Michael Savage

[Social Programs, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it may be a great project if one lives in a Conservative-held riding, but there are people with disabilities who live across this country who are being shut out of the process.

This fund was supposed to help persons with disabilities throughout Canada, not just in Conservative ridings. All these unanswered questions suggest the fund was created to help Conservatives and also suggest serious political interference, including the $15 million sent to the riding of the finance minister.

Will the minister do the right thing and release all information about this program, or will she admit that this has become a political slush fund?

[Social Programs, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today I sent a letter to the Auditor General, requesting an inquiry into the enabling accessibility fund.

There are too many troubling questions surrounding this program, including the fact that of $36 million allocated, $34 million went to ridings held by Conservatives, and the fact that of 89 applications for major funding, only 2 were approved, both to Conservative ridings, including $15 million to the riding of the Minister of Finance, who once sat on the board approving project applications.

If there is nothing to hide, will she release all relevant information pertaining to the application process?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that under a Liberal government, payroll taxes went down. The EI premiums went down 12 years in a row. They went down for employers and they went down for employees.

It is the Conservative government that has frozen them. In fact the Conservative government has included that as part of its stimulus. It said that $2.5 billion of stimulus is because it held the rates on potential increases in premiums.

According to the Caledon Institute that is similar to standing up on a Tuesday and announcing that everyone's taxes are going to double the next day and then the next day cancelling it and saying that is a $236 billion stimulus. It is phoney accounting.

I will say this about EI. There have been investments in EI. That is because there are more unemployed people in this Conservative recession.

I do not doubt the people at Service Canada. I think we are blessed to have the people at Service Canada on the front lines in my riding, in Peterborough and across the country. It is the political leadership I question. We could do a lot better.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone through this in the House a number of times. The economic circumstances in 1990 were dire, but back then we were coming out of a $40 billion plus annual deficit. There were changes that had to be made.

There were changes to EI, but as the economy improved, not everyone benefited. We had pilot projects, including in many ridings that are held by the Bloc Québécois. We brought in maternity benefits for Canadians and extended that to a year. There were changes made.

The fact is that we are now in an economic crisis the likes of which we have not seen in generations. Now is the time to invest in the social infrastructure of Canada. Now is the time to be fair to Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast and provide regional fairness for employment insurance.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion, which calls for a number of things. It allows us to hold the government to account, adjust the House calendar in the fall and a number of other issues, as well. It also allows us, as members of Parliament, to arrive home tonight or tomorrow and see our families, which will welcome us.

Our constituents may not be as welcoming and they certainly would not have been delighted to see us knocking on their doors. I think people would have felt downright anger if we had been unable to do something productive so we could avoid an election in Canada. I know people never really want an election. They have more important things to do with their lives. We need to have them on occasion, but I think Canadians were right in this case. This was not the time to have an election.

My colleagues and I arrived here on Monday and nobody knew exactly what would happen. We knew Canadians were watching. I think this week Parliament rose to the level of the people we represent. There are differences among all parties, and those continue. The government is not completely satisfied and the opposition is not completely satisfied, and I say that about all opposition parties. However, I believe significant concessions have been made in the national interest.

I want to talk about employment insurance. EI is an issue that I have been involved with for some time now, ever since my appointment as critic for human resources two and a half years ago. To be frank, it was not an issue about which I had a lot of knowledge. I come from an area in Atlantic Canada. People often say that I am from Atlantic Canada, so EI is a big issue. In fact, in the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, people need the maximum number of hours to qualify for EI, which is 700 hours. Many other parts of Atlantic Canada have seasonal issues of unemployment and areas of high unemployment and the hours to qualify are different.

In my view this is not a regional issue. It is a national issue. It may have regional implications, but this is a national issue of employment insurance. On taking my job, it became clear to me, from listening to stakeholder groups that represented workers and other social justice and business groups, that it was time for changes to EI.

My colleague from Wascana has correctly outlined the differences between the mid-1990s and today. There are very significant differences in the economy. EI has to adjust to the economic circumstances. We are in a crisis. EI, as a major part of our social infrastructure, has to play an important role as we recover from this crisis.

Over the last little while, particularly since the last election, EI has become a very significant issue to Canadians. There was nothing about employment insurance in the very partisan economic update. In fact, the Conservatives first denied there was a problem. This led to a showdown in the fall and toward Christmas. Then the Prime Minister shut down Parliament.

The Liberals first raised the alarm bell. With increased unemployment, people were experiencing, for example, delays in obtaining their benefits, sometimes up to 40-plus days. My colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche raised this issue in the House back in November. I think people in his constituency were waiting 55 to 60 days.

On November 27, 2008, I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources about delays. She denied there was a problem. On December 19, I sent a letter to her, indicating we needed some action. Again, we did not get any indication that the government saw this as an issue.

Three months went by with no response until she sent me a letter in which she apologized for the delay in responding to my letter. However, she still did not address the issue about wait times for EI. Eventually we saw $60 million that appeared to have been dedicated toward easing the backlog of EI applications.

