House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 80% of the vote.
Employment Insurance October 27th, 1998
So in other words, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is saying the government is paying interest to itself. That is what he seems to be saying.
If you take money that does not belong to you, you go to jail. You do not pass go, you do not collect $350 per worker. Why doesn't the finance minister just give back that $350 per worker and quit this Liberal larceny?
Employment Insurance October 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the government repeatedly argues that employment insurance money does not really belong to workers but the very fact that the government pays interest on the billions of dollars it borrowed from the EI fund is an admission that the government does not even believe its own story. Otherwise, why would it be paying interest?
If, as it has claimed, the fund belongs to the government to spend however it wants, then why in the world is it paying $711 million in interest charges this year on the money it borrowed from the fund? Why is it paying interest?
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that Canada is leading the G-7 in job creation but I wonder if the hon. member is aware that in 1986 Canada and the U.S. were tied in terms of the employment rate at approximately 60%.
In the last 12 years in the United States the employment rate has grown to 63%. Our employment rate has stayed at 60%. If they had stayed at the same level we would have over one million more jobs in Canada today.
I suggest to the member his statistics do not tell the whole story.
I suggest that if Canada were creating jobs at the same pace as the United States we would have virtually no unemployment today. While I understand why the member wants to pat himself on the back, it is not as clear cut as he suggests.
How in the world can he justify getting up in this place today and saying we are not going to support the motion because we do not have our study done? His party is putting together the study. Three weeks away from the time when the program comes to and end it still does not have an assessment. How can that happen?
Aboriginal Affairs October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, for five years the Reform Party has been asking questions about third world conditions on native reserves across this country. For five years we have had nothing but stonewalling from Indian affairs ministers across the way. They seem to be more interested in protecting entrenched interests than in really helping natives.
If the minister really cares about natives, why in the world will she not give us a forensic audit to ensure that money gets to natives on reserve?
Employment Insurance October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, what to do with the $7 billion EI surplus is a question of fundamental fairness that every Canadian understands.
The finance minister says he wants to debate the issue but the fact is that the money is not his to spend. It belongs to the workers and employers who were forced to pay an extra $7 billion into the plan because they have been overcharged for their EI premiums.
It means the average worker is asked to pay $350 too much into this fund every year. It means the employer who hired him pays $500 too much into this fund every year. It means that the finance minister skims billions of extra taxes from the pockets of those least able to afford it.
If the minister chooses fairness he will give this money back to the people it belongs to. If he chooses political expediency he will confiscate the money to get around the law and pad his political slush fund. I hope he chooses fairness.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I compliment the member for Saint John on her remarks. She made some excellent points.
The one question I have for her is somewhat in response to a question that was asked earlier by a Liberal member. Is it not a fact that if we went into a recession tomorrow the government would be forced to borrow the $19 billion that it would have to pay out to unemployed Canadians? Is it not true that it would be a lot better to have that money in a separate fund where the government could not get its hands on it to misuse for all kinds of political ends?
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the first point I would make is that employers and employees have kicked in $19 billion more than they have drawn out in employment insurance benefits.
I would argue that of course we need to hide this fund off so that we are not in a situation where either the government has to kick money in or employers have to kick money in to bail out the government. The fact is that this government pays $711 million in interest on the fund as it is right now. I do not think that helps anybody, certainly not taxpayers in general.
The second point I would make is that we believe that employers and employees should set the benefits and the premiums. That is the way to handle this problem and that would not balkanize Canadians. I would argue that it would probably go a long way in de-politicizing EI and would make the program a lot more effective.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Madam Speaker, all I can say to my hon. friend is that he cannot have it both ways. We just had the member for Madawaska—Restigouche say that this program affects the entire country. Now he is saying it is all about maritimers. He cannot have it both ways.
As a matter of fact, I would submit that the Reform Party is a national party. I was in Nova Scotia this weekend, talking to people there. In fact, I see the hon. member down the way whose riding I was in. I talked to people there and I can say they are profoundly unhappy with the choices of the traditional parties, which is why I was invited to go there.
If bigger social programs were the solution to the problems of the people in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians, people in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, then those people would be extraordinarily well off. I do not think it has worked that way.
We need a new program to create jobs. The best social program in the world is a permanent, good job, not tinkering with the current system.
My friend should consider that perhaps after 30 years the way he and his party have gone simply has not worked. Maybe it is time for a new approach for all Canadians, in particular for the people of Atlantic Canada.
Supply October 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I am very sympathetic to some of the points the hon. member has made. I think he has made an excellent case for some of the flaws in some of the reforms that have occurred under this Liberal government.
I am very concerned and I must criticize the government in the strongest possible terms because here we are three weeks away from the expiry of this program and we have absolutely no evidence at all as to what the impacts are of the program. It is a big program. We have spent somewhere in the range of $230 million so far on the program. Yet we have no evidence and every year we get criticism from the auditor general coming forward saying programs lack clear measurably objectives, there are no ways to measure whether they are effective. Now we are in a situation where the program is coming to an end. My colleagues across the way are arguing that it is a good program. Others like me are saying we just do not know. We do not have any evidence. If we had some evidence it would make it a lot easier to support the member's motion.
