Robert Aubin

[Employment Insurance, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when we discuss employment insurance, the Liberals and the Conservatives forget about the workers. They only care about the fund's surplus.

Over the years, they have managed to take no less than $57 billion from workers. Today, history is repeating itself with the $3.5-billion surplus forecast in the 2015 budget. The Conservatives plan to use this money to balance their budget while the Liberals would like to use it to fund a new but flawed tax credit.

When will the government stop using workers' money for purposes other than employment insurance?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Bourassa for his question.

The principle is very simple. In terms of the employment insurance fund, there was a balance between the premiums paid by employers and the premiums paid by employees. Using the surplus in the employment insurance fund to lower employer premiums or to offer employers a credit, reduction or exemption, while the employees are left to contribute the same amount, creates an imbalance between what employers pay and what employees pay. Employees are paying more and more, but they are not receiving insurance services, although they are being told that everything is fine and that jobs may be created. In fact, they will have in part funded the tax break given to employers.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is often said that the past is an indication of the future, and this is particularly applicable to our Conservative Party and Liberal Party colleagues. The past has indicated, without a doubt, their ferocious appetite and their capacity to take the surpluses generated by the employment insurance fund and to spend those surpluses on other things.

The two job creation measures we heard about last week and this week propose the exact same thing. The NDP presented its own hiring credit proposal, since this is a valid measure. However, this time, it would be supported by all Canadians, without an imbalance between the EI premiums charged to employers and those paid by workers.

All the measures put in place with the Conservatives' reform have generated a significant surplus. If the premiums had been maintained at what they were before the Conservatives' announcement, the surplus would be around $2 billion a year, because services are not being provided at the other end, or at least so few services are being provided that the money is piling up. Now we have this swarm of Conservatives and Liberals buzzing around a pile of money. However, this money was contributed by employers and workers so that unemployed workers could receive services.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I must point out that we do not have enough time to debate a motion such as this one, and since equality and sharing are part of the NDP's DNA, I am happy to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. That way, we can hear as many points of view as possible on this issue.

Let us start with where I come from, Mauricie. In light of the many company closures, including Rio Tinto Alcan and Resolute Forest Products, I will be participating in a large-scale public demonstration on Saturday in Mauricie. Actually, it will be in Shawinigan, to be more precise. We are going to take to the streets to show how proud we are to live in the region. We will also be showing our solidarity with the many workers who have lost or will unfortunately be losing their jobs because of these closures.

It is therefore clear that when it comes to measures that would create jobs, I would love to hear the proposals and see how they could benefit my own region. However, when these measures are funded out of EI surpluses while most workers who have contributed to the plan do not receive benefits when they need them, my ears really perk up. Members will have to work hard to convince me that the Liberal or Conservative approach is a good thing.

Of course, as the NDP employment insurance critic, I wanted to take part in the debate since the Conservatives and the Liberals seem to have similar approaches in taking advantage once again of EI surpluses to fund a job creation policy that, in one case, offers no guarantee of job creation and, in the other case, is based on a mathematical and financial calculation that is flawed and would make people fear the worst if these same thinkers came to power some day. The only thing these two measures seem to have in common is that they are a reflection of the two old parties and a direct result of their ferocious appetite for EI surpluses. In addition, the Liberals and Conservatives always make policies at the expense of workers who make contributions and yet are receiving fewer and fewer services. Need I remind the House that the Liberals diverted over $50 billion from the premium surplus for purposes other than EI? Need I remind the House that the Conservatives followed suit when they came to power and took at least an extra $3 billion, in addition to eliminating the EI account and imposing their reform, which had no consequences other than reduced benefits and more and more unemployed people without access to the plan?

To quote Mr. Hassan Yussuff of the Canadian Labour Congress:

How is it acceptable to be accumulating annual surpluses in the EI account, when 63% of unemployed workers aren't receiving any benefits?

In fact, 63% of contributors do not receive benefits and the Conservatives and Liberals want to use the surplus to supposedly establish a job creation program.

