Anne-Marie Day

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this budget. I listened attentively to those who spoke before me. I believe that the debate will generate some passion, as we just heard in a few of the previous comments.

To begin with, I would like to point out that this is the 32nd time that the Conservative government has taken away our right to comment in the House. It is truly a scandal, and it must stop. It is essential that members be allowed to give their speeches, say what they have to say, and speak about their needs and the problems society will have to face if a budget like this one is adopted. Under this budget, the Conservatives are increasing taxes and reducing services.

I would like to comment on a number of things such as family, freedom and poverty. The budget cannot avoid addressing matters like these. I would also like to talk about job creation.

Even though the government quotes figures and tweaks them from one year to the next, they never give us a start date for how these figures were calculated, and the fact remains that jobs are being lost. Jobs have been lost at White Birch in Quebec. I could mention other companies, like Electrolux, where jobs have been lost. Work may be moving from one province to another, but we are after all living in a confederation and jobs need to be created everywhere. The youth unemployment rate has spiked significantly, and this should compel us to do something.

What the government gives with the right hand, it takes away with the left. I believe that many of my colleagues have been able to demonstrate this. On one hand, a fund is established to help young families, and tax credits are made available for artistic activities; but on the other, a surcharge is imposed on products that cross the border, which takes back the money that these families had saved from their reduced taxes. They are therefore disguised tax hikes.

Just now, the member for Ottawa—Orléans took the floor. I wonder whether he lives on the same planet as my colleagues and I. He said that cuts have been made in a compassionate manner.

Cutting jobs and employee salaries is not a very compassionate thing to do. I will explain how it was done. Those whose jobs were being cut received a letter telling them that jobs would be eliminated in their department.

They were told that X number of positions would be eliminated, but were not immediately told which jobs would be eliminated. Is that what the Conservatives mean by "being compassionate"? Sometimes, employees were asked to choose from among the duties and work being done, what positions were less useful than others. Is that what they call "being compassionate"? That is not what I would call it. There is one small restriction.

This budget is a direct attack on labour funds. In Quebec, the CSN and the FTQ have labour funds. Not so long ago, I sent my constituents a ten-percenter and the highest response rate I ever received had to do with labour funds and the FTQ. These funds allow people to deduct 15% extra from their taxes to make some savings. What the right hand gave away, the left took back, yet again. This additional deduction to which these people were entitled has been taken away.

Who contributed to these funds? They were often people whose wages were very low. It enabled them to save about $1000 a year. Year after year, they would try to save an extra $1,000. Then, by retirement, they would have saved a total of roughly $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. They saved their entire lives.

Before being a member of Parliament, I worked in an organization. I met people who were earning $30,000 or less per year. In spite of this, they managed to put a little money aside to invest in this terrific fund.

The 15% tax break for the labour fund contributions encouraged them to save their pennies. These are the people who are being attacked. The labour funds, whether the CSN’s or the FTQ’s, are being attacked.

Labour force training is also being attacked. We succeeded in getting something into the budget that says that a company can now deduct $5,000 for training if it invests that much in training.

What companies are we talking about?

In Quebec, there is the 1% labour force training program. Now none of the small companies will be able to make that deduction because once again, this budget helps the big players, but not the small ones. Small businesses will not be able to invest $5,000 in labour force training to match what the government might give. This skews the debate. The companies lose out and labour force training will suffer. Workers, individuals and competitiveness, when all is said and done, will lose out.

I do not know whether the government thought about this aspect, but it is essential; the less training one has, the less competitive one is and the less competitive, the lower the sales, the lower demand for the product and you begin to go under. Our leader has pointed out that in Canada, small businesses and manufacturers have lost a great deal in recent years.

For 2013 and 2014, the budget forecast a deficit of approximately $16.5 billion. In reality, this will be $18.7 billion. Despite all these cuts, Canada's deficit is growing. People are being fooled when they tighten their belts and deprive themselves of everything. It might be worth asking which people are really depriving themselves.

Everything is really upside-down. They are going to pick the pockets of the smallest companies to pay for the majority, rather than the other way around. What are taxes for? Why were they created? Taxes are collected to redistribute wealth through infrastructure, worker training and various other mechanisms. When roads are built, a group of individuals pays and it is all redistributed.

Clearly, the company for which a four-lane road is built does not pay for it. Nor does it pay for the time its trucks spend on the road to deliver a product from point A to point B. People pay for it through taxes. They pay out of their pockets, and they are going to pay more and more. The sales tax was lowered, but the prices of products entering the country are going up.

