Debates of June 2nd, 2005

Supply

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

There is certainly all that, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for his question.

I listened to the new minister's speech on all the adjustments made in the new program. I think that these adjustments address many of the irritants in the employment insurance system.

I want to reiterate that it is not easy to come up with a definitive answer and say, “There is the solution”. That is the beauty of the system. As I explained, we are trying to make adjustments. Sometimes we make mistakes, which we catch the next time we conduct an evaluation. I think that we have to look at the big picture, because this is a program that benefits the vast majority of Canadians.

Full employment would be the best, not taking EI benefits away. That is what everyone dreams of, I am sure. Every Canadian dreams of having a good paying job. This may not be very realistic, but we must nonetheless hope for that dream to one day become a reality. Efforts must also be made to help the most disadvantaged through this program. We are solving a great many of the problems. Are we solving all of them? The future will tell. With a balanced government, we will endeavour to make the necessary adjustments, when appropriate.

I cannot repeat it enough. According to the Auditor General, the employment insurance account should be part of the consolidated revenue fund. When I hear people say that we on this side have pillaged it, that irks me. After all, as I said earlier, there has not always been a surplus in the employment insurance account. Not so long ago, it was seriously in the red. That does not do those who lose their jobs any good. In my opinion, this surplus has been very well spent, that is, on the needs of Canadians, on health care, at various levels of the economy, and even by reinvesting into the economy. That does help employment.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will find that I am rising a little too often, but I really care about this issue.

The member for Gatineau is obviously very pleased when she says that $320 million will be given to the unemployed. However, this is just a drop in the ocean, compared to $47 billion. Also, considering that premiums total in excess of $1 billion annually, this $320 million is just money that will be redistributed.

Will that money still go into the consolidated fund, or should it be given back to workers who need it to make ends meet and pay their rent?

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we would never think that the hon. member is rising too often. This is an extremely important issue, particularly in Quebec. It is an issue that was at the forefront during a good part of last year's election campaign, if not throughout that campaign.

I do not agree with the member when he talks about $320 million being a drop in the ocean. He said that while $1 billion is invested in the fund, only $300 million is given back. As I mentioned, the money is there, but a fair balance must be struck in the employment insurance fund, in order to meet needs.

The hon. member is also suggesting that the money put in the consolidated revenue fund just evaporates. That is not necessarily the case. Many investments are made in the Canadian economy. This is helpful and, as the minister mentioned earlier, it allows us to drastically lower unemployment rates. This may be the most important point in the minister's speech, namely that we can reduce the unemployment rate all across Canada, including in Quebec.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been an extremely important issue for communities throughout Canada for 30 years now. I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Both of us, like the majority of the NDP caucus, wanted to take part in today's debate, because it is an extremely important one. Our presence in the House attests to the importance of this issue for communities throughout Canada. Too bad we cannot say the same thing about the Liberal caucus.

The truth is that the many cuts to the EI program have hurt communities across Canada, from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories to the north. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the hard work of the member for Acadie—Bathurst on this issue. He has worked tirelessly, night and day, in order to advance this issue affecting not only his region but all workers in Canada.

Thanks to his continued commitment and hard work, we see the opportunity, with today's motion, for all members in the House to be able to renew and improve the situation facing the unemployed in this country or those in seasonal employment.

I have a great deal of admiration for the work done by the member for Acadie—Bathurst. I think he deserves the thanks and respect of all members of the House.

The reality is that when we are talking about employment insurance we are not talking about some abstract concept. The motion before us today is to take the best 12 weeks of income in the last 52 weeks preceding the claim, or the best 12 weeks of income since the beginning of the last claim, whichever is shorter, for Canadians in areas of high unemployment.

What we have seen over the past 10 years is a collapse of the job market in this country. We know that over the 15 years since the signing of free trade agreements and NAFTA, we have actually produced half the number of full time jobs that were created in the 15 years previous. Most jobs created in the economy today are jobs that are part time or temporary in nature.

In January, Statistics Canada reported that the wages for many of the new jobs were at a much lower level than the jobs that used to exist in our economy. We also see that whereas in the past a majority of jobs actually provided pension benefits, now a minority of jobs in our economy actually provide pension benefits. We know as well that the number of jobs with benefits is falling.