Instead of addressing the issue, the Liberals and the Conservatives are wallowing in the surplus. They want to siphon it off and are only providing relief to employers or premium holidays in the hope that they will create new jobs. It is still to be defined what qualifies as a new job.

Before we go on to the crux of the matter, let us finish examining the execution. For the time being, all I see in the Conservative and the Liberal proposals on the table is the withdrawal of $550 million or so from the employment insurance program, which will be diverted for other purposes while, I repeat, only employers' contributions decrease.

If they really wanted to talk about a measure that could create new jobs, they would recognize that the only serious proposal that would pass the test and that is both fair and balanced is the NDP proposal. Allow me to cite just the fact that the hiring tax credit proposed by my party will be funded through the government's general revenues. In other words, it will be funded by all Canadians, businesses and corporations, rather than in large part by workers, as proposed by the Liberals and the Conservatives in their approach.

In fact, since the government blithely dips into the employment insurance fund, what exactly is insurance? Before going any further in my speech, I made sure to look up the definition of terms, and I went back to the dictionary definition of insurance, which is:

The act or an instance of insuring property, life, etc.; a sum paid for this; a premium; a sum paid out as compensation for theft, damage, loss, etc.

Our employment insurance requires employees and employers to pay a premium to an employment insurance plan, run by the government, in order to provide temporary benefits when the worst possible thing happens in the life of worker, who has to devote his or her time to looking for a new job.

Contrary to what some quite often suggest, on average an unemployed person receives less than 20 weeks of benefits before being placed in a job that matches his or her skills.

The problem right now is not that people are making a lifestyle out of going on EI, but rather that the benefits are not there when they need them. Currently, our employment insurance program allows less than 4 out of 10 workers who contribute to the plan to be eligible for benefits when they lose their jobs. Do hon. members know of any insurance company that would stay in business for long with that kind of record?

The NDP understands how important job creation is to economic growth. However, that growth must be done without undermining the social safety net we have had for so long.

We are proposing a hiring tax credit and my leader, the hon. member for Outremont, has clearly indicated our commitment to abolishing the Conservatives' employment insurance reform when the NDP forms the next government in 2015.

In June, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour introduced a bill in the House that I had the honour of supporting. The bill lays out how an NDP government will protect the employment insurance fund to ensure that the contributions are used for their intended purpose.

Can Canada protect itself from the temptations of the Liberals and the Conservatives to misuse the fund?

Although the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the successive Liberal and Conservative governments' actions, it did not comment on the legitimacy of this approach.

I believe, as do many Canadians, that the Liberal and Conservative proposals are nothing more than a new employment tax on workers. Workers are clearly being told that they will have a very difficult time getting employment insurance benefits when they fall on hard times, that their contributions will remain the same and that, in contrast, employers will get a tax break for rehiring them. That is quite the imbalance.

In other words, ordinary workers will have to pay for their benefits and for being rehired, since both the Liberal motion that was moved this morning and the position announced by the Liberal leader last week do not define what actually constitutes a new job.

Let us look at an example. An employee of an SME, factory, industry or some other employer is laid off because there are not enough orders coming in to keep the job open. A few months later, new clients are found and more orders start coming in, and the company is in a position to rehire the worker. Does that constitute a new job? God only knows. The Liberals may think so, but they are not admitting it.

Since I am almost out of time, I will end by saying that it is in the Liberals' and the Conservatives' DNA to come up with reverse Robin Hood measures. While workers continue to pay for services to which they no longer have access, many employers will be relieved of some of the burden of participating in the employment insurance program in exchange for a job creation dream that will not necessarily add new jobs to our economy.

The societal model that the NDP is proposing to all Canadians is based on the principle of strong solidarity. Canada is a rich country where no one should be left behind, a country where economic development and the solidarity that comes from developing our social safety net are not mutually exclusive.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

Did I miss something? It sounds like an election has been called, but no one told me about it. It seems to me that there has been more talk about the Conservatives' election platform than about the Liberal motion.

Since it is clear that today's debates are going to focus on the proposals made by our friends from those two parties, I feel quite comfortable asking my colleague a very specific question about that $550 million, which could be used to create new jobs.