I have been putting together a file for a year now. This bill follows on from two others, Bill C-38, which was introduced a year ago in the spring, and Bill C-45, which was next in line. In the latter, employment insurance was hard hit. The bill tried to define suitable employment and discarded the previous definition. What we have is the party in power deciding what is suitable for them.

Mr. Speaker, when you retire one day, we will decide for you what you are going to do. You will be able to do something other than what you are doing now. In fact, you will be able to do many things, because you are highly skilled in several areas. Others will therefore decide what is suitable for you.

Some extremely strange things have happened: people who worked in agriculture, for example, being offered jobs washing dishes in restaurants. I think everyone is aware of these strange goings-on.

I would like to talk about a letter I received from the elected representatives in the north shore region, who tell us that the employment insurance reform—and hence the consequences of these notorious mammoth budgets—runs counter to the interests of north shore workers. It will completely undermine the economy.

People remember what the government said during the last election: “power to the regions”, yet for now, the regions have been totally abandoned, and our elected representatives are saying so.

Next week, people from Prince Edward Island, including the minister, will be coming here to speak to us about employment insurance. The people of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic provinces are being thoroughly swindled. Seventy percent of all seasonal workers are in the Atlantic provinces.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the basic premise is not flawed; rather, the government is not telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I would like to provide a brief summary of this fiasco.

Access to employment insurance was already at an all-time low. The reform is making it even harder for Canadians to get benefits. There were rules in place based on regional realities. Instead, now the rules are stricter for everyone. There were regulations in place that allowed workers to find jobs based on their skills. Now workers have to accept any job even if the salary is lower, never mind skills and lost productivity. There was a decentralized appeal system that worked and that took into account regional realities. Now, the appeal system is becoming increasingly slow, and it is infested with Conservative candidates who were defeated at the polls and who were appointed to these positions. We all know who benefited from Conservative political patronage and got jobs that pay over $100,000.

All Canadian workers are asking for are jobs that allow them to make a living, use their skills and contribute to the Canadian economy.

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my speaking time today to come back to an important question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development early last February.

Canadians learned last winter about the existence of quotas and that Service Canada investigators have to make monthly savings. Now we have learned a little bit more about the implementation of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. What is happening now is that the rules have become so complicated and there are so many restrictions that they are mind-boggling. The worst thing about all this is that the new regulations that have to be followed are not clearly explained to workers who have lost their jobs. They are kept totally in the dark, apart from the publication of the regulations in the Canada Gazette on a Friday evening just before the House adjourns, as has become the Conservatives’ habit.

Basically, the regulations are hard for Canadians to understand and apply. The restrictions are such that only four out of 10 people in Canada are entitled to their employment insurance. The others are not entitled to it.

Does the minister think these figures are normal?

I am absolutely sure that Canadians would like to have more details about these notions of suitable employment and reasonable job search that have been changed. How many CVs do workers have to send out every day to avoid having their benefits cut? How will the 100-kilometre rule be applied? Can the minister tell workers what the real story is?

Rather than listening to the main people concerned with employment insurance, such as workers, employers and experts, the Conservatives prefer to stick with an ideology that flies in the face of Canadian values.

Our country is huge and is made up of resource regions with seasonal economies. The work available depends on this kind of economy, which predominates in the regions. The diversity of our economy benefits all Canadians, and our social safety net, which we contribute to as employees or as employers, should be available for Canadians when they lose their jobs.

A few days ago, on April 28, 2013, I took part in a huge demonstration in Montreal, and I heard horror stories about families stricken by poverty, forced relocations and employers who are losing their skilled workforce.

These demonstrations are happening right under our noses and under the minister’s nose, and they are spreading right across the country. The Atlantic provinces are now speaking out against the changes. Even New Brunswick, where a Conservative government is in power, is calling for moratorium while impact studies are carried out, studies which of course were never conducted when the changes were being made.

The question is simple. Workers want changes to the reform package now. What can the minister offer them?

[Employment Insurance, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, moving on to another topic, the four Atlantic premiers have decided to do what the federal government refuses to do with EI reform.

Provincial NDP, Liberal and Conservative governments have joined forces to do the consultations and impact studies that this government did not do.

They are calling for a moratorium until these studies are complete. The minister has spent more time ignoring the Atlantic provinces than listening to them.

What will she do now?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of hearing the same old tune.

The minister said that quotas do not exist, yet we know full well that Service Canada employees have performance targets. We also know that these employees will be meeting with their managers at the beginning of May to find out what those targets are. The targets are cuts of $485,000 per employee.

I am sure that Canadians would like to know how the minister knows in advance that she will have $485 million in ineligible payments—as she so often likes to remind us—if it is not because investigators will be required to do everything in their power, unthinkable things, in order to cut unemployed workers' benefits.

