Ask why he voted against bill C-278, the employment
insurance bill?
Bill C-278 was tabled by BQ MP, Paule Brunelle, and
was defeated by a
vote of 170 to 77 on April 6, 2005. Andy is well
aware that the EI program
is not perfect.
This is why he continues to work on policies which
would
see EI become a better program than what currently
exists. Bill C-278 tried
to offer policy changes however these proposed changes
would not have
benefited Canadians.
Below is a speech that was delivered by Peter Adams,
who at the time
was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources and Skills
Development, on December 4, 2004. I believe Mr. Adams
clearly outlined
the reasons why the government could not have
supported Bill C-278.
"...EI plays a key role in providing temporary income
support for
people coping with job loss and for employed people
who cannot work for
reasons of sickness, childbirth, parental
responsibilities, or the need to care
for a dying family member. Also, for those Canadians
who have lost a job, EI
provides skills development opportunities, that is,
training so that
they can return to work quickly.
EI is a program for people when they need it most, but
this was not always the case. Before the introduction
of EI in 1996, there were aspects of the old
unemployment insurance system that caused some to
question the very sustainability of this vital
program, a program which is vital for social reasons,
for reasons of humanity, and for reasons of keeping
our economy going.
Those features included the encouragement of people to
become dependent on program benefits, and it
emphasized unemployment rather than employment, in
some cases actually acting as a disincentive to work.
There were parts of Bill C-278 which threatened to
return us to the situation that confronted us in the
past. For example the Bill's proposed to relax
entrance requirements.
Four successive monitoring and assessment reports, the
reports which review the program regularly, have
stated that overall access to EI benefits is strong:
88% of employees would be potentially eligible for EI
if they lost their jobs. Among those working full
time, 96% would be potentially eligible for EI if they
lost their jobs.
Among part time employees, 57% of women and 41% of men
would be potentially eligible for EI if they lost
their jobs.
For example, on average, regular beneficiaries receive
benefits for less than two-thirds of the weeks for
which they are eligible, which means that the benefit
duration is already more than enough for most clients.
Even people living in areas of high unemployment
typically do not use more than 70% of their
entitlement. Add to this the fact that benefit
exhaustion rates have steadily declined since EI's
introduction, from approximately 37% in 1995-96 to
about 31% in 2001-02.
What about the bill's call for the government to raise
the replacement rate and maximum insurable earnings?
In my opinion, this also is unwise given that the
current 55% replacement rate serves as a balance
between income adequacy and ensuring that work
incentives are maintained. In addition, individuals in
low income families with children can get additional
support through the family supplement, which allows
these
individuals to receive as much as 80% of their insured
earnings.
I might add that at the time of EI reform concerns
were raised about the fact that the level of maximum
insurable earnings at that time was substantially
higher than the average industrial wage and so was
acting as a disincentive to work. To address this, the
level was reduced to $39,000 a year with the
understanding that it would be reviewed at some later
date when the average industrial wage increased to the
equivalent of that level.
Such a review has not occurred because the maximum
insurable earnings figure is still 10% higher than the
average industrial wage. It is important to note that
70% of all paid employees have earnings below the
$39,000 level, which means that the majority of
claimants have their employment income fully insured
by the EI program at its current level.
This level seems to be set properly as well.
Finally, there is the proposal to increase the premium
refund threshold from $2,000 to $3,000, while also
lowering entrance requirements to 360 hours.
This recommendation is also ill-advised since it would
effectively result in
some workers being in a position to qualify for and
receive EI benefits without having paid premiums,
something none of us would wish to see happen.
It is clear that the bill contains a number of serious
flaws. That brings me to the heart of the matter,
namely, that given the vital importance that EI plays
in our social safety net, it is critically important
that any changes we make to it be well thought out in
advance to avoid unintended negative consequences that
could damage the whole program and its ability to help
workers.
Of course, this is not to say that EI is cast in
stone, never to change.
Some fine tuning is required from time to time, and
when evidence indicates that such changes are
necessary, the government has acted. For example, this
happened when we removed the intensity rule, when we
adjusted the clawback, and when we made the small
weeks provision a permanent and national element of
the program and subsequently increased the threshold.
We have also commenced a pilot project to test labour
market impacts in areas of high unemployment by adding
five weeks of entitlement to address the needs of
those who go without income for a period of time prior
to the resumption of their work.
However, rather than make rash, badly thought out
changes as this bill would have us do, we instead need
to pursue a balanced approach that takes into account
larger issues such as the likely impact of changes on
the labour market as a whole, on the financial
sustainability of EI in the future and on the EI
program as a whole.
Because EI is such a complex program, involving
employed as well as unemployed people, that impacts
many aspects of our economy and the lives of millions
of workers and their families, we need to get it right
for their sake and for the sake of
future generations who will need to call on this
program for assistance.
It is for this reason that I cannot support the bill.
That being said, I do want to commend the member for
her commitment to helping workers cope with job losses
and the difficult task of balancing workplace and
family demands, a commitment which I share and which
the government shares.
I particularly share her concern about balancing work
and family and particularly about the return of women
to the workplace.
Those are two areas in which I personally would be
glad to work with her to
maximize the benefits of this program.
I would urge her and other members to work with the
government as it seeks to pursue a balanced and
thoughtful approach to fine tuning the EI program so
it can continue to help Canadian workers for
generations to come.
It is only by getting the full range of ideas and
insights, such as some of those the member has put
forward this evening, that we can make this important
program even better than it is.
I regret to say that I cannot support the bill."
I hope this answers the reader's question.
2 comments:
It's unfortunate that MP's don't come here to debate, as this is patent hogwash. If the EI fund didn't have a multi-billion dollar surplus EVERY YEAR, then it would at least make some sense to 'not make rash changes'.