The Liberal government has done absolutely nothing to stop the decline in quality jobs. In fact, it has done exactly the opposite. What we have seen is contracting out and outsourcing. The Minister of International Trade has been actually encouraging companies to outsource and take their jobs offshore.

We have seen our Canadian flag lapel pins being produced in China rather than in Canada. We have seen what disrespect this Liberal government holds workers in communities across the country. We have seen its complete abrogation of planning of an industrial strategy or even providing a trade policy that comes with jobs. Instead of that, we have a jobless trade policy.

In the midst of this uncertainty, the fact that the quality and number of full time jobs has been declining steadily over the past decade, families are now having to work harder and work more hours. We are seeing the average number of hours worked in a week for those workers who have jobs increasing at the same time as the real income per hour of the average Canadian worker has fallen 60¢ in real terms. This means that as the cost of living increases, the actual salary and benefits provided by that job are decreasing.

In the midst of all this, we saw the Liberal government, not only failing to act on the job front, but penalizing those workers who are without employment because of the Liberal government's own policies. The Liberal government has basically taken the $48 billion out of the employment insurance fund. The Liberals have very grudgingly provided some restoration of the benefits that have been taken away from those workers who are unemployed.

It is not because of a lack of work. As I mentioned, the member of Parliament for Acadie—Bathurst, who has been fighting without rest to address these concerns, is a very passionate advocate for seasonal workers. His motion today seeks, in a small way, to move forward the agenda to start addressing those concerns in rural communities where seasonal workers are the mainstay of the local economy.

It would be surprising to me if this motion, which is incremental and begins to provide some support that those communities have been missing, would be refused by any member of this House. We understand the problems in the job market. We understand what is happening to the average Canadian family. We understand that the Liberal government has done nothing.

However the Liberal government now has a chance to actually start moving forward. We can do it because this is a minority Parliament. We can have support from the opposition parties. I am certain that the members of the Bloc Québécois will be supportive of this and I certainly would hope that members of the Conservative Party would be supportive.

By adopting this motion today, we can move forward on the agenda to address those very real concerns of rural communities and seasonal workers across this country. It also affects urban regions. We are talking about a modest but significant contribution to start to address the Liberal cutbacks and the Liberal misuse of the employment insurance fund.

The Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds has called for a whole series of improvements to employment insurance. The government has been very tentative. However, on the corporate sector scheme for tax gifts, the government was very quick to respond in the budget. It provided almost $5 billion in corporate tax gifts. It was very quick to do that.

The subcommittee has called for improvements to employment insurance. There has been a strong push for improvements by the NDP caucus, by the member for Acadie—Bathurst and other members of the House. Despite that, what has come back are very small pilot projects which only address in a very small and almost insignificant way the significant, devastating action of the government when it comes to employment insurance.

Our role in the House has been a productive one. We 19 members of the NDP believe we are here to get the job done, to remove that disconnect between what happens on Parliament Hill and what happens in communities across the country. There is one key way to address the disconnect between Parliament and the communities across the country. We saw Bay Street policies in the recent budget until the NDP pushed for major changes to finally start to address the post-secondary education crisis, to address the increase in homelessness and poverty and to address the environmental deterioration. That NDP move to push forward a new agenda, eliminating the corporate tax gifts and putting forward things that matter for people and the environment is replicated in the motion today. We are here to work.

We are advancing the motion because we want to make significant changes that will help communities and the vast majority of Canadians across this country. We want to deal with the significant deterioration in the quality of work in every corner of Canada. I hope all members today will support the motion.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. He was critical of the government's performance on the economy. He was factually incorrect in what he has said, quite dramatically. If he does not believe it, he should look at the recent statistics in The Economist . It compared Canada to the other nations of the world in economic performance, and as I said before, we lead the OECD countries.

It is interesting that comments were made previously by one of the hon. member's colleagues who was critical of my riding in that there is less use of EI. Yes, there is less use of EI because more people are employed. They are not using EI because they are getting jobs and that is the key.

As a government, we made a number of changes, as the member knows full well, including reducing the minimum hours of work needed. We also made sure that the benefits were paid on the best 14 weeks of 52, not on the average of 26 weeks.

We have also put in place measures to train people to get the skills required to get the jobs that we are trying to attract here. We want to make sure we have an EI system that is sustainable in the future for the people who need it.