The other issue with respect to EI is this. Tens of thousands of Canadians have paid into EI but do not qualify. They paid into the plan and when they needed the help, it was not there. The Conservative government again failed to act for months, and as a result caused families to suffer.

On each issue, the Liberals fought day in and day out during this session of Parliament, calling upon the government to take real action on employment insurance, but it did not. We nearly ended up with an election, but this week we were able to avert that. From our point of view, the good thing from that is the Prime Minister has acknowledged it does not make sense to have 58 EI rates.

If we look at the chart of employment insurance, it is incredibly complicated. People need a degree in mathematics just to figure out whether they qualify, based on the hours they have, the employment rate in their region, et cetera. It does not make any sense that people who live in Ottawa do not qualify for EI, but if they work in the same place but live in Gatineau, they do. It is the same thing in Moncton and Dieppe. People could working in the same plant and one person would qualify, the other would not. In my own riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, one does not have to drive very far to see a very significant differentiation in terms of who qualifies for EI and who does not.

How do we fix it? We have seen private members' bills, studies and advocacy from a lot of people. The New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois have raised this in private members' bill for years, and I have supported them. I do not question their motivation on this, but I do question what has actually come out of it.

The member for Hamilton Mountain correctly talked about an opposition day motion she brought forward. The member for Welland has brought forward a bill. My colleague from the Bloc, who works with me on the human resources committee, has brought forward bills. The Bloc member for Brome—Missisquoi has a bill that passed the House and has to go to committee. We have supported these important bills. However, the problem is they have not helped one worker in the country. They have added up to nothing. It is inside baseball or inside Ottawa, so to speak.

The fact is when we come to this place, we can either make a point or we can make a difference. Let us try to make a difference. My colleague from Kings—Hants often speaks about this.

We will all go home tonight or tomorrow and we will have the chance to do our work. We all know it is not a summer vacation. MPs work very hard in their ridings. When we have come through a hard session, as we have recently, we have a lot to make up in our constituencies. We take our work very seriously. Nobody gets everything they want, but Canadians do get a couple of things. They get a summer without an election and they also have an opportunity to make significant improvement in employment insurance.

As a result of the discussions between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I now have a summer job that I did not apply for, but which I am happy to accept. I am happy to work with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I will work with the Minister of Finance, with the officials and with whomever I have to, because this is important work.

I will not stand here today and tell members that we will come to an agreement in September. It may well be that we cannot because we have certain principles. We have talked about 360 hours, and that has been maligned. I do not think it has even been a misunderstanding. There have been absolute deliberate mistruths spread about that 360-hour standard.

Right now people can get EI in many parts of the country for 420 hours. That is not a whole lot different from 360 hours. In fact, people cannot collect EI for a year anywhere in the country. The maximum was 45 weeks. With the extension of five weeks, it is now 50 weeks. Our proposal for the duration of the crisis, which I think makes a lot of sense, is people would be able to qualify for EI after 360 hours. They would still have a variable length of time in which they could collect it, starting at 19 weeks and going up to 50 weeks. A structural change to EI has to come.

The self-employed have talked for years about the need to be involved. It is not a simple issue. How do we determine who actually is eligible as a self-employed person? Should it be voluntary or should it be mandatory? There are those who would say both.

If we asked all Canadians who pay EI, “Would you like to pay EI?”, what we would have? Most people who think they might need it would pay for it. Those who did not think they would need it might not pay for it. That would be a normal thing. With the self-employed, it is a complicated issue, but it is time we tackled this. I think as a result of the restructuring, as an outcome of the crisis in economy, we will have more self-employed people. That is important.

However, regional fairness is important. Any one of us, the 308 members of Parliament in the House, would have a hard time going to our constituents and saying to them, in a time of economic crisis, that they need 700 hours to qualify but somebody else needs 420. The regional rates have made sense in economies in the past, but right now Canadians are hurting. It is about fairness. It is about a national standard. It is about doing what is right for Canadians when they need help.

Employment insurance is a very important piece of our social infrastructure. It is time to make it better. I certainly look forward to, and accept humbly, the opportunity to be a part of the task force. I hope we can make a difference for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when we arrived here on Monday as MPs, we knew that on Friday we were either going to go home to our constituents for the summer or else we were going to go to an election. I have spoken to a number of her colleagues in the last few days who have told us that they wanted a deal made and that they did not want to go to an election. It is not just because they were not doing so well in the polls right now. It is because they knew that Canadians did not want to have an election.

The bluster and hype that goes on here is a little hard to deal with on occasion. I understand that it is politics and in politics that is how things are, but she talks about the deal that we made so that we could do some work over the summer and perhaps come back with some EI proposals. She talked about some of the good ideas that the NDP brought forward. The Liberals supported a number of those in the House. As she said, they passed with a majority of the votes.

However, what have they done for Canadians? They have added nothing. There is nothing for Canadians as a result of that. It has not left the House. How can she say that it does not make sense to do a little bit of work over the summer and see if we can come up with some proposals when all the hype and bluster here has done absolutely nothing? The government members have not listened. Should they have? Yes, but they have not.