We are in a position where the member I trust wants us to support his motion but on the other hand we have absolutely no evidence. I think it is unreasonable to ask us to support it when it is a sizeable amount of money, $230 million to $260 million, somewhere in that range, without any evidence at all.
Having said that, I appreciate the arguments the member has made, but to make a decision to support the motion at this point would be imprudent.
I want to talk about the need for fundamental reform of employment insurance. I am glad that this topic has come up today because I think it needs to be discussed. As members know, the opposition parties have spoken jointly for the need for fundamental reform of employment insurance. We have spoken about the need to have employers and employees get together and run this fund by themselves. We feel it is crazy to allow the government to take this huge employment insurance fund and essentially use it for whatever it wants to use it for. We think it is dangerous to have a pool of capital that large with government using it for whatever mischievous purposes it wants to use it for.
We are saying let us take that fund, let us hive it off, let us let employers and employees run the fund. Let us let them set the benefits and set the premiums.
If I were one of the people on that board the first thing I would do is argue for experience rating. Government members may recall that the Minister of Finance asked Professor Jack Mintz to produce a report on taxation on business in this country.
One of the things he talked about was the need for reform of employment insurance premiums. He talked about experience rating which has substantial merit. Essentially what this is, if we use the model of the United States, is an insurance scheme that would penalize all those companies that lay people off more than their industry average.
Let us talk about areas where we have a lot of seasonal work such as in New Brunswick where the mover of this motion comes from. In a situation where we have a lot of seasonal industries, such as the forestry industry, a pulp and paper outfit that lays people off more than other pulp and paper companies in that region would see its premiums go up. This would then create disincentive to lay people off.
There was an excellent documentary on television a few years ago about how experience rating works and works extraordinarily well in the state of Maine. They used the local Wal-Mart store as an example where a number of people are hired on just before Christmas but instead of letting them go after Christmas it keeps them on and gets them to stock shelves, do painting or fix up the store in various ways. If these people were let go then it would have to face higher premiums. There is a real positive incentive to keep people on.
It is time this government started to explore some of these more fundamental reforms which would go a long way to solving some of the perverse incentives or disincentives we have in our employment insurance system today. I really believe it is time to look at that.
I also want to talk about the other big employment insurance problem we have today. As members know, we have a situation where we have about a $7 billion overpayment currently sitting in the employment insurance fund, a fund that in my judgment and in the judgment of workers and employers belongs to the people who contributed the money in the first place. I am talking here about workers and employers.
We now have the government speculating that it may decide to take that money and spend it. I submit that money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the workers, to the employers, to small businesses and to businesses in general, 95% of which are small businesses. I condemn this government for talking about taking that money.
To me it is unconscionable that the government would sit there for a number of years and allow that fund to balance its budget and then, when workers have balanced the budget, to say as thanks that it is going to take that $7 billion overpayment that comes in every year and keep it for itself. That is unbelievable.
I asked the government why it does not just obey the law and do what the law is saying it should do which is to reduce the premiums and give it back to workers and small business. A $350 rebate in the form of lower premiums to somebody who is making $39,000 a year is helpful, especially with Christmas coming up. Five hundred dollars a year per employee going back to a small business is helpful. It allows those people to withstand this economic downturn the minister has been talking about.
Why do we not just be fair? What is wrong with that? Why do we not just give people back the money we have taken from them? Not only are the four opposition parties in agreement on this issue, we also know that the provinces agree with this. We also know businesses and labour agree with this. Is it not time that the government yielded and forgot about its foolhardy pride and did the right and fair thing by giving the money back? It is unconscionable that this government is contemplating a $7 billion raid on the EI fund.
The minister says the government is not just going to take the money, it is going to have a debate on it. What a joke. When we had the minister before the finance committee recently to give his economic statement he was making an argument about having this big debate. I said if there were really going to be a debate then why is the $7 billion overpayment already showing up in the projections for next year. I also asked him why he has already taken for granted that the $7 billion will go into the government coffers. He had no answer.
I submit, if this money really does belong to the government instead of to the workers, why does the government pay interest on that fund? Why does it pay interest if it is just to itself? Is the government paying interest to itself? I do not think so. It is paying it because it understands intuitively that the money does not belong to it. It belongs to workers and to employers. Therefore, the government has a moral obligation to give that money back.
Government members cannot continue to say “We are going to have a debate. We have decided that we know better than workers and employers how to use that money and, therefore, we are going to confiscate it”. That is so fundamentally wrong.
It points to the increasing arrogance that we see from this government. It seems like no law is unbridgeable by this government whether it is pepper-spraying students or whether it is taking $7 billion from employers and employees. It points to a very ugly trend that we see in this government.
I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in condemning the government for what it is proposing to do and ask for a more fundamental debate about employment insurance, one in which we will have the chance to hold this government accountable for its confiscation of the hard-earned premiums of workers and employers.
Employment Insurance October 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a measure of this government's arrogance that it is trying to make choices with other people's money. That money does not belong to the government, it belongs to workers and employers.
A $350 EI tax cut may not mean much to a cabinet minister, but it means a lot to a fisherman, a waitress or people who are just trying to make it out there. It means a lot to them. This is a regressive tax that hurts people who are working the most.
When is the government simply going to obey the law and give that money back to them? Obey the law. When is it going to do that?