We need an economy that balances good microeconomic capabilities with good macroeconomic decisions. That is the balance we need to have. When we have that, we have an economy that provides jobs so people do not need EI.

Let us address the question at hand. In the member's area, a number of people work in the fisheries industry and are seasonal employees. On the west coast, we have the same challenges too. Would it not make more sense for us to put a greater investment into skills development? We have done that. That would enable those fisheries workers to gain larger employment in such areas as the inshore fisheries, on-land fish farming and fish farming in certain areas that are not environmentally destructive. This has been done very effectively in places like Norway, Iceland and certain parts of Chile. I am not talking about the Far East, where things have been done very badly.

I ask the hon. member to go back to his constituents and come up with a plan for the government to redirect some of the moneys that are being allocated for skills training to enable his seasonal workers to gain long term stable employment in the areas I mentioned.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to provide the parliamentary secretary with additional input. I hope that means there is an opening on the part of the government to finally start dealing with the communities in crisis across this country.

He mentioned balance. What was balanced about bringing in $4.6 billion in corporate tax gifts when the corporate tax rate in Canada is already lower than it is in the United States and not dealing with housing? There has been no housing funding from the federal government over the last 10 years.

As the parliamentary secretary well knows, in British Columbia we have seen a tripling of homelessness in areas on Vancouver Island and in the lower mainland. The lineups at food banks are getting longer and longer. The government and its provincial Liberal counterparts in British Columbia are responsible for that shameful record.

Fortunately the NDP forced changes and for the first time there will actually be funding going into housing. Post-secondary education is in a crisis as well. Thanks to the NDP we now have a budget that actually starts to deal with that crisis and starts to deal with the issue of access to training.

There was nothing balanced about the Liberal budget until the NDP brought in components to make it a better balanced budget. We have 19 seats now and after the next election if we have more, and the polls certainly indicate that we will, we will be pushing for even better changes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me.

I hear a great deal of talk in the House about how wonderful the employment insurance program has been for Canadians, but I need to focus people's attention on what some of the changes have meant over the last several years.

I applaud the member for Acadie—Bathurst for bringing forward this very important motion to deal with one aspect of the employment insurance program.

In 1990, 74% of unemployed Canadians were receiving what was then called UI. By 2001, only 39% of unemployed Canadians were entitled. That is a huge shift in public policy leaving some of our most vulnerable people at risk.

Because I am the women's critic for the NDP, it would be remiss of me not to point out that in 1990, 69% of unemployed women were covered, but by 2001 only 33% of unemployed women were covered by EI. That is a shameful record. It has actually driven more Canadians into poverty. These numbers are from the Canadian Labour Congress and they talk about the fact that EI cuts are the single most important reason for the rise in child poverty. Sixty per cent of the million workers cut from EI eligibility had incomes below $15,000. This loss in benefits averaged $4,832.

I have a couple more numbers to present before I put the face of a person on this reality. We have seen that in many places women have been disproportionately hurt. What we found is that only 33% of unemployed women receive benefits compared to 44% for men. In five provinces, insurance coverage for women is below 30%. In Ontario only 23% of unemployed women get EI. In some cities only 20% of unemployed women get EI. That is outrageous in an age where we talk about gender equity.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst did some investigation and there was a report called “The Human Face: Employment Insurance”. Someone from my riding, Jack McLellan from Nanaimo, British Columbia was quoted as saying that he had attended the funeral of a co-worker, Brian Gellhoed, a victim of our eroded social safety net. Brian had taken his own life after his EI payments stopped. Too proud to sell his home and the personal belongings he had acquired during his lifetime in order to qualify for welfare, Brian preferred to end it all.

It is absolutely shameful that we talk only about numbers and not about the human face of what happens to people in our communities who no longer have this very important social safety net. Not only do Canadian reports talk about the fact that this is a shameful state in Canada, but we have been cited under international conventions. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has specifically called for a gender based analysis of the employment insurance program because it so seriously disadvantages women.

In addition, FAFIA has conducted a gender based analysis of the last budget, but specifically talks about the fact that the employment insurance legislation has disadvantaged women who are often part time, seasonal workers and are in and out of the workforce due to factors well beyond their control. This very good motion by the member for Acadie—Bathurst would help redress some of these issues.

