Debates of Oct. 29th, 2009

Second Reading

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the bill I introduced. I would like to thank the members who expressed their support, and I hope that their parties will vote in favour of this bill.

First of all, I would also like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her judicious comments on the analysis that we have to do of the situation facing unemployed workers and the scope of this bill. The goal is to restore the employment insurance system to its former glory, to restore its original purpose, which was to help unemployed workers who have had the misfortune of losing their jobs.

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, you ruled on the need for royal recommendation for this bill. With all due respect, we disagree. Your decision was based on the understanding that there is a direct link between the employment insurance fund and the general revenue fund, whereas for the past two years, the two have been separate. The only link between them is the fact that the government can transfer money from one to the other when there is a surplus in one and a deficit in the other. That is why I am saying that the money in the employment insurance fund belongs exclusively to workers and employers, and that it is there to support wage earners who lose their jobs.

Some 54% of those who lose their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance, resulting in the phenomenon my colleague talked about earlier. By excluding people who should have received benefits over the years, whether it was under the Liberals or the Conservatives, the Canadian government freed up $57 billion that it used for other purposes. Now is the time to fix that.

It is very frustrating for those who lose their jobs to see how readily the government doles out money for such things as military equipment without any debate in the House of Commons. Two years ago, in the space of one week, it spent $17.5 billion on military and other equipment. We acknowledge that such things are needed, but we should realize how easy it is to spend money on war and how difficult it is to obtain money to counter poverty. The people we are talking about are living in poverty.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I did not make that noise, it was our Conservative colleague. It bothers him to hear that and for good reason. If I were in his shoes, I would be ashamed to have to maintain that position. That is enough to make him do what he just did.

Bill C-308 contains measures that do not have the budgetary impact or require the financial commitment indicated by the Conservative government. The Conservatives have a tendency of inflating figures. For example, at some point they stated that the bill would cost $4 billion and later it was $7 billion. They are like someone who wants to put down his dog and, when he does, blames it on rabies. When they want to kill a bill they say that it will cost $7 billion or $8 billion.

The costs are very limited because there are two measures that are may require spending. On the one hand, we have the 360 hours; on the other, lengthening the benefit period. The benefit period has already been increased to 50 weeks. We just have to keep it the same.

We are at a point, especially during this economic crisis, where we have to recognize the damage we have done to the system and the impact it has on the unemployed.

I invite all my colleagues in the House of Commons to vote for this bill, which will restore some dignity to those who lose their jobs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 4 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that if you seek unanimous approval, we would see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in these adjournment proceedings. What we have tried to do and what we will continue to do as the official opposition is to hold the government's feet to the fire and certainly make Canadians aware of promises made and promises not kept.

We refer to income trusts, where the government promised not to tax income trusts but then, months down the road, broke that promise and went ahead, costing retirees billions of dollars. We will continue to remind Canadians of that because there is a short-term memory problem on the government benches.

This adjournment proceeding gives me an opportunity to look back to a question that was posed to the Minister of Human Resources on May 27 when I had asked for support initiatives for fishermen and helpers on boats in the Atlantic lobster fishery who were facing very hard times and who are looking down the barrel of a very difficult winter because of the inaction on the part of the government.

Specifically, the response by the parliamentary secretary to my question on that day was that the government could do nothing because what the Liberal Party was proposing would increase payroll taxes by putting in a premium hike. His comment was, “We will not do that.”

Not only did the government do that, but it hit one out of the park with a $13 billion grand slam increase in payroll taxes to small and medium-sized businesses in this country.This will cripple businesses. In speaking with operators in my community, the impact that this will have will be felt by every community and small business operator in this country.

EI premiums are on the rise. It is estimated at $900 per employee, for a total increase of $13 billion.

Small businesses that are operating in my community, like Mike's Lunch, that will be about a $40,000 hit. Mike's Lunch is a small mom and pop operation restaurant that will feel the impact. For Pembroke Construction will see a $50,000 to $60,000 increase in those premiums rates because the government has increased taxes so much.

It is a hidden tax, and the government continues to deny it, but every independent operator across this country will feel the wrath of that.

I will keep my question very simple. Does the parliamentary secretary to the minister recall making that promise last May in this chamber?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to look at the big picture. I do not know where he has been and whether he has listened to what has been happening in the House or not.

