conclusion that only a change in government will bring justice. One individual went so far as to say that the current government is saddled with so many scandals that this scandal is too far down the list for the government to concern itself with.

There is another issue that I would like to bring forth for the Minister of National Defence to answer. Why have the local civilians who live in and around CFB Gagetown, in places like Oromocto, Burton, Hoyt, Enniskillen, Petersville and Welsford, not been recognized for health problems and deaths as a consequence of exposure to chemical herbicides?

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:45 p.m.

Bramalea—Gore—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, understanding the use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown is an ongoing priority for the government. The Department of National Defence has come up with a strong, comprehensive plan to find answers to the questions of many Canadians. I welcome this opportunity to share the information we have and actions national defence has already taken and intends to take in the near future.

As the Minister of National Defence has repeated in the House, the government is determined to identify and report on as many of the facts as possible regarding the use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to the present day.

To this end, the Department of National Defence developed a comprehensive fact finding plan. The fact finding strategy is well-known since it has been made widely available to the public and the media. In fact, the Minister of National Defence has spoken about it in the House several times.

Let me briefly review the action plan for the benefit of hon. members. The government will identify Canadian forces members and civilian employees who were present when herbicides were sprayed at CFB Gagetown from 1952 to the present date. It will collect data regarding the use, disposal and management of all herbicides used at CFB Gagetown since 1952. Finally, it wants to understand the relationship between the use of herbicides at CFB Gagetown and its effect on human health.

Thorough fact finding, rigorous science and a transparent process are essential in order for the government to develop an appropriate response.

Moreover, as a longer term project, National Defence will initiate research to review the use of herbicides at military bases across Canada.

While we have no record of any unregistered products being tested at other CF bases, this longer term project will also determine whether any unregistered products are used at our CF bases.

I am pleased to report that we have made progress and are going forward with the fact finding tasks. As we speak, soil testing is under way at CFB Gagetown and the results will be available and made public in the coming months.

We have all heard about the resignation of Mr. Blaney as the fact finding and outreach coordinator due to health reasons. The government is working to identify a new coordinator and should be able to announce a replacement soon.

The Department of National Defence has set up a 1-800 number for the public to report information that might be of use as part of the fact finding and outreach process. Anybody who has information on this issue should call 1-866-558-2945.

Current and former employees of National Defence and other federal government employees who feel they may suffer from an occupational illness as a result of exposure to herbicides used during the course of their employment may submit the details of their claim to the DND civilian human resources office in Gagetown and the regional injury compensation unit in Moncton, respectively.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, a solution to the poisoning, be it intentional or accidental, must provide for all victims, not just the military and civilian DND employees.

There is an understandable sense of urgency among the potential victims of the chemical spraying. Individuals are frustrated by years of silence and intransigence by the government on this issue.

Failure to respond to this issue leaves current members of DND wondering what kind of ill treatment they might endure, and then be met with years of inaction and secrecy.

The question has to be asked. Does anyone actually believe that Brigadier General Gordon Sellar would have been compensated for exposure to agent orange had he been a private soldier or a non-commissioned officer?

The time has come for the government to do the right thing and do it now. Matters have dragged on long enough. It must take responsibility.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, due to health reasons, Mr. Blaney has announced he is withdrawing as the fact finding and outreach coordinator. We are sorry to hear that he is not well and we hope he recovers quickly. I would like to thank him for his contribution and for setting the foundation of a successful outreach process.

The deputy coordinator will ensure the continuity of the work of the fact finding and outreach office. In the meantime, the government will quickly work to identify a new coordinator. The government will continue, without delay, to work on its other fact finding tasks. Rushing to unsubstantiated conclusions would compromise the whole process and the government's commitment to do things the right way.

We are trying to report on what happened over a period of 50 years, starting in 1952. It will take some time to obtain a clear picture. This task will require time and patience to gather all the information needed to identify and report on the facts--

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Québec.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

7:55 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the subject of this adjournment debate is of great interest to me. The closing of Canada Post's Quebec City sorting centre and its transfer to Montreal is a cause for concern in my riding.

This week, we tabled a petition signed by 130,000 individuals against the closing of the Quebec City sorting centre and its transfer to Montreal.There has been a large movement to oppose the closing of the centre, all over the Quebec City area. It should be noted that all political and socio-economic stakeholders in the area have mobilized and have supported the union's position opposing the closing of Quebec City sorting centre.

In spite of that large mobilization, in spite of all our question in the House and of our petitions, the Minister of National Revenue who is in charge of the issue continues to say that he will close the sorting centre, that he will not change his position and that his decision is final. He does not intend to show the slightest openness to solutions and does not want to hear any arguments for the continued operation of the Quebec City sorting centre that people from the union or from the support coalition might put forward.

When I asked questions in the House, the minister answered that there would be no job loss.

Now is a good opportunity to clarify this point with the minister. This region is definitely going to lose jobs. Currently some 300 people work directly in mail processing in Quebec City, but there are other employees who worked at the sorting centre who will probably lose their jobs as well, including forty or so security guards, housekeeping staff, administrative staff and managerial staff.