In addition, women often have to take on other responsibilities. They are often primary caregivers in their home. They are often involved in senior caregiving. Women are often in and out of the workforce through absolutely no fault of their own. If we are truly committed to equity and gender equality, for women's equality in this country, we must look at the employment insurance legislation in this light.

Many studies talk about the impact. Even Statistics Canada talks about it in a report which notes that not collecting EI has important implications for an individual's probability of being poor while unemployed. Regardless of the policy environment, poverty is significantly higher among those who experience unemployment but do not receive EI benefits.

About 60% of the million workers kept from EI eligibility had incomes below $15,000. We keep talking about strategies to address child poverty. We do not have child poverty unless we have family poverty. This translates to the fact that we have so many women who cannot access this important social safety net.

The tightened eligibility rules for employment insurance have done one thing. We talked earlier about the fact that fewer and fewer women were actually able to receive employment insurance. To put this into context, benefits were reduced to 55% of income and this is the lowest percentage in the history of employment insurance in Canada. The replacement rate of income was 67% in 1971, 60% in 1980, 57% in 1993 and 55% after 1997.

Given the fact that many women and men are earning less than $15,000 a year, we ask them to go on employment insurance earning only 55% of that. How do we expect Canadian women and men to feed, clothe and house their families? I challenge any member in the House to live on that kind of family income. None of us would be willing to do that. In fact, we are asking people to live in third world conditions.

When we talk about commitment to families and the importance of healthy families to nurture our communities, our economy and our social well-being, we must commit to employment insurance programs that support those values.

The steelworkers provided a report called “It's a Balancing Act: A Steelworker Guide to Negotiating the Balance of Work-Life Responsibilities”. That report talks about some real challenges and asks parliamentarians to take a stand as they move forward to improve the lives of Canadian women and men.

We often hear about the fact that these wonderful changes to maternity and paternity leave have made a huge difference in the lives of Canadian men and women. The problem is that many Canadian women and men no longer qualify. The steelworkers specifically say that although the length of maternity, paternity and parental leave has increased to a year, the benefit rate and eligibility requirements leave many families without protection. I applaud the fact that we have seen some improvements in those areas, but many Canadian women just cannot access it.

We are talking about workers who are disadvantaged by the current regulations. Currently women and men who are self-employed cannot access the employment insurance program. When we are talking about maternity and paternity benefits, we are talking about a great gap in wage supports for men and women who are actually a vital part of our Canadian economy.

We keep talking about entrepreneurial spirit. We keep talking about small business being the driver of our economy. Yet, the very people who are engaged in those kinds of activities and are self-employed do not qualify for benefits that would help them keep their businesses vital, active and contributing in the longer run.

In conclusion, the motion before the House is a small step toward ensuring that the Employment Insurance Act more readily meets the needs of workers in Canada. If we value our workers and communities and say that our families are important, we must ensure the social safety nets are there, so that Canadian men and women have some certainty after their employment ends that they have some income to feed their children and keep themselves stable.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has focused on one thing, basically EI, but I would challenge her to focus on two aspects of this issue. One is certainly employment insurance. However, let us also talk about employment. How can we get people who can work off the unemployments lines and off EI, so they can use their talents and skills or acquire skills to be long term employees and contribute to their families and communities, which they want to do? That is where the proposals that we put forward come into play and the investments we have made in skills development.

The other issue she brings forward that is not often spoken about, and I think needs to be and I am glad she did, is how do people actually survive on very low amounts of money. It is profoundly sad to see people struggling, making minimum wage or thereabouts, and trying to provide for themselves and their families. That is extremely difficult.

We must do a better job in reducing or eliminating the tax burden, certainly on those who are making less than $20,000 a year, but also those in the poor or low middle class, keeping more money in their pockets which would enable them to take care of themselves and their families. That is what our goal should be.

The problem with the member's party's proposals with respect to EI is that where this has been used and where a shift over that curve to where EI or its equivalent becomes too attractive to acquire, then it actually acts as a disincentive to work. That is not what we want to do.

Would she not agree that the changes we have made to the EI program are very good, and would she not also support us making further investments into reducing the tax burden on people who are the poor or the low middle class, and furthermore, making the strategic investments in skills training which we have already done?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues here. When we are talking about investing in skills development, I came from a university/college background, so I absolutely support investing in skills development. However, one of the challenges with the existing programs is that they are often narrow in scope. They are often fairly complicated procedural mechanisms for people to access. They are not often seated in the reality of many people's communities.

