House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

(Motion agreed to)

Message from the SenateRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-12, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my dear friend is talking about all the wonderful things the Conservatives have done and are going to do, but talk is cheap and there is no doubt about it. We can stand here and make all kinds of commitments and promises, but it is when the dollar hits the road that it really counts.

I say to the hon. minister that I am very hopeful that some of the things that he was talking about are going to happen. Of the $33 billion that was previously part of the building Canada fund, somewhere around 4% of that ever actually got out there. Our motion is trying to make sure that there are ways the money will flow efficiently.

I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. One of them is about the announcement made by the Liberals about the infrastructure in Toronto to do with regard to York University and the transit extension. After the Conservatives were elected, the previous minister of infrastructure made that announcement again and said that the Conservatives were committed to going forward with it. Today we are still talking about it coming out of these funds in the stimulus package when it should be coming out of the previous fund.

Second is the issue about matching funds. Whether I am talking about my city of Toronto or some of the other cities, the difficulty cities have with matching funds is they do not have the extra dollars. They have an aging infrastructure, whether it is community centres, or sewers and water mains, and the cities do not have the money unless they raise the property taxes. How is the government going to deal with the pressures for things that are critical and need to be done, but which the municipalities do not have the money to do?

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Transport

Madam Speaker, let me compliment the member on those very precise and good questions.

On the money for the Spadina subway extension which will service her riding, there is so much work that needs to be done from the announcement to the project going forward. There is a lot of engineering work. Building a subway is a gigantic undertaking. That has gone on. There has been a significant amount of red tape which has slowed down the process. My premier brought up the example of that five inch binder, duplicate environmental assessments, the Navigable Waters Protection Act; we are clearing the deck of those impediments. There will still have to be engineering work done. I understand construction will begin very shortly on that project. They are ready to break ground in a big way, which is good news for her constituents and people all over the GTA.

The member talked about 4% of the $33 billion being expended. Of course that $33 billion includes the gas tax money and the GST rebates, which has gone on completely on schedule, so it is substantially more than that. We are moving aggressively to make decisions quicker and to cut red tape to see things flow.

She talked about municipalities, and even her own, not having the money. In the budget we did come forward with a $2 billion loan program. Interest rates are at historic lows. That will help municipalities.

I know that her own city of Toronto underspent. In 2007, the last year that city's statements were audited, it underspent by some $160 million to $180 million. It underspent its capital budget. I know Toronto, and the good news is there are funds there. If there is not, it does not necessarily have to be the municipalities. The Hon. Frances Lankin, PC, now the head of the United Way of Greater Toronto, has some projects for which the United Way could come up with a third of the funding, and the province is prepared to support a third. So there is another example of how things can happen for people in the greater Toronto area.

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend and colleague, the minister is co-operating with the provinces and municipalities across the country, particularly in my home province of Ontario and specifically in my city of Toronto.

Over and over again the mayor has raised the issue of access to the building Canada fund and the need to cut red tape. I appreciate the minister's comments, but I also saw this in the last recession, in the 1990s. Many people, specifically in the construction industry, who were out of jobs really should not have been because there were projects that were left hanging and were not being implemented.

Again, I want to have the minister's assurance. Will the minister do everything in his power to make sure these projects go out the door so that people who are losing their jobs, especially in the construction sector, can in fact get work?

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, we will do everything within our power. We can cut some legislative burden, which is in the budget bill, which the hon. member has supported, and that is noted and appreciated. We can cut it with regulation, which we are moving forward with, which all 13 premiers have agreed to support. We can move it through bureaucratically at the federal level, politically at the political level, and oftentimes there are political fights which delay projects.

At the end of the day, though, we can only clear decks on those things at the federal level. At the end of the day, in his community, it will be community organizations, the city or the province with the shovel itself. The good news is all those other levels—

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

Madam Speaker, I too rise today to speak on the issue of sharing on a per capita basis a significant and growing portion of the federal excise tax on gasoline to support the infrastructure needs of cities.

Cities are the engines that drive our economy and they are hurting. As Mississauga's legendary mayor, Mayor Hazel McCallion, has said, “If the heart isn't strong the arteries aren't strong”, and Mayor McCallion has a very strong heart.

With 80% of Canadians living in cities, large and small, cities need guaranteed, sustainable and annual funds to address their infrastructure needs, to fix their crumbling infrastructure, to grow their communities, to prevent further decay of existing infrastructure, to initiate projects, and to keep Canada competitive.