What have they added to the debate? We can pass things in Parliament. We can come to this place in Parliament, but we have to make a difference. In this Parliament, one can make a point or make a difference. I think that, in this case, we are going to make a difference. I ask her, what does she think about what they have done in this Parliament?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. It was certainly more statesmanlike than the deputy House leader for the government's was.

I want to ask him specifically about EI and the issue of regional fairness.

It is not just the opposition parties in this House who say we need to have regional fairness and a 360-hour standard, but that is the overwhelming feeling of business, labour, social policy groups, analysts and anti-poverty advocates. There are people who would argue whether it should be 360, 395 or 420 hours, but even his own premier in B.C., as well as Premier Stelmach, Premier Doer and others have said we need to have regional fairness.

I ask my hon. colleague, very seriously, does he not think that the people of his constituency should have the same access to EI as any other Canadian?

[June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the summer is almost here, and I deviate from my usual message to compliment the parliamentary secretary for the work he has done in the committee. I do enjoy working with him.

The human resources committee, I think, is a model for all committees. I see my colleague here from Cape Breton—Canso, who was on the human resources committee in the last Parliament before being demoted to whip in this Parliament. He knows how well this committee has worked.

I want to commend the chair of the committee, the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, who has been a very effective chair and has often put issues, policy and principle ahead of politics.

If we can make this committee work, it is by using the principles we have used in the human resources committee, which is that we have to put Canadians first. Let us look at solutions.

I have always said, in talking about EI, I believe in a 360-hour national standard. I do not like the way it is characterized by some members. They are insulting Canadians by implying that they are lazy.

On the other hand, we have to go forward and we have to have some way of determining what is the best thing for Canadians. If we can work on that this summer, we can get some productive work done.

[June 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the excellent question by my colleague on EI.

When I asked a question back in April, the minister indicated that her system of EI was working because more people were eligible. More people were eligible because more people were not working. In other words, the success of the government's program was measured by the fact that more people were unemployed. That is a death spiral sanctioned by the government. That is no way to run a government in an economically difficult time.

There may be an opportunity now to work on this issue as a result of the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister for seeing this needs some work.

We have to do something for the unemployed in our country. Employment insurance is the best stimulus that we have. If we compare employment insurance to infrastructure or tax cuts, it is the best stimulus bar none.

Tax cuts are not an effective way to deal with stimulus. There are all kinds of economic advantages to them, but as stimulus they fail. Infrastructure is a good project in an economically difficult time and it can be a good stimulus, but the money has to get out the door, and the government has had trouble doing that. Employment insurance goes directly into the hands of people who have no choice but to spend it.

There are 58 different regions across the country and there have been some good reasons for that. These regions determine who is eligible, how quickly they become eligible and how long they will get benefits. It makes a lot of sense. It is more difficult to get work in an area with chronically high unemployment.

On the other hand, people in areas that have not suffered from high unemployment in years past are now suffering from it. I am speaking of places like Alberta, like my colleague's province of Saskatchewan, and B.C. We need to have something that equalizes the opportunity.

The Premier of Alberta and the Premier of B.C. have called for a national standard. It makes sense. Everybody is calling for it. One may argue about whether it should be 360 hours, or 390 hours or 420 hours, but we need a national standard for EI eligibility. Maybe we can still look at how long a person would draw that benefit. However, people need to know that everybody is equal in our country. If they lose their jobs, they need to know they will be treated well by the government.

It is not acceptable to say that the employment insurance system works because as more people become unemployed they will qualify. That means people are in the position of having to hope that their friends, their neighbours and their colleagues will lose their jobs so they can qualify for EI. Nobody wants that. That is not the way to run the system.

I have been asked by my leader to be on the panel that will have a look at this, along with one of my colleagues and some members of the Conservative Party. I do not know what will happen. I pledge to the House that I will do my best to work hard to find some solutions. I hope the government will do the same thing.

This is the single biggest economic issue that we have in Canada. It goes to the issue of fairness and it goes to the issue of helping people who need it the most. At this time, when Canada is suffering, when we are having trouble getting infrastructure money out the door, we should be putting money in the pockets of people who need it and who will spend it, not only because it is good for them, but because it is good for Canada.

The parliamentary secretary should join the committee. We could work together on this and find some solutions. I hope we will have an eventful summer. I have to go home now and explain to my wife why we have to change our summer plans, but this is a positive thing for Parliament and for Canada.

[Employment Insurance, June 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is becoming more and more robotic in her answers, showing an astounding lack of understanding of the real pain that Canadians are feeling.

Job losses continue, uncertainty reigns, and the government has no coherent plan to help the unemployed. The Conservatives' only plan is to mislead Canadians when they talk about changes to EI, saying it would create a 45-day work year. What she is saying is that she thinks Canadians are lazy. The Liberals do not think that Canadians are lazy. She should apologize to Canadians.

Why is the minister unwilling to make changes to EI now?