They tend to be a one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach that do not recognize the needs of the fishery workers in New Brunswick, the forestry workers, and the fishery workers on the west coast. So, yes, we should invest, and yes, we want to have investments and contribute to a healthy economy, but we need to be more flexible in our approaches around this.

On the issue around reducing taxes, although I would applaud reducing taxes on people who earn less than $20,000, we often look at tax reduction as a simplistic approach to fixing a complex problem. Unless we seek those kinds of measures within the context of a broader social strategy, they will fail.

People pay minimum taxes on $20,000 as it is. However, we must look at initiatives like affordable housing and education. We need that comprehensive strategy in order to ensure that people have a way of getting themselves out of poverty.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did a good job of touching on women and the collection of employment insurance. I remind everybody in this House this is something that workers pay into as well as employers. This is not a handout. This is something that is actually deferred to have an insurance program. For example, under the current system, similar to women, less than 30% can actually collect. Imagine having an insurance policy for one's home where one basically spins the wheel and only has a third of a chance of actually recovering despite paying into a system.

I know as well persons with disabilities who, for example, cannot work a certain amount of hours per week and choose, because of their limitations, to work a shorter amount of hours week and then lose that job. They cannot collect any benefits. How fair is that when they are doing the responsible thing by working to the fullest extent of their abilities?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that exactly fits in with the description that I had around the challenges that many women face. Men and women with disabilities who are, by a variety of circumstances, only able to work part time or seasonal or non-standard employment pay into the EI system and are just as disadvantaged as women.

If we want to encourage people's participation to whatever extent that they are able, we must look at a system that recognizes their differences.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your very successful marathon race and we are very proud of your efforts.

This is a very interesting motion that we have before us today brought to us by the NDP to provide EI benefits to Canadians in regions that have unemployment rates at 10% or more.

I acknowledge that there are problems with the EI benefit program and I would like to focus on some of those problems rather than creating a new issue.

For regions that have unemployment in excess of 10%, it is suggested to give them money to keep people on employment benefits and to keep them unemployed. That is not the solution that Canadians want. They want to see those areas that are struggling to be vibrant areas where their unemployment is lower and not to maintain people in that type of situation.

I am thinking of the Atlantic accord. Why is the House delaying the passage of that? It is the Conservative Party that wants to break that off, deal with it right now, and let the Atlantic people have their money. However, it is the NDP-Liberal alliance that is keeping that money from the Atlantic provinces.

I also have some difficulty with the EI fund. It is the $46 billion. I used to be an employer and I was also an employee. The EI program is an excessive tax. Canadians are being overtaxed. It is a prime example where the government tries to get more taxes out of Canadians by overtaxing them through the EI program. It is a $46 billion surplus. We have heard from the government that there did not used to be a surplus. There is now. The government is overtaxing Canadians. It is overtaxing employees and employers. It has to stop.

We heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there is a new compassionate care program that is part of EI. I am disappointed that the NDP is not dealing with some of the problems with the EI program that are causing problems for Canadians.

The compassionate care program touches me passionately because I have a constituent who is dying. Her name is Sue. She is 43 years old. She has been taking care of her mother. I have spoken with the NDP about this. I have been bringing this matter before the House to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development since January. Time and time again I have been asking for support from the NDP on this and there is nothing.

This is part of the EI program and the NDP is not supporting compassionate care for Canadians. We have heard nothing but excuses from the Liberals on compassionate care. We heard today that it is a new program. In fact, this is the third fiscal year that it has been in and the government is still calling it a new program that is still under review.

The government, with the backing of the NDP, is not calling a sibling part of the family. It is not calling a sister part of the family. It is absurd. Why is it not dealing with this in the deal that the NDP got over a weekend in Toronto? Why was it not in budget Bill C-48?

All of a sudden the NDP comes up with something that sounds good, but it does not meet the needs of Canadians. It is not practical. There are all kinds of opportunities to help Canadians and compassionate care is one of them.

My constituent who is 43 years old had been taking care of her 73 year old mother and then she contracted cancer. She is not able to take care of herself or her mother. She is not married and has no children. It is a very sad story. Her sister came from the Okanagan to take care of Sue and she applied for the compassionate care program. It is a program that is already in existence to keep families together in the last days of their lives.