Cities do not need politicians who disparage municipal mayors by calling them whiners, and who purport not to be in the business of fixing potholes. At the end of the day there is only one taxpayer and we are all in the business of fixing potholes. Otherwise, we watch our infrastructure crumble.

The Liberal Party has a strong record of robust strategic investments in infrastructure with programs like new deal for municipalities, a proud legacy of previous Liberal governments. The Liberal Party remains committed to working to meet the needs of our cities.

In the 2005 budget the Liberal government agreed to transfer $5 billion of the gas tax over five years and transfer $2 billion annually after 2009. This would have made funding predictable and long term based on allowing municipalities to pool, bank or borrow against this funding providing them with significant additional financial flexibility. To ensure accountability communities would report on the use of the funds on an annual basis.

In the election of 2006 Liberals pledged to make the gas tax transfer permanent, a measure the Conservative government has adopted.

Today the Liberal motion goes one step further by recommending that the gas tax be shared on a per capita basis making distribution more fair and equitable to all municipalities. It is efficient and accountable, and has a proven track record of success.

Mayor Hazel McCallion has been one of the most vocal advocates on the needs of cities through her “cities now” campaign which asks for 1% of the gas tax. Mayor McCallion was one of the first politicians to identify the need for both provincial and federal support for municipalities to facilitate the strengthening of their failing infrastructures.

Mississauga is the sixth largest city in Canada. It is debt free and prudently managed. Tax increases have been kept to a minimum level and the city has amassed an enviable cash reserve of $800 million. Yet, Mississauga has a current infrastructure deficit and needs $75 million annually or $1.5 billion over the next 20 years.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that Canada's municipal infrastructure deficit to be $123 billion and rising. It lists over 1,000 shovel ready projects waiting for federal funding. The $14 billion required for all these projects would help address the need for road repairs, water and waste management, municipal building upgrades, public housing and public transit, projects which would create an estimated 150,000 jobs.

The FCM report shows that a $1 billion capital investment in local infrastructure would result in a .13% increase in national GDP and create 11,500 new jobs including 5,400 jobs in the construction industry alone. The FCM cites that the gas tax model is the best way to flow money into these projects quickly so cities and communities can get started on infrastructure projects.

Mayor McCallion noted that cities cannot maintain 58% of the nation's public infrastructure with 8¢ of every $1 as municipalities are currently limited to raising funds through property taxes alone. The gas tax method is one of the most effective ways to channel economic stimulus ensuring the best outcome for Canada's future competitive advantage.

The gas tax is efficient and accountable. Over 95% of the gas tax funds have been delivered to municipalities over the past two years. This will increase immediate economic stimulus and create jobs. The big city mayors caucus recommended that the gas tax process was the fastest way to get money into the hands of municipalities in order to put people to work. Municipalities, such as Mississauga which has shovel ready projects, have been disappointed in the past by the government's web of red tape. The renowned mayor, Hazel McCallion, calls it the “glacial pace at which funding announcements turn into cash”.

Mississauga is still waiting for its share of the $33 billion building Canada fund to flow for projects such as the $52 million bus rapid transit system, the $30 million downtown revitalization project, the $20 million for Sheridan College, the $10 million for Burnhamthorpe Branch Library, the $8 million for fire halls, and the $4 million for pathway lighting, just to name a few. This is a total of $124 million worth of projects, shovel ready, but plagued with long bureaucratic delays.

Mississauga is anxious to begin working on construction of its $259 million bus rapid transit line and other projects. When will the money start to flow?

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member.

It being 5:15 p.m. pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 3 p.m.

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson Conservative Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, given the time and the fact that we want to make certain that we have private members' business, I wonder if we could see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Is it agreed?

Opposition Motion--Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

moved that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to read the summary of the bill.

This enactment removes the waiting period that precedes the commencement of benefits after an interruption of earnings and repeals provisions that refer to that waiting period.

Let us begin with a definition of what a waiting period is. It is the two weeks following application for employment insurance. This two week period starts the day following the day the person loses his job. There are very few cases where this waiting period does not apply. There are exceptions for maternity leave for the first child, etc, but they are very rare. In our opinion, the two week waiting period is not right and that is why we want to get rid of it.