The minister says nothing about the 160 temporary employees hired on call to sort mail. They will also lose their jobs and get nothing.

When the minister says there will not be any job losses, he is referring to the 300 people who process mail in Quebec City. They will leave when they retire in a few years. However, their jobs will not be renewed.

We are saying there will be job losses for the Quebec City area. The entire payroll represents $15 million for the greater Quebec City area. That is not insignificant. This is money that will not come back to the regional economy.

So, we oppose this closure. We know that there is an overall downsizing plan. There are six sorting centres in Ontario, two in Alberta, two in British Columbia and one in Quebec City. This means that there will no longer be a mail sorting centre in Quebec City since it will have relocated to Montreal.

So we have asked for a restructuring plan. We have asked if the downsizing was just and equally distributed among the Canadian provinces. Under these circumstances, why does the minister not announce a moratorium on this decision so that we can see his plan and overall strategy?

We know that 300 Saint-Paul is an outdated building, but there would have been other solutions, in the future, so that we could keep a sorting centre. Under the circumstances, we would have appreciated a sign that the minister was keeping an open mind.

Despite everything that was put forward to change the minister's mind, the major protest that was held—

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

8 p.m.

Bramalea—Gore—Malton Ontario

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the member's remarks. Before proceeding with a detailed explanation of the changes that will occur in Quebec City, I would like to talk briefly about Canada Post, a company in which we, as Canadians, take pride, a company recognized around the world for its efficiency and postal expertise.

Canada Post makes a significant contribution to the national economy. Each year, the corporation spends $2.8 billion on the purchase of goods and services, thereby, creating 30,000 additional jobs. However, it does this responsibly. While the former post office department often posted deficits of about $500 million a year, Canada Post is now earning profits for its shareholders: all Canadians.

The creation of Canada Post Corporation in 1981, approved by all political parties in the House of Commons and by the postal unions, has paid off very well. What an outstanding turnaround in a fairly short period.

Canada Post's financial success has not been achieved on the backs of Canadians. Quite the contrary, letters are now delivered at some of the most competitive rates in the world, despite a harsh climate and a vast country.

However, without wishing to appear alarmist, the corporation is facing major challenges, similar to all postal administrations around the world. Communications methods are changing fast and Canada Post must adapt to market changes in response to declining mail volumes noted in recent years, a decline that will be proportional to the rise in electronic communications.

At the same time, improvements to processes, productivity and equipment in recent years have developed greater processing capacity in some postal plants across Canada.

In this very real context, Canada Post is continually assessing its network of mail processing plants throughout Canada to optimize its operations and improve service to Canadians.

Given the current context, the recent announcement that processing of letter mail and ad mail will be transferred from Quebec City to Montreal over the next two years was necessary. The transfer will be carried out without putting a single permanent employee out of a job.

Canada Post must review its operations at the national level. It must also consider that no fewer than 10,000 employees will retire over the next four years of their own free will and in full compliance with the collective agreements.

In Quebec City, Canada Post will continue to invest in the community and will remain a large employer by maintaining 1,100 jobs and economic benefits of $90 million.

Planned investments for the Quebec region by Canada Post include $750,000 to renovate one of its facility for use as a parcel processing hub. It also will have to build a new letter carrier station to replace the one now at 300 Saint-Paul Street, and that means another investment of $2 million to $4 million. The same is true for the need to move administrative employees to another location, which will cost some $1.2 million.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the parliamentary secretary who is there to answer on behalf of the minister has learned his lines well. He is feeding us all the same arguments that the Minister of National Revenue raised.

I would like to remind hon. members that, two weeks ago, representatives of the coalition sent the minister a letter, requesting a meeting. They have received no answer.

I would also like to say this to the parliamentary secretary who spoke. We can understand that management has to be downsized in the sorting centre to match the decline in mail volumes since the advent of electronic mail. But closing the centre outright or transferring it to Montreal is another story. Canada Post's mission is to provide quality service. The parliamentary secretary will not have me believe that, should the Quebec City sorting centre be transferred to Montreal, it would take less time for mail from Lévis to be sent to Montreal for sorting, and then delivered in Quebec City.

We have received most unsatisfactory answers so far.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I already pointed out in my initial words, no permanent employees will lose their job. This commitment is possible because Canada Post will easily be able to reassign its employees affected by the transfer to other locations in Quebec, since some 300 of its 1,400 permanent employees will take a well deserved retirement of their own free will.

The vast majority of retiring employees are postal clerks and letter carriers and Canada Post is providing them with a good retirement, consistent with their collective agreement. In fact, if we consider that a clerk earns $45,000 a year on average, not including overtime and premiums, and that a pension represents 70% of this salary, the retiree will be at home with a good pension of $32,000 a year, also fully indexed.

In Quebec, Canada Post will continue to invest in the community and will remain a large employer as it maintains 1,100 jobs and economic benefits of $90 million.

Unemployment Insurance ActAdjournment Proceedings

8:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

(The House adjourned at 8:07 p.m.)