They can apply for six weeks of EI benefits, providing they qualify. The government, with the support of the NDP, says that a sister is not called a family member. Genetically they are the closest, sister and a sister, or a brother and a sister or a brother and a brother. Siblings are the closest genetically and the government is saying that it will not allow a sister to take care of a sister. It is a tragedy.

What happened in Langley is they appealed this. They went to the board of referees, which is the appeal board. I want to read the decision of the appeal board was. The appeal board was very critical of the government and gave some strong recommendations of what should be happen. The board of referees hears a great number of appeals on the issue of compassionate care benefits which is an EI program. It said:

The Board finds that there is no compassion in a piece of legislation that would not specifically prescribe a sibling to be a family member and consequently, deny that sibling the basic human decency to receive benefits while comforting a dying sibling.

Why have we not heard about this from the NDP? Why is it not fighting for this?

The board went on to say:

The Board is of the understanding that the Commission can enact new Regulations to the Employment Insurance Act that would serve to broaden the definition of family member to include sibling and other persons who are members of a class of persons prescribed.

Why are we not hearing about this from the NDP? It further said:

This Board believes that the failure of the Commission and the Minister to act swiftly in these matters of Compassionate Care amendments has only served to exacerbate the suffering endured by families as they care for a dying family member.

Why are we not hearing that from the NDP?

The board went on:

The Board believes the Minister and the Commission, in their failure to act urgently to rectify the inadequacies of the Compassionate Care legislation, can be viewed as being neglectful of the trust reposed in them.

Why are we not hearing from the NDP?

The board of referees goes on and recommends that the commission and the minister review this matter as an urgent, critical matter of business.

It is unbelievable that we are hearing rhetoric and not dealing with the real issues that Canadians are facing.

Being involved with this, I have heard now from Olga Petrik from Ontario. She went to take care of her dying sister in Richmond. She also applied for the compassionate care benefits and the appeal board said that absolutely, a sister did qualify, that a sister was a family member. She was approved for the compassionate care program. The minister has now put a stop on that and is appealing that decision of the board. It is disgraceful.

Why are we not hearing anything from the NDP about that? It has been totally silent about this. Canadians are suffering and are dying. The NDP is not speaking about it. It wants to keep Canadians who are unemployed on unemployment.

We need to take care of Canadians. I encourage the NDP to bring up motions that are not rhetoric, but that deal with the real issues with which Canadians deal. It is too important. Dying Canadians cannot wait. The NDP is not dealing with the motions and the issues with which Canadians want to be dealing.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this kind of talk makes me want to weep, almost as much as the Conservatives' position.

The hon. member for Langley is making accusations about us with respect to the Atlantic accord. Knowing how the Conservative Party feels about the Atlantic provinces, they need not give us any lectures.

I wonder sometimes if the hon. member for Langley knows that when the Liberals came into power in 1993, the EI fund was in a deficit. In fact, it had a $5.884 billion deficit. By 1994, the governing Liberal Party had already managed to reduce the EI deficit to $3.601 billion. The hon. member makes a point of saying that it is just a hidden tax. I would point out to the hon. member, who gave us this speech, that the contribution rate has decreased considerably. That might make him happy.

How does he reconcile the Conservative Party's so-called new provisions in favour of the Atlantic provinces with the comments made by its leader on the inability of Atlantic Canadians to take charge of their own lives? He said these people do nothing but chase after their EI cheques. How does he explain this pseudo interest in the Atlantic provinces? This party does not give the impression that it has a very good opinion of them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I looked through the motions with which the House dealt. There was a Conservative motion that there be no clawbacks, that the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador, receive those. It was the government that voted against it. I do not believe the government really wants Newfoundland and Labrador to get those funds.

There have been all kinds of tactics that it has been pulling. Now the latest one is that it wants to have this as part of another bill, an omnibus bill. It does not want to break it up because it knows it will pass and it wants it stalled.

We want to help Atlantic Canada and I believe Liberal government does not.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to my Conservative Party colleague from Langley who is being critical of the NDP for not putting everything into the motion today. We all know that only so much can be put into an opposition day motion.

As was mentioned by my colleague from Winnipeg earlier, the Conservatives had numerous opportunities to bring up motions to benefit Canadians, but they never did.