Canadians do not want to be treated like criminals and nobodies. They want to be treated with dignity when they lose their jobs. Employment insurance belongs to the workers, and they should be able to have access to it when they need it.

Will the minister listen to workers and ease up on this reform, and will she get rid of these infamous quotas that she still refuses to call quotas?

[Employment Insurance, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians have been trying for over a year now to talk some common sense into the Conservatives by using every means possible to explain how bad the employment insurance reform is for our country.

Unfortunately, the arrogance of the Conservatives knows no bounds and they do not want to budge an inch, even though the facts are staring them in the face. We are at the point where we cannot help but wonder whether this party makes and stands by bad decisions because it is incompetent or because it refuses to own up to its mistakes.

Just a few weeks ago, the papers were reporting that the budget-cutting quotas given to Service Canada inspectors were required by the department. I talked to the minister to find out why she was requiring $430 million in EI benefits to be cut for the current fiscal year.

I also asked her why she was demanding cuts that were more than double the overpayments made in 2009, in other words $200 million. Unfortunately, her response was far from adequate.

First, she said that the employment insurance program is there for people who are entitled to benefits, yet I need not remind members that the program is becoming less and less accessible as a result of the Conservatives' measures. As a result of the restrictions imposed, less than 50% of workers are entitled to receive EI benefits during hard times, even though all workers contribute to the program.

One has to wonder whether the Conservatives plan to restrict access to benefits to less than 10% of the population, fill the EI coffers and then make off with a bundle of cash that came exclusively from the pockets of workers and employers, as did the two previous Liberal and Conservative governments.

In her response, the minister also said that there were cheaters in the system and that Service Canada managed to stop half a billion dollars in ineligible payments.

Of course, I agree that any cheaters must be caught. However, it is completely unacceptable to use the word fraud and the amount of $500 million in the same sentence. The Conservatives are pros at using this tactic rather than governing competently and with integrity, and unfortunately, they are once again using it to denigrate workers and scare Canadians into falsely thinking that their money is being wasted. This is nothing but demagoguery.

Employment insurance is not being defrauded of $500 million per year. The truth is that there are overpayments of benefits and errors on the part of employers, employees and claimants. Those errors can arise because of misunderstandings, poor communication, different takes on events, computer glitches or administrative problems.

Getting back to my question: why is the minister forcing Service Canada investigators to retrieve a minimum amount of money every month if not to save money by clawing it back from honest workers who have lost their jobs and contributed to the plan?

We have a federal deficit, and this government has no idea how to get public finances back on track. That is why it is targeting honest workers and people.

Simply put, the government is making political hay at Canadian workers' expense to cover up its own mismanagement.

Can the minister provide a clear explanation of why she has imposed these quotas?

[Election of Committee Chairs, April 24th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some interesting bills today.

I have a question for the hon. member. First of all, what does he consider to be a good chair? How would he define a good chair? What are the criteria for becoming a good chair?

We saw this when we voted for the Speaker of the House. When a party has a majority, that party's candidate will win, of course. The only time there is any kind of democracy is when there are two, three or four candidates from the same party. Then there could be several votes.

How does the member think democracy fits in when we are voting for a committee chair within this structure?

[Financial Administration Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to answer this question, because it is of the utmost importance.

The people in power often tell us this, but it is absolutely false. I said it in my speech. The Conference Board of Canada and others have said that it will take at least 150 years if nothing is done. I do not think that, as a civilized country, we can stand back and make young women wait 150 years.

More women than ever are taking business administration in college and university. We have female lawyers and actuaries. I am certain that the members opposite know young women who hope to become leaders in our society. These large boards of directors are limited. Females represent only 27% of their membership when most business administration graduates are women. Perhaps we should stop wondering whether these women are competent; they are.

[Financial Administration Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I met with a senator who is involved in many issues and who introduced a similar bill in the Senate. I also met with many women's groups.

In 1988, I got involved with the status of women and it became something that has been close to my heart ever since. I have had the opportunity to interact with many people who help women enter the labour market, as well as those who want to get women more involved in decision making and decision-making bodies in this country. I think it is important to start at the beginning. Crown corporations belong to us, which opens an important door.

[Financial Administration Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Churchill for her question. She has done a lot of work for the status of women. It is always important to hear what she has to say.

I have here a photo of the minister and an article that says that Ottawa wants more women serving on boards of directors. I am issuing the minister the challenge and giving her the opportunity to make that happen. Ministers have a strong political influence over crown corporations, our corporations. If the opportunity arises and the minister is serious, she can prove it in the coming years, first by passing this bill.