Evidence of meeting #49 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unemployed.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Paul Thompson  Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Erin Weir  Economist, United Steelworkers
Ken Georgetti  President, Canadian Labour Congress
Rosalie Washington  As an Individual

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

I call this meeting to order pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 29, 2009, regarding Bill C-50, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

I want to welcome the minister today. It's great to have you here. I know you're going to speak for a few minutes or so, and then we're going to have a chance to go around the room, as we normally do, and ask some questions on Bill C-50.

Thank you again, Minister, for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here. I'll turn the floor over to you now.

3:30 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Good day to my honourable colleagues.

I am here today to speak about Bill C-50—an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits. It is important legislation designed to support our workforce. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to provide meaningful help to those workers who have lost their jobs because of the recent downturn in the economy.

This is about fairness. The legislation we're examining today will extend regular employment insurance benefits to unemployed long-tenured workers.

So who are these long-tenured workers? Well, as part of our government's economic action plan's career transition assistance initiative, we define these workers as people who have worked for extended periods and have made limited use of EI benefits. They can be found in all sectors of the economy and right across the country. In fact, it's estimated that roughly half of Canadians who pay EI premiums are long-tenured workers, and roughly one-third of those who have lost their jobs since the end of January 2009 and have made an EI claim are long-tenured workers.

These are Canadians who have contributed to our economy for years and have lost their jobs as a result of the global economic recession. They've worked hard, paid taxes, and played by the rules their whole lives, and of course they have contributed EI premiums each year on the job. These new measures by our Conservative government for long-tenured workers will provide five to 20 weeks of additional regular benefits, depending on how long an individual has been working and paying EI premiums.

As an example, under the legislation, workers who have contributed to the program in seven of the past 10 years would receive an extra five weeks of employment insurance regular benefits. For every additional year of contributions, the number of weeks of benefits would increase by three weeks, up to the 20-week maximum.

As the bill stands, the start date would be linked to the coming into force of the bill, and the measure would remain in place until September 11, 2010. This means that payments of these extended benefits would continue until the autumn of 2011. Our Conservative government's major concern is that workers who need help receive it. That's why our government will introduce an amendment to fix the start date at January 4, 2009. This is the right thing to do to ensure that no workers fall through the cracks while this bill passes through both Houses of Parliament. Also, our government will introduce a technical amendment that will guarantee that all eligible long-tenured workers will be able to access their maximum benefit. This too is in recognition of the time it takes to receive royal assent on this bill.

To gradually transition out of this measure, the level of additional benefits would be reduced in five-week increments. We're providing support to Canadians when they need it. In fact, Bill C-50 has the potential to help 190,000 unemployed individuals who have worked hard over the years and are now in a very vulnerable state.

We believe this is fair, responsible and the right thing to do at this time. It will help unemployed workers who have worked hard over the years and now, through no fault of their own, are unemployed and need assistance to get through this difficult period.

Mr. Chair, Bill C-50 complements a series of other measures we have introduced in Canada's Economic Action Plan.

Earlier I mentioned the career transition assistance initiative. With the CTA, we are again supporting long-tenured workers but in a different way--through training. Workers can get their EI benefits extended up to a maximum of two years while they undertake long-term training. They can also get earlier access to EI if they invest in their training using part of their severance package or all of it. Service Canada is offering information sessions across the country to make sure that long-tenured workers are aware of their options.

Through our economic action plan we've also implemented other important measures to support all unemployed Canadians. This government is providing five extra weeks of EI regular benefits and increasing the maximum duration of benefits from 45 to 50 weeks in regions of high unemployment. This measure has already helped over 300,000 Canadians while they search for new employment.

We are also protecting jobs through the Work Sharing program. This is a tremendously successful initiative because it actually prevents people from losing their job in the first place. By enhancing work sharing agreements, we are allowing more flexibility for employers' plans during the recovery period.

This month, there are approximately 5,800 active work-sharing agreements across the country, supporting some 165,000 Canadians. Some 8,400 families have been helped by our wage-earner protection program. We're also providing an additional $1.5 billion towards skills training to be delivered by the provinces and territories. This is over and above the normal training funds that we already provide to the provinces and territories. Through our economic action plan, we are investing even more in older workers to ensure that our workforce benefits from their invaluable experience and mentorship.

As I explained earlier, the legislation before us proposes a temporary measure that will provide some much-needed assistance to long-tenured workers throughout the country.

The passage of this bill will make a difference in their lives and the lives of their families. Now let us do our part and assist them when they need it most and support them while they find a job.

It's the fair thing to do, it's the right thing to do, and it's the responsible thing to do. At this time, we need to stay the course, because our plan is delivering for Canadians. The last thing that Canadians want and need at this time is an unnecessary and unwanted election.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to answer the committee's questions now.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Once again, thank you, Minister, for being here today and for those opening comments.

As we normally do, we're going to have a first round of questions of seven minutes, starting with the Liberals.

Mr. Savage, the floor is yours.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification that perhaps might not eat into my time, in fact, we didn't have the minister's remarks in front of us. I just want to understand what she said earlier. She's indicating that regardless of when this bill passes and receives royal assent through both Houses of Parliament, the bill will come into force on January 4. Is that what I heard her say?

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

That's the amendment we will putting forward at report stage.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

As per the amendment we referenced on Tuesday that we would have put forward, I think that's a step forward.

Thank you. I'm prepared for the clock to start.

I welcome the minister to our committee.

I have some issues with the bill, and I guess that's not a surprise. You talk about Canadians who deserve help getting help, Canadians who have worked hard, who need the help of the government. But only about one-third of those long-tenured workers who have been laid off since January will get benefit from this bill. Anybody who lost their job early in the recession, last year, won't get help from this bill. Do you not consider them deserving? Do you not think they've worked hard?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

There is no question that a lot of people have lost their jobs in this recession. It has been one of the worst in many decades. What we're trying to do here is fulfill a commitment that we made in our economic action plan last January, which was to track what was happening with the economy, what was happening to workers, and to provide targeted assistance to those most in need.

When we did the analysis of layoffs, people who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own, we found that there was a very significant spike, an extra 1.5%, in fact, who lost their jobs in January. By predating this bill to January and now fixing the date at January 4, we will be able to capture the vast majority of those people who are under this classification. Those are the ones who are quite frankly having a really tough time finding a job, because they've been in the workplace a long time. Many of them have limited portable skills, and many of them haven't had the necessity of looking for a job in quite some time. We are seeing that they are having difficulty finding new work.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

How would you classify those people who don't qualify? Are they not also deserving of some assistance from the government--

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

What we have, remember--

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

--equal assistance from the government?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Let's remember that we have provided an additional five weeks for virtually every person who is claiming employment insurance. We've increased the maximum as well, from 45 to 50 weeks. As well, we've provided unprecedented investments in training to help all of these individuals, whether they're on employment insurance or not, or they've been out of the workforce for quite some time perhaps.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Okay.

Minister, why did you take the decision not to fund these EI measures in Bill C-50 out of general revenues?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

The employment insurance fund is a stand-alone fund. We did make a commitment that certain initiatives would be funded from general revenue, but the EI benefits are normally funded through the EI fund. That's what it's there for. The premiums are there to raise money to help the unemployed and deliver programs to them. These are programs for the unemployed, so they will be run through the EI program and under the act and under the fund.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Payroll taxes are very regressive and very hurtful to business. Would it not be better to fund this out of general revenue as opposed to putting it back on the backs of employers and employees specifically?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

We do realize