In response to his comments about compassionate care, I personally have written the minister on compassionate care, recognizing that the program is not perfect. It needs improvements and needs to encourage payments to other family members as well. I would question whether he might have done any of that. I want to emphasize that my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore also brought in the private member's bill on that before anyone else did.

That is an example of doing positive things for Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question but we are talking about a previous Parliament. In this Parliament--

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Say you're sorry.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

All I receive, even now, is heckling on compassionate care. Not once in the House have NDP members supported our call for the government to permit family members to take care of a dying loved one. Not once.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Wrong, wrong.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Maybe there is going to be a start, but I would appreciate it if they would stop the heckling. Let us do something to keep Canadians together.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the employment insurance fund.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I have had the opportunity to participate in many discussions and debates about the EI fund, how it has ended up in the situation it is in today and how we might fix it.

It is important for Canadians to realize that the largest problem in EI today is the fact that the Liberal government for almost 10 years has deliberately overcharged employers and workers in Canada. The premiums have been too high. I have had some debate with some of my colleagues from the NDP on whether we should cut rates to bring it back into balance or whether we should increase premiums. That has been an honest discussion. There has been no discussion between us that the Liberals have been deliberately overcharging Canadians, running up a large surplus in the EI account year after year and using that money to pay for other general government expenses.

Here we are today with a $46 billion surplus in the EI account. As many Canadians may have heard, in Ottawa this is what is euphemistically called a notional surplus. For those who are not familiar with the concept of a notional surplus, it is a whole series of IOUs totalling $46 billion.

Last year, in reply to the government's Speech from the Throne, amendments were brought forward by my leader and were agreed to by the leader of the NDP and subsequently agreed to by the government. A commitment was made that we would revisit the EI process, that it would be put back in the place where it should have been all along, and that is with balanced finances; money coming in is equivalent to money going out. A commitment was made to stop the Liberal practice of deliberately overcharging and running surpluses year after year and throwing IOUs into the EI notional account and taking that money for other purposes.

We are faced with the issue of a $46 billion surplus. Earlier today I sat at committee and heard Liberal members suggest that we could not possibly repay that $46 billion into the EI account without it causing some sort of fiscal catastrophe. It sounded to me that the government was suggesting that if it were to move on with EI, that $46 billion would be written off and it would start with a fresh sheet of paper.

The $46 billion that ought to be in that account is the property of workers and employers in the country. It is not the property of the government. Nor is it up to the government to decide how to spend it. That money rightfully belongs to workers and employers. One way or another, sooner or later that money needs to be put back into the account, and workers and employers should benefit from those dollars.

One of the ways to address the imbalance is to look at premium rates. We in the Conservative Party have said all along that EI is essentially a payroll tax. Everyone, including the current Prime Minister when he was finance minister, acknowledges that payroll taxes kill jobs. If payroll taxes were reduced, employment opportunities would be increased. More Canadians would be given the opportunity and the honour to hold a job. Surely the best employment insurance scheme for all Canadians is an actual job. For those who are unable to find a job or who cannot keep a full time job throughout the year, programs like EI are meant to help them.

It is also important for us to remember that changes to the EI formula are complicated and will result in changes in terms of the amount of surplus or deficit in the future. I have had this discussion with the member for Acadie--Bathurst in committee a few times and with the member for Sault Ste. Marie. We have agreed to agree that the Liberals are stealing money from employers and workers. We have agreed, in some cases, to disagree in terms of how that balance should be re-struck

I think the first and most important point for all of us in this House and all Canadians to remember is that this government, when pushed if not forced by the three opposition parties, has agreed to fix EI. There is a discussion going on about setting up a separate bank account so that all the money does not go into one place in the consolidated revenue fund.

I know the government loves the consolidated revenue fund because it maximizes flexibility. It maximizes the Liberals' ability to shuffle things around where nobody can see them, to spend dollars here or there where they want to but not actually make sure that people get those dollars.

In my personal life I have a bank account into which I deposit my paycheque and out of which I pay several things, but I also have a retirement savings account that is segregated. It is set aside and I know that the dollars I put in there will stay there until I need them later in life. I also have registered education savings plans for my children and those dollars are set aside in such a place that they are and will be there.