On November 25 last year, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development answered a question from the Bloc Québécois concerning abolition of the waiting period as follows:

It is insurance, and as with any insurance, there is always a wait period, because of course there must be confirmation that they are being laid off for longer than just a week or two. This is necessary to ensure the integrity of the system.

We do not agree with this. Even if people are laid off just a week, that week ought to be paid. As a general rule, in the present crisis situation, people are rarely laid off for a week, or for two weeks, but for far longer than that.

The truth is that the waiting period is nothing more and nothing less than a way of punishing the workers. Because they have lost their jobs, they get nothing to live on for two weeks. How can a family with several children and a single breadwinner survive for two weeks without that one income? It does not occur to the present government that people have huge hardships to cope with during that period.

I will even give examples of people in my riding who worked overtime for which they were not paid for several years. It was paid when they lost their jobs, even though they had worked those hours several years earlier. In the case of people receiving a pension, the employer’s part was considered income by employment insurance, even though it had been paid in 2006-07 and was not current income. It was calculated, therefore, as income and divided by the number of weeks worked, which pushed back the beginning of the waiting period, in some cases by as much as several weeks. In other words, people who are without an income and who have spent all their money are punished with a two week delay without an income. This puts them in a very difficult situation and it is totally unnecessary.

Does the government arrange it so that the unemployed suffer serious economic difficulties, in the hope that they will get back to work faster? This kind of logic is totally nonsensical. The role of government is quite the opposite: to help people and meet their needs.

Sweden sets an example for the whole world, even though it is sometimes criticized for giving too much. Still, 80% to 85% of Swedes who lose their jobs find another and go back to work.

The two week waiting period does not exist and everyone who loses their job gets one year of employment insurance.

There is no work penalty, and the duration is not affected by a waiting period. We think that if the waiting period were eliminated, people who lose their jobs could find another more easily and more quickly because they would not be worrying about how they are going to survive the next two weeks. It would help people get back to work.

The government deprives the unemployed of $900 million. The minister has actually calculated that such a step would cost $900 million. It is possible. We will take that number. We do not say it is unrealistic and it may be true. What it means, though, is that $900 million is not being given back to the unemployed. That $900 million would do a lot to help people get back to work.

The current economic crisis is creating more unemployed people and the government therefore wants to inject money into the economy as quickly as possible. I think that the $900 million that has been paid by both the unemployed and their employers should be given back to the unemployed and should not be turned into something that is discriminatory. I will actually read an article in a few minutes from a newspaper in my riding which points out just how discriminatory this is for working people.

As I said earlier, all the large amounts received just delay the waiting period. This money is subtracted and pushes back the two week waiting period.

I would like to mention a few short passages from a newspaper in my riding, a large regional paper from Sherbrooke, which talks about a terrible scandal, the two week waiting period. It says:

Economic groups, unions and politicians have been fighting for over a decade to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

This specifically concerns the waiting period. This is fair to say because it has been demanded by unions, by community groups, by groups that defend the unemployed and also by workers. Truly everyone is demanding that the waiting period be eliminated.

It has been said that employment insurance is a universal system. If it is universal and is imposed by the government, why now are only 53% of people eligible for employment insurance benefits when in 1989, 83% of people who lost their jobs were eligible? Fewer and fewer people are eligible for employment insurance and, on top of that, there is a waiting period that should not exist.

In addition, I would like to point out that they have added—and this is the argument we will keep hearing—five weeks to the end of employment insurance benefits. However, these five weeks at the end do not replace the two weeks at the beginning. We know that only 28% of people use all of their employment insurance benefits. That means that this five week measure affects only 28% of unemployed people. Once again, this is obviously discriminatory.

I would like to come back to the newspaper article. It talks about how we have moved from an employment insurance system to a deficit insurance system. It adds that this is scandalous. How true.

We agree fully with this newspaper, which also mentions that eliminating the two week waiting period would have a much greater impact on the financial security of claimants. That is exactly what I am trying to say. You can see that the Bloc Québécois are not the only ones to think this way.

The article also goes on to say:

In an economic crisis, these measures penalize the most vulnerable workers in our society.

That is quite right. The most vulnerable in our society need these two weeks.

According to the Canada Labour Congress, estimated benefits lost...total more than $43 million a year for the City of Sherbrooke alone—

The figures are the same. Sherbrooke is just beside my riding. I live in the Eastern Townships and the amount of employment insurance benefits not handed out and kept by the government is estimated at $100 million. These monies could cover the two week waiting period. The money is there. We do not have to look for it elsewhere. Workers have already paid for it.

