Gérard Asselin

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are proposing an independent and transparent fund whose sole mandate would be to manage the employment insurance program. To that end, we propose the appointment of commissioners. It is a proposal. To ensure that the government can vote in favour of the bill, we can always propose to amend the number of commissioners.

What we are proposing for discussion is that there be a chairman. Any true commission is run par a chairman; the two vice-chairmen would be the deputy ministers of the Treasury Board and of Human Resources Development. Employers could recommend seven representatives and employees could also recommend seven representatives.

Employers and employees who are contributing to the employment insurance fund would administer the fund and their contributions to it.

If the hon. member is not comfortable with the appointment of 17 commissioners and if, for that reason, he cannot support the bill, I suggest that he comes up with an amendment. We would be ready to accept an uneven number, whether it be 17, 15, 13 or 11. I have no problem with that. The idea is to create an independent fund.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today, not only as Bloc Québécois member for the riding of Manicouagan, but also on behalf of Quebec voters, to whom the Bloc Québécois have been making a commitment on this issue during election campaigns since 1993, to rise to ask the federal government to give back to workers the money from the employment insurance account.

Today, I am pleased to take part in the debate, at second reading, of Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another act in consequence, which provides for the establishment of an independent fund managed by a commission. The commission would also have the power to set the premium rate.

First, the advantage to commissioners in managing an independent fund is that they would manage a real insurance program. As we know, employment insurance is an insurance for workers who lose their job, or whose employment is terminated. As regards these commissioners, the chairperson would be appointed by the House of Commons; the two vice-chairpersons could be the deputy ministers of the departments involved; seven representatives would be chosen by employees and seven by employers. After all, it is the employees and employers who contribute to the employment insurance account. The federal government does not invest any money in it. It only plays an administrative role with the fund.

The committee, which would report once a year to the Department of Human Resources and Development Skills, could also submit a report to the House of Commons. This means that the report could be made public, and those who contribute to the employment insurance account, namely employees and employers, would have access to it and would be able to see what is happening with the money that they paid through their premiums.

The government must also show greater transparency as regards the employment insurance fund. The fund must not be used, as it has since 1994, to fill the government's coffers. The Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance says that, this year, there is a surplus of $9.1 billion. There is a $4 billion in the employment insurance account. This means that the excess money in the EI fund is used to increase the surplus of the government, which then uses that money for purposes other than those for which it was intended.

The situation is similar in Quebec. I am addressing now voters in Quebec, who pay premiums to the Régie des rentes du Québec. All workers pay RRQ premiums. When they retire, they receive retirement benefits through the independently-managed RRQ.

Thus, we believe that the government should be clear and transparent and ensure that the money paid toward a certain end is not used toward another. We also believe that at least $15 billion per year should be set aside in the EI fund in case of an economic crisis. However, in 2004, according to the Auditor General, the government collected $48 billion in surplus from the EI fund.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing that the government hand back these funds to the employment insurance account management committee, into an independent fund managed by administrators completely independent of the government. This way the government could refund $4.6 billion per year. It would create a management fund and would give that commission the authority to set the premium levels.

The price is not the same when someone thinks he has insurance but in fact does not. This is what happens with respect to the EI fund. One hundred per cent of workers pay premiums; they have no choice, it is the law. However, only four out of ten workers are entitled to it.

The commission would also have the power to determine not only premium rates but to make recommendations to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The government could make a whole slew of recommendations. Now, this government took the money from workers who contribute to the employment insurance fund in order to increase its surplus and be seen as a good administrator. This reform was brought in under minister Axworthy and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

Actually, the Axworthy reform was much too stringent. The year following the introduction of the reform, the employment insurance fund generated a surplus of $6 billion. In the following years, there was a succession of ministers. After minister Axworthy, there was minister Young. Then we had the present Foreign Affairs Minister, minister Jane Stewart. After her, we had the present Minister of Immigration, who administered the Human Resources Department. Finally, a new minister has been appointed, a member from Quebec and former Minister of Immigration. We hope she will understand workers of Quebec and give them the money which belongs to them.

When Prime Minister Chrétien decided to pay off the deficit with the surplus of the employment insurance fund, it became public robbery. Today, we have a commission of inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. There should also be a commission on the misappropriation of the $46 billion which served for purposes other than those intended.

Contributors to the employment insurance fund, employees and employers, have paid insurance to workers in case of job loss or severance. Now, those surpluses ended up in the consolidated revenue fund of the government, which was therefore able to increase its yearly surpluses by using those funds to pay off the deficit.

Therefore, this is a disguised tax for those who have access to employment insurance, since they contribute, not only as workers but also through their income tax and taxes like GST and PST. In fact, they are paying contributions which will be of no benefit to them. Only four workers out of ten will be paid employment insurance benefits.

The misappropriation of $46 billion justifies a public inquiry. In fact, it is a bigger scandal than that of the sponsorships. I would like the auditor general or even us, in Parliament, to ask publicly for an inquiry commission that could tell us how the government could take the workers money from their employment insurance fund to use it for other purposes.