That is what the idea of setting up a separate account for EI is all about. It is to take these dollars that employers and employees contribute to this fund and set them in a place where the sticky fingers of this government cannot get at them. That is what we have had for too many years: the sticky fingers of this government pulling those dollars over into the general account and spending it on a whole host of things. We have spent much of the last month learning where billions and billions of dollars have gone.

I agree with my colleague from the NDP that we need to fix the EI fund. We agree that the money needs to be set aside. We agree that it needs to be in balance, that the payments going out actually must match the revenues coming in.

In our most recent report, we have agreed on a whole variety of changes that need to be made. The ball is now really in the government's court. The government is going to have to decide whether in fact it will respect the wishes of our committee and whether it is going to respect the wishes of this entire Parliament when it voted last year on the Speech from the Throne to actually put EI on the right footing.

That is the job before us. We have a variety of remedies. The resolution before us today may be one part of it. I agree with one other NDP member who said that we cannot do everything at once, but I think it is important that we move forward and balance EI. We have to put it at arm's length from this government, which so obviously cannot be trusted with it. This stack of IOUs worth $46 billion is ample proof of that.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this today. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. I am pleased to see him actually move to an area of debate that I think is much more thoughtful than that his previous colleague who was giving misinformation about previous work that a member of this House had done and tabled here, specifically, and was well known.

I congratulate the member for moving the debate back to an area of debate that is very important. We are talking about a program that has a significant impact on the lives of people across this country.

I have a simple question in terms of his speech. I know that this is a simple step forward for this particular issue. It is something we would like to see happen because we know there is a lot of controversy in this House with regard to how the program should be completed at the end of the day in terms of there being a renewal or it having some type of structural change that can be agreed upon.

We selected an item that we were hoping would have some degree of consensus and fairness about it, which all members could support. Could the hon. member tell us what would be his next suggestion for reformation and fairness past this point in the order?

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that EI is set up in a separate account. It appears we may be moving in that direction, notwithstanding some of the efforts by government members on our human resources committee to punch some holes in Bill C-280.

Bill C-280 actually states that the government should repay the $46 billion. We have heard all kinds of excuses as to why that cannot happen immediately and we have heard about all the problems that would ensue. They almost make it sound as though the government actually has no intention of ever repaying that $46 billion.

I would be glad to work with opposition members from all parties to hold the feet of this government to the fire and make sure this money does not disappear. That is probably the biggest piece of this puzzle. As I said earlier, we can debate how we should bring this fund back into balance in terms of the amount that comes in and the amount that goes out, but I think the first and absolutely the most important point is to get this government to recognize that the $46 billion belongs to workers and employers.

Let us get that resolved. At that point, we can then have an honest discussion about how it would be divided.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague demonstrates a good working knowledge of the whole EI program and a genuine interest. There is a report here with 28 amendments. With 99 members of Parliament, his party as the official opposition gets a great number of opposition days on which it could in fact move any one of these recommendations and substantially improve the EI program.

Can he tell me why his party does not use its political advantage and political leverage for something useful and put forward a motion to amend EI at its very next opportunity on the next opposition day?

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is an important issue and that using opposition days to move one's agenda forward is one tool, but there are others. In that report my colleague references, there were certain recommendations that all opposition members in the committee agreed to and others that we did not agree to.

I can tell him what my concern was at that time. We were provided with what was essentially a laundry list of different changes that could be made to the EI payout schedule: that people would work fewer weeks, or that the percentage of income would be increased by 5% or 10%, or that the eligibility criteria would change.

Of course each of these changes would carry some cost. While we want to see the fund brought back into balance, I was personally concerned that we could go the other way. I actually moved a motion in committee to get the Ministry of Finance to cost each of these different ideas, including the one on the order paper today, so that at least we would have the information and know how much each of these changes would add up to. Then we could make reasonable and responsible decisions.

I said that if there is a $6 billion surplus, it is not just having 10 options that cost $1 billion each and picking the six we like most, because there are interactivities between these different functions. We would have to look at a package and have someone with an econometric model actually price it out.

I put forward that motion in committee. The NDP member of the committee voted against that motion. At that point, it raised the question in my mind as to whether there was genuine concern in terms of bringing this into balance or whether this was maybe more a political exercise in terms of driving the agenda. My interest is to bring it back into balance. I hope the NDP will work with us to get the right information so we can do that.