I would remind the House that the money was originally taken from the employment insurance fund. The money reimbursed would be redistributed to employers, which would create new jobs.

Let us compare that to the tax breaks the Conservatives are offering to major corporations. I remember that one day, former finance minister Mr. Flaherty urged big business to reinject that dead money into the economy in order to create jobs. That was nothing but rhetoric. What guarantee do we have that jobs will actually be created?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding and a region where the unemployment rate is especially worrisome, so when a debate about employability measures gets under way in the House, you had better believe I will be here. However, there is something bothering me this morning about both the Conservatives' and the Liberals' approach, and that is the feeling I have of witnessing a swarm of bees that have just found a source of sugar.

Not only did these two parties hijack $57 billion in employment insurance contributions over the years, but now that there is a surplus in the employment insurance fund, they want to do exactly the same thing and steal another $550 million.

The real question is: why is there a surplus in the employment insurance fund? The answer is pretty simple: fewer than four in ten workers who contribute to the fund do not qualify when they need employment insurance. The surplus might actually be smaller if the money had been used for the purpose it was contributed for.

That does not stop us from taking a look at job creation measures. If the job creation measure my colleague proposed is really effective, should the money for it not come from the government's general revenue fund instead of the employment insurance fund, which should be able to continue providing the services it is supposed to provide?

[Employment Insurance, September 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the employment insurance fund will have a $3.5-billion surplus in 2015.

To create that surplus, the government cut benefits and limited access to the system, just as the Liberals did. The unemployed may never lay eyes on that $3.5 billion.

The government cannot claim to be a good manager and dip blithely into the employment insurance fund.

Will the government support our bill and ensure that premiums are used the way they were meant to be used?

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

We have to be careful when we talk about numbers and compare Canada's $5 million to the United States' $100 million. Let us not forget that in the United States there are 250 million people contributing to the public purse, while in Canada there are 34 million. In this type of situation, we have to understand that if the problem we are discussing this evening changes exponentially, then the aid provided by each country, while remaining proportionate to each country's weight and finances, must change exponentially as well and not just mathematically, slowly and always keeping the relative proportions of each country's finances. We cannot ask Canada to invest as much as the United States. I think that is easy to understand.

This progression must follow the scope of the disaster.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her question, to which she provided part of the answer.

One of the suggestions I was going to make involved deploying this team, which is able to intervene quickly. The team is always ready and just waiting to be told the time and location of its mission so that it can go there and work with its partners to find solutions to the crisis.

We could also think about deploying military personnel who specialize in health care. In every garrison, there are a certain number of doctors, nurses and heath care professionals who chose a career in the military. They are still health care professionals. They therefore have all the skills required to intervene.

What is more, you need to be familiar with the army to understand how great a capacity military personnel have to isolate themselves and create a safe environment before intervening.

All members of the House could consider these two options so that Canada could take further action in this crisis.

[Ebola Outbreak, September 15th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be back in the House and to see you again.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord who certainly has some good insights to share on this issue.

I am not sure whether I am the only one to notice this, but it was a strange summer. Summer is normally the most festive season in our respective ridings; this may well be, but as they say, in the summer every day is a slow news day. However, this summer, the events caught up with us night after night, casting a dramatic pall over the festivities going on in our ridings.

This summer, we saw numerous armed conflicts going on, one air tragedy after another, a lot of political tensions, unresolved economic crises, and young women being abducted. I am thinking, for example, of Boko Haram, a name that was unfortunately on everyone's lips for all the wrong reasons.

So here we are back for another session of Parliament where a number of issues will clearly divide us. In our emergency debate this evening, I would prefer to do away with the word “debate” and talk instead about a discussion on an urgent matter to which the Government of Canada must say “present,” while constantly reasserting or updating that presence as the situation develops.

I dare hope that this issue will bring us closer to each other and to the international community. Indeed, the crisis the people of some West African countries are going through speaks to our solidarity, but also to our desire to be safe wherever we are.

At a time when our planet has become very small and it is possible for almost all of us to go around it in about 24 hours, when our means of transportation allow us to travel back and forth as if globalization had erased all borders, we must act responsibly at home. Ultimately, our home is everywhere.