How can the Government of Quebec tolerate having this social cost passed on to it—

Given that employment insurance is not paid during these two weeks, the social cost is passed on to Quebec, or Ontario or the other provinces because people have to get through these weeks with a minimum amount of money.

Sherbrooke is already seeing what it can do—

It is not just a national matter. Cities are also interested in this problem as are regional stakeholders such as the chambers of commerce. Earlier, I spoke about those advocating for this change. As we can see, the chambers of commerce also want the waiting period to be eliminated.

This article asks—and so do we together with the Liberals and the New Democrats—that everyone join us to create a majority and eliminate the waiting period, which is a real failure of our democratic system.

This government must recognize the pressing need to eliminate the two week waiting period for everyone—

I did not say it. It was in an article that was just published on February 19. That is very recent.

—to improve access to the program and speed up payment of premiums.

This injustice must be corrected now. For many of our fellow citizens, access to insurance paid for by employers and employees is not a privilege but a right and a question of dignity.

That is how the article ends, and we completely agree with it. We would also like to ask the Liberals to support our bill. In the past, it was under the Liberals that the employment insurance system began to deteriorate. However, since they have been in opposition, they are keeping an eye on employment insurance and they appear much more willing to listen. We hope they will be receptive to the unemployed workers who are having difficulty during those first two weeks. We are not asking for a major revolution; we are simply asking that the two week waiting period be completely eliminated for everyone and that as soon as someone loses his or her job, that individual can receive employment insurance immediately.

The waiting period always comes at the beginning, except when money is found and it is pushed back even further. The two consecutive weeks end the Saturday of the following week. It is all planned very carefully so there can be no getting around it.

We are asking that these two weeks be replaced by employment insurance. Even if it costs $900 million, that would be one way of injecting $900 million into the economy immediately. Indeed, we can be sure that anyone who loses their job will not be setting this money aside, either in the bank or in a trust fund. They will spend it immediately, because they need it.

This is what we really want and we hope that all members of the House will understand the importance of this bill to amend the Employment Insurance Act.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with congratulations to my colleague for his altruistic bill which will demonstrate the kind-heartedness of the 308 members of this assembly who will—at least I hope they will—vote in favour of helping the unemployed. Let us not forget that our children, our neighbours, even we ourselves, may one day need this assistance when a job is lost. The waiting period has to be eliminated so that EI recipients can immediately have some income to help their families.

My question is this: as far back as 2004, a motion with the backing of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities was moved by the Bloc Québécois in order to get the federal government of the day to pay back the $46 billion—and let us keep in mind that a billion is 1,000 million—that had been lifted from the employment insurance fund, in order to return that money to the people for whom it was intended, who are in need of it, and who are receiving employment insurance benefits. Those people and their employers had put that money into the fund, not the federal government.

If I am correct, the figure is now $54 billion. This would mean that what the Liberals started—which was absolutely odious—the Conservatives have continued. They have continued to dip into the EI fund and the money has not been returned to those rightfully entitled to it.

Is this really the case? Would this not be a good way of getting the money to help people in need of it?

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. The position he has taken with respect to this matter illustrates that this is really a generalized need.

A surplus is indeed continuing to accumulate in the employment insurance fund at a rather unbelievable rate. That is why it is being said that the government is accumulating money—

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, please. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:

Bill C-12, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009—Chapter 1.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-241, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (removal of waiting period), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Before the royal assent ceremony, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi had the floor for questions and comments following his speech. He has about three minutes left to wrap up his remarks or take further questions.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I do not mind moving on to another question, but I may not have finished my response to the previous question.

The important thing to bear in mind is that, right now, the employment insurance system is not getting what it is supposed to get. It is grossly unfair to workers, partly because of the two week waiting period. That is the first thing we should eliminate, but the employment insurance system has a number of other shortcomings too.

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Gurbax Malhi Liberal Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, but how much does the program cost?

Employment Insurance ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I did not understand the question. I think my colleague wants to know how much this measure would cost. The minister mentioned a fairly accurate figure, $900 million, which would come from the fund. There is money in the fund. The fund is not short of cash—quite the opposite, in fact. As my colleague pointed out earlier, the surplus now exceeds $50 billion. The money is there, and the $900 million would be injected directly into Canada's economy.