The argument harkens back to the old days where it was considered that maritimers did hardly any work but just enough to apply to pogey so they could sit around. There is no argument that was EVER the case, but it certainly isn't now (the stories usually tend to be 'I know a guy who knew a guy who was on pogey and travelled the world..')
This was meant to address the 'seasonal' aspect of EI. New Brunswicks unemployed, much like the rest of Canada, are often unemployed because farming, fishing, landscaping, and many other jobs couldn't be done in winter. The government 'tried' to make up bonehead jobs, even ones paid by the government. These were typically demeaning jobs, and as EI and summer work provided enough income, of course they were not taken.
Of course in NB we are quite aware that there are simply no decent jobs-particularly in remote areas. The government's position is quite clear-that EI is a 'handout' that has no redemptive value.
In fact, I would suggest practically EVERYONE should be able to collect some EI as it sits on billions of dollars.
First, many jobs that advertise in the paper and elsewhere require you to be collecting EI. This is of course so the government can brag about lowering the unemployment rate. If you are not collecting EI, you are not considered unemployed.
Second, there are many training programs that are available to people on EI. Same reason as above, yet it is clear that higher education leads to higher wages, perhaps not in NB, but at least its work.
Third, there is the old 'maritimer' view that people on unemployment sit around and drink beer and do nothing. As somebody who HAS been unemployed I know that that is not even close to being true. The internet provides thousands of courses and studies in just about anything you can possibly imagine. The trouble is, it's pretty hard to concentrate on bettering your lot in life when all you can afford is pancake mix.
It's clear we have a difference in ideology here. We KNOW why liberals don't want to support the unemployed-they might not work the menial low paying no security go nowhere jobs, and they like that surplus to sit there in case they need it come election time. The idea that that money belongs to employers and employees and the unemployed does not occur to them. To liberals, it is simply 'THEIR money', the condescending way they reject this perfectly reasonable bill supported by both the Bloc and the NDP and maintain that the program is simply too complex to be understand and other parties should simply come and work with government on the things the government likes, makes this plain. It also explains why nobody votes FOR liberals, they simply vote against somebody else.
You will notice on that extended argument (and it should be remembered that this isn't Andy Scott answering the question, this is a post of another liberals argument which Andy is too lazy to put into his own words) many numbers.
You will also notice most of them are preceded by the word "potentially" collect. Of course everybody knows that EI offices are run like mini fiefdoms. It is up to your case worker and the director whether you qualify or not.
For those who want REAL numbers I suggest you go to www.statscan.ca and type in various towns and cities under the "community profile" tab. Here you will find out REALLY how many people in a town get any government money, and the PARTICIPATION RATE in the economy, which is far more accurate than the EI number. As stated, if you don't collect EI, you aren't 'unemployed', which largely explains Canada's declining unemployment rate.
There are people who worked extremely hard jobs for many hours during the summer in hazardous jobs (far more hazardous than accounting, clerical, or retail jobs)and were collecting pogey during the winter. The idea that these jobs MAY be worth more economically since they are LIFE THREATENING while they are being done simply doesn't occur to the government.
Since then we have seen continuous cutbacks which saw, ultimately, ALL benefits to landscapers cut off completely every two years. This meant that during that year you were paying into EI, you couldn't even get your own funds back!
You'll also notice the words 'balance' and 'work incentives'. Of course this means that if you are a computer programmer then you may not take that job at McDonalds because your EI would be enough to get by til you find another computer job. So you have to make it so that there aren't too many such people, otherwise there'd be nobody in McDonalds, and that guy would be sitting at home as an unemployment statistic.
They CAN get a family supplement, but again that doesn't mean they WILL. The reason for legislation -and I shouldn't have to lecture an MP-but thats how bad its gotten, is to FORCE the program to work in such a way so that it is not just a political slush fund. I quickly learned the attitude and 'personality' that would get you EI surpluses because it was completely up to the director, or worse, a case worker who may not even like you. With the legislation your benefits are CLEAR and nobody can arbitrarily hold them back from you, such as is now the case.
In addition, individuals in
low income families with children can get additional
support through the family supplement. This is like telling people 'you don't need EI, cuz you got welfare'. Canada is even more miserly than the states for welfare now, and far behind europe for social programs to train and house people who need it.
As for the "this would result in
some workers being in a position to qualify for and receive EI benefits without having paid premiums,something none of us would wish to see happen." This shows exactly have far the liberals have actually become conservatives. The argument is made by liberals that "EI was not meant to be..." Of course its patently absurd. If we argued that Canada Post is NOW not what it was INTENDED in 1984 so we must change it back we'd be considered crazy. Government programs change with the needs of the population. That a six billion dollar employment fund MUST NOT be given to those who have never paid into it, even if they are TRYING to become active members of the workforce, to me seems clearly insane. It borders on fifth dimension madness that a government party would actually claim that something that makes perfect sense "none of us would like to see happen".
Again, the condescension of liberal governments explains how conservatives got so popular no matter what kind of wingnuts they elect as leaders. Although people wonder at the low voter turnouts, I wonder at their being so high. The reply from the liberals looks exactly like what a Pravda press release from the politburo would look like under the massive soviet bureaucracy-"shut up and trust us you stupid idiots we know whats best for you" Albeit said much more politely:)
Perhaps Mr. Scott's attitude may change somewhat after the election when HE finds himself unemployed. I tend to find people argue much more logically when they actually have had the EXPERIENCE of being unemployed and dealing with the bureaucracy (and lack of funds)
Follow-up question, if they'll take it, Charles. What about the 48 billion dollar surplus in EI? When do the workers get that back throuhg a rebate or SIGNIFICANTLY reduced premiums? I'm all for a cushion in tough times but $48-B which it seems through creative accounting they've already spent anyway. C'mon.
Post a Comment