Before I continue, let me give a heartfelt salute to my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie who requested this emergency exchange, or this debate as it is more commonly referred to. It enables us not only to learn more about this tragedy , which is far from over, and how various countries are trying to deal with this crisis, but also to put additional pressure on the Government of Canada to do more. Far be it from me to criticize the actions already taken by the Government of Canada. However, in a crisis such as this, we clearly need to follow its progress daily, even hourly, and adapt our response according to the needs.

What about this situation, this Ebola crisis? Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal are grappling with an epidemic confirmed by the World Health Organization. We are talking about more than 4,000 confirmed cases since the infection was first identified in 1976. There have been a few multiple cases over the years, but nothing like the crisis we are currently facing. Research has made great strides in trying to develop a vaccine, but about 50% of people who contract the virus one way or another will still die from it.

Of course, we need to continue focusing our efforts on this research. However, we also need to put in place everything we can to confine this crisis to the smallest possible area in order to fight it as effectively as we can.

Why is the epidemic now being described as “unprecedented”? First, it is because of its magnitude. Over 2,000 people have now contracted the virus, and the geographic distribution is quite different. In fact, when the virus affects people living in a relatively modest village, or it is brought under control quickly, or the disease decimates a large part of the village, it is relatively easy—I am weighing my words carefully because there is nothing easy about this—let us say, it is easier to beat a virus like this. What we are seeing now is that the virus has also moved to large centres, to the cities where people live much closer to one another and where spreading a virus, even without intending to, has perhaps become much easier.

That is one explanation that may help us understand the extent of this crisis.

As well, since the number of victims is increasing, there is a direct impact on the health system itself. Doctors, nurses and health care workers are doing the best they can to the best of their knowledge as they work with those afflicted. Sometimes, as a result, and despite all the protections that have been put in place, they contract the virus and die. Their death rate is no different from that of the general population, which is to say approximately 50% of those who contract the virus. If the medical team is reduced, it is clear that there will be a downward spiral.

The fight is increasingly difficult. It is so difficult that in some particularly underdeveloped regions that have less well-equipped health infrastructure, we are now seeing collateral damage. If there is no staff or infrastructure to treat diseases that could be dealt with, stopped, controlled and treated with relative success in the past—such as diarrhea or malaria—that, too, has a direct impact on the mortality rate of the population in general and infants in particular. That is yet another catastrophe.

Fear is also taking hold. When so many health care professionals die because they wanted to give their all to the people, that obviously deters other health care professionals who would certainly want to help and apply their knowledge to help curb the crisis, but who want to be 100% sure that they can do so in completely safe conditions. That also slows the process down.

Those are a few reasons that provide some explanation.

What is the World Health Organization saying? According to its roadmap, there is a need for $600 million. So far, the various countries that want to help find a solution to this crisis have committed approximately one-third of that. The goal is still far from reach. It is very easy to imagine that the sum of $600 million will increase if this epidemic grows exponentially. It will require additional funds.

In other words, time is of the essence. We have to make decisions quickly while making the best choices and providing the necessary funds to win this fight.

What are the top priorities? Perhaps expanding isolation centres. In some cases, these have to be built in the first place before they can be expanded. We also have to be able to deploy mobile labs to diagnose people with the disease on site and even faster so that they can be isolated even faster.

We need to be able to create airlifts for the safe international transfer of personnel who want to help handle the crisis and for the transportation of necessary equipment and supplies. Lastly, we need to build a regional network of rural hospitals.

There is no doubt that all of these measures will require a significant contribution from each participating country in addition to the $5 million that Canada has already pledged. That is good, but I think it is not nearly enough.

I would like to close with two short quotes.

The first is from Margaret Chan of the WHO:

In the three hardest hit countries, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the number of new patients is moving faster than the capacity to manage them.

The second is from Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in a letter to President Barack Obama:

I am being honest with you when I say that at this rate, we will never break the transmission chain and the virus will overwhelm us.

Canada's help during this crisis is of the utmost importance, and we must be unwavering in our support.