On the one hand he wants to stand up for the unemployed workers, but his party voted against extending EI benefits 5 to 20 weeks to approximately 190,000 people. I am wondering how he feels that standing up in the House and voting against it might be helpful to those who are unemployed.

I am not sure why the Liberals would vote against it except for the fact that they were looking at self-interest and, I gather, wanting an election that no Canadians wanted to have. The unemployed certainly did not want to have one. How he can stand up in the House and speak about that is certainly a wonder.

There is another part that concerns me. He talked about the $13 billion that might be spent on EI. The Liberals wanted to spend more than that with their 45-day work year, where one could work two months a year and get EI. It would cost some $4 billion. I wonder how he is going to pay for that. His leader already intimated that by raising taxes. He said that he is going to have to do that, but he has come out with even more promises of spending. I wonder how he is going to do that.

That is not what the biggest issue is. The biggest issue is the fact that, while the Liberals were in office, they reduced benefits to the unemployed and increased premiums, and collected approximately $50 billion from the workers, the employers and employees. Did they give that to the employers and employees? No, they did not. That should still be in the account if they had not spent it.

What did they do? They spent the money. They spent it on pet political projects that the Liberal Party wanted. The $50 billion is gone. If we tried to find it, the money is spent. It was spent by the Liberal Party and he has the fortitude to get up today to ask if we need to increase taxes. They are the party that taxes and spends. If they had the power, they would tax more and spend more.

We have reduced taxes into the billions of dollars to help the employed, the employers, and average Canadians get by. We have done that and we have ensured that they have more money in their pockets. We froze EI premiums, so that they do not have to be paid at this time by employers and employees. We have done a number of things that are very targeted. We extended benefits by five weeks across the country, helping approximately 350,000 Canadians.

We have extended the work-sharing program, helping about 165,000 Canadians maintain their jobs. That is something that has been very well received. There is a sharing where we pay EI and they work for part of the week. We put in a program to help long-tenured workers, those who have worked hard, paid into the system, and paid their premiums now finding themselves unfortunately without work. They are not able to find a job and have exhausted their EI benefits. We have extended to them 5 to 20 additional weeks.

What did this member and his party do? They voted against it. When it was in committee, we tried to persuade them to support this measure. If they allow other measures, they should support this measure. What did they do? They voted against each and every clause that was proposed in that bill and said no. They said no to 190,000 Canadians and were not unabashed about it. What was their logic? Did they have any reason? They did not. They were seeking an election. They were hoping that their leader would cause an election.

I hope now that those aspirations are dampened and that they will see their way to support Bill C-50 when it comes to the House next week and actually help Canadians. However, most importantly, we do not want to see the tax and spend days that we saw in the past. We do not want to see billions of dollars used for pet political projects.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would refer to that answer as fact free. We know that the premium rate was $3.12 per $100 in 1993. Kim Campbell was bringing it to $3.36 before the Liberal government took over in 1993. In each subsequent year, those rates came down to where it was $1.80 per $100. That is a fact.

There was a bit of a nest egg in the unemployment fund because when we took over, the unemployment rate was at 12.5%. We brought it down year after year and when we left, it was at 6.8% in this country. That was more people paying in and fewer people drawing out. I hope that these guys do not stay in too long because there is going to be a mess to clean up.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear the hon. member thinks the $50 billion are a bit of a nest egg that can be used for political projects. It is not, and one would have to be careful to put him back in government.

The fact was the Liberals reduced benefits to the unemployed when the unemployment rate was 8.7%, the highest unemployment rate, and they tried to balance their books on the backs of the unemployed by using the $50 billion. Worse than that, they cut transfer payments by $25 billion to provinces, municipalities and towns, to those who needed those funds to build infrastructure.

We have not done that. We have not balanced our books on the backs of those people. We have put money into infrastructure to ensure Canadians will do well, not only today but tomorrow and into the future.

People can expect we will carry through on that. We propose further legislation to deal with those who are self-employed. The member can look forward to that legislation, and we would ask him to support it.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in May of this year I had asked the government member to answer certain questions about the sale of government assets.

It may set the stage if I just repeat quickly the question. I asked the Minister of Finance to comment on his promise to add $10 billion to the government books, $2 billion in the 2009-10 year alone, through the sale of assets. We had expressed at the time a particular concern that in a recession this would be a rather bad time to sell assets and it would be something akin to a fire sale.

The answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue was that at present the government had no plans in that regard and had no other answer.

My question then followed on to the issue the budget, and we had supported it to get stimulus spending out, in which the government had proposed that over the course of five years it was expected there would be $10.1 billion in revenue from the sale of government assets. In the year 2009-10 alone there would be $2.3 billion in fact seen. I will stress that this is not just revenue. It has to be money that is over and above the value of assets. It is actually the book value of those assets.

I would like to ask the hon. member a several point question.

Could the member confirm that those numbers are still in fact what the government expects? Could the member confirm that in 2009-10 fiscal year the government expects to still show $2.3 billion in revenue from asset sales? Does he still believe that over the course of the next five years the number will be a total of $10.1 billion? If not, what does the government now project?

Whichever numbers the government is looking at now, what assets are the government considering to sell? I would really appreciate some detail in the list of those assets, not just a broad several departments. What is the book value of those assets, so we can have some understanding of what the government believes it may be able to see in terms of a profit earned on the sale of those assets?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to respond to my good friend, the member for Willowdale, who I have the greatest respect for.

I am not sure I could answer her question in half an hour, let alone the short few minutes I have. I will, however, respond to her concern about evaluating capital assets that are owned by the federal government. It is only prudent use of taxpayers' money to assess what the federal government owns. We are continuing with a rigorous expenditure review, so it only makes sense that we continue with a review of capital assets owned by this government.

To answer that question, yes, the review continues, because, as I say, it is only prudent that we take a look at what the government owns, simply because it has been more than a decade since we have analyzed that. The asset review is continuing and will continue following a clear process.

We need to look at assets and at whether they still perform a useful function for Canadians, whether the original purpose for each is still relevant, and whether taxpayers' dollars are being spent wisely in keeping these assets within the government. We remain committed to completing that analysis and also to taking into account the market conditions, as we have said we would do all along, to ensure that the best value could be realized for taxpayers and to ensure that the transactions generate new economic activity. However, we have said all along that assets will not be sold if these tests are not met.

In fact, in light of the recent weakness in the economy and in line with our stated commitment to ensure that fair value can be realized by taxpayers and that the transaction will generate additional economic activity, gains resulting from the sale of corporate assets have not been included in the most recent fiscal projection by the government, as publicly announced in September in our update of economic and fiscal projections.

The clear answer to that is that the review continues but the sale of assets is not on the horizon until we can realize good value for taxpayers' dollars. We will continue along with what we think is a very prudent endeavour, ensuring that all spending is efficient and effective. As I say, not only are we reviewing expenditures within the government to make sure they are the best use of taxpayers' dollars but we will continue to review what the assets held by the government are.

I would like to quote the hon. member, if I could, and remind her that she must see the wisdom in this because in the government operations committee on March 24 of this year, she said, “I...support efforts by the government to achieve efficiencies and to focus on what it does best”. That is very much in line with the hon. member's outlook on what is right for government to do. She and I have had many serious conversations about this.

We can also look to other countries that have dealt with the same situation. Many countries have done the same thing we are doing, and have analyzed and assessed what they actually own.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. He knows well the high esteem that I have for him and I appreciate his answer.

I will concur with my earlier statement that I do support efficiencies in government, very much so, although as for the comment about wanting the government to do what it does best, I am increasingly concerned with trying to determine what in fact it is that the government does best. It is a question I constantly ask.

I am afraid I really did not get an answer to my questions. I asked very specifically whether the $2.3 billion number that was expected for fiscal year 2009-10 was still expected and whether the $10.1 billion over five years was still expected and if not, what the number was, and within that, what assets were being looked at and what the book values are of the assets in question.

Very specific numbers were put in the budget. The only answer I received was that an asset review is continuing. I will repeat my question and I would like—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish that I could give a real dollar figure to all of what this government owns, all of the capital assets of this government, but our review is not complete. When our review is complete, we will be able to perhaps share those numbers and deal with what it is that is not necessary for this government to function, something that could perhaps be more prudently used in the private sector. If government is competing with private industry, then we had better take a very serious look at selling this asset.

However, we would hope that as we see signs of recovery in this economy, the value of those assets that we are appraising would actually rise, but I do repeat that in our fall economic fiscal update, we said we would not be selling assets if they were below market value.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:38 p.m.)