The government remains insensitive to the situation of seasonal workers and we see more and more poverty in Canada because of the cuts in the employment insurance. Many families in the Manicouagan and Charlevoix areas and in the 75 ridings of Quebec and in fact, in the Maritimes and all of Canada, were penalized by the employment insurance reform.

With its bill, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the creation of an independent fund that would be managed by independent managers and that could not be used to play politics at the expenses of the unemployed and the workers.

The commission could make many recommendations to the government. We already have a slew of unanimous reports from our human resources committee here, which include 17 recommendations.

The eight recommendations made recently include the creation of an independent fund. It is about time the Liberal government stopped playing politics at the expense of the poorest in our society. People who work two to three months a year do not contribute $20,000 to $25,000 a year to an RRSP. They have difficulty making ends meet. What is important for them, as the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst put it so well, is to put bread and butter on the table and to send their kids to school to get an education. They paid for insurance but, unfortunately, the government prevents them from getting their benefits.

I said earlier that it was a disguised tax. It is a disguised tax when people pay insurance premiums but are prevented from getting insurance benefits and when the money they pay goes to the government's consolidated fund and is used for other purposes namely to reduce the deficit. It is clear then that it is a disguised tax imposed on the unemployed.

Furthermore, it is incredible to think that only four people out of 10 are entitled to EI benefits, that is, six people out of 10 or 60% are not entitled. The majority of these are women, young people, seasonal workers, contract workers. By the way, more and more employers provide contract jobs to workers on call, part-time workers, casual workers, replacements for workers on holidays.

The Employment Insurance Commission is so ridiculous that it imposes contributions on students who interrupt their university or college education in May, enter the workforce during the summer and go back to school in August. The law forces them to contribute to the EI fund during their summer employment, knowing very well that these students will never receive EI benefits, since they must have worked 910 hours to qualify.

Let us take the example of a student who enters the workforce. He is a seasonal, on call, casual or temporary worker. As he cannot spend his whole life doing this, he decides to go back to school. The government, through the Department of Human Resources Development and Skills Development, does not give him employment insurance benefits. The first reason is that it is voluntary termination of employment. The second is that he is not available for employment. The young guy decides to go back to university to take an engineering, a technician's course or some other course required to be able to work in a trade on a longer term the year round. Once again, the student contributed for a few months or a year, or even more, to the EI fund. When, for some reason, he decides to quit his work to go back to university or college, he is not entitled to EI benefits.

Today, with early retirement systems, people are retiring younger and younger, for example, at 55, 58 or 60 years old. Young people will replace them. When these young people enter the workforce, which, by the way, is not easy in the regions, they must work at least 910 hours to qualify for EI benefits.

With the establishment of an independent committee and of an independent fund, non-politicized managers would have to issue recommendations with a view to improve the employment insurance benefits system. The 910-hour criterion is unacceptable for women and young people who are on the labour market.

This was not the first time that former Prime Minister Chrétien was grabbing jobless people by the throat. And yet, seasonal workers in the construction, fishing, tourism, forestry or paper industries need employment insurance. Jobs are seasonal, not the workers.

In closing, I would like to submit a request about the royal recommendation concerning this bill.

We have a majority in the House. Both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party support this bill, which was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. I ask the Senate to allow the government to consider the bill at third reading. The Liberal government may be in the minority in this House, but it holds the majority in the Senate.

If the government wants to send the right signals, if it really wants to debate this bill and bring amendments, let it give instructions to the Senate. We are ready to debate the bill and to vote at third reading.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 8th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, December 10 is Human Rights Day. On the initiative of René Cassin, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in New York.

We must make every effort to uphold the rights of women, protect refugees, give human rights priority in economic matters, promote respect for the fundamental rights of aboriginal peoples and reinforce human rights legislation and international institutions.

It is the duty of each parliamentarian here and elsewhere throughout the world to ensure that democracy is central to the political agenda.

To all those who, on a daily basis, serve humanity by fighting for freedom, we give our thanks.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 15th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (setting premium rate to control surplus in Employment Insurance Account).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in this Chamber a bill to amend the current Employment Insurance Act. This bill, of course, is supported by the member for Chambly—Borduas, as well as by all my colleagues of the Bloc Québécois.

The adoption of this bill would result in the creation and management of an independent fund. We know that, with the new reform of the Employment Insurance fund implemented in 1996, seasonal workers in the ridings of Charlevoix and Manicouagan, have an increasingly difficult time qualifying for employment insurance. People have fewer and fewer weeks.

In the meantime, the federal government has been raking in surpluses. According to figures from the Auditor General, the federal government has amassed $45 billion.

This bill will have the fund administered by those who contribute to it, in other words, employers and employees, by setting the levels of premiums, ensuring sound management of the scheme and reporting to the Chamber.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canadian Heritage Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the concerns of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell regarding a part of the land in his riding. He talked about a peat bog that had been farmed. His main concern seemed to be that, if this was sold or assigned to the private sector, the peat bog might be farmed again.

In Quebec, there are organizations called RCMs, regional county municipalities. They are responsible for unorganized territory. There is also an organization called Protection du territoire. In Ontario, I do not know the protection structures, but if one wants to protect a piece of land, an area or a sector, it is not a good idea to hand over that piece of land or area to the federal government to create a park there.

In that case, can the municipality, which is an organization that has managed the lands in its territory, bring in urban bylaws? However, there is also the provincial government, through the Department of Cultural Affairs, that could ensure the protection of this land, because it seems that the land is part of the member's main concerns. In fact, this is important to him, and he seems to be saying that this causes a problem when peat bogs are in operation.

My question is as follows: would there not be another land protection organization that would meet the concerns that the member just outlined, without necessarily transferring responsibilities so that the federal government would inherit a part of the land to create a park? We know that, if this park is managed by Parks Canada, it would entail investment costs. It would also be an intrusion of the federal government in provincial lands.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first, the bill introduced in the House of Commons today by the minister deals with education savings and post-secondary education.

I would like to bring him back to reality, regional reality. Regions like the North Shore, and the riding of Manicouagan, are hard hit by the exodus of young people. They are leaving the regions to pursue a post-secondary education and do not necessarily come back, because there is no work for them. There is no work because, in many cases, their jobs are often seasonal jobs.

This is the same minister who told us today that the federal government, the Liberal Party, just came up with a bill to promote post-secondary education.

First, to contribute to an education savings plan, parents must have money to invest their share. Then, the federal government might put some money in. A seasonal worker who gets two or three months of work per year in a region, often at minimum wage—I am thinking of single parent families in particular—cannot afford to contribute to an education savings plan. They make barely enough to pay rent and put bread on the table every day.

This minister who just made this announcement is the same one who slashed access to EI for seasonal workers by tightening up the eligibility rules, cutting back the number of weeks of insurable employment and widening the black hole for individuals who are very often forced onto welfare.

How can we reconcile the minister's bill today, which is all about post-secondary education and tomorrow's youth who will be taking over, with the fact that parents are getting poorer and poorer because this government has created poverty, particularly in the regions?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member who just spoke on the throne speech. It is her first speech in the House in this 38th Parliament.

Essentially she said that it gave her a sense of déjà vu. The throne speech we heard this week was a rehash. A photocopy of Jean Chrétien's previous throne speeches.

This throne speech bears two initials, they can also be found in the schedules. In the throne speech, the initials JC appear. They stand for Jean Chrétien. The same initials can be found in the schedules: JC for Jean Charest.

The Prime Minister started writing his Speech from the Throne from the standpoint of areas of provincial jurisdiction. When we talk about labour training and labour, health care and education, direct support to municipalities, subsidized housing and child care, we talk about areas 150 per cent under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister might have looked at the schedules to the Quebec premier's throne speech.

I would have thought that in the Speech from the Throne the new Prime Minister would have taken his distances from the former Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, and the Liberal policies of his government.

He might have included in the throne speech real reform of the employment insurance plan giving status to seasonal workers, relaxing eligibility criteria and increasing the number of insurable weeks. I might have read in the throne speech—but it is not there—that the government was committed to amending Canada Labour Code to include anti-scab legislation and also to eliminating the excise tax on gasoline in order to help the transportation industry in the regions.

I might have seen in the throne speech a real fisheries policy, and help for road infrastructure, air transportation and shipping in our areas as well as mining.

My question is this: did the member notice, as we did in the French and the English versions, that this Speech from the Throne does not come close to being a Speech from the Throne. It is an empty shell.

There is nothing in it to help the regions develop. There is nothing to promote regional development and stop the exodus of young people. There is no incentive to create jobs in the regions to employ young people or seasonal workers. Unfortunately, the latter cannot find work year-round. They work in various sectors and need employment insurance at specific times of the year.

[Employment Insurance, April 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in May 2001, which included a recommendation to adjust eligibility requirements for seasonal workers, the Liberals persist in ignoring the legitimate demands of the unemployed.

For months, years even, the jobless coalitions Sans-Chemise and Action-Chômage have been calling for changes to the EI program but the government turns a deaf ear.

Despite the promises made by the Prime Minister to the Sans-Chemise of the Charlevoix region when he was in Baie-Saint-Paul, the Liberals have again proven their total contempt for the unemployed by voting this past Wednesday against Motion M-475 to ensure specific status for seasonal workers.

While the shirtless, the Sans-Chemise, are out on the street, the heartless are here in Ottawa, forming the government.

[Employment Insurance, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today, we will vote on a motion that I presented and which seeks to create a special status for seasonal workers, regardless of the economic region in which they live. Right now, many families from the North Shore and Charlevoix regions are without any income because the employment insurance program put in place by the Liberal government does not provide support to them.

Despite repeated requests to this effect, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is still refusing to meet with officials representing the Sans-Chemise and the Mouvement Action-Chômage, who are in Ottawa today to try once again to explain to the minister that the current situation is cruel and unacceptable for the unemployed, who are starving.

I am urging those hon. members who care about the plight of seasonal workers in their ridings to set aside their political differences and to support this motion, rather than abandoning the unemployed, who need their support more than ever.

In so doing, members will show that they are not complicit with the misappropriation of the employment insurance fund, and they will also show that their decisions are based first and foremost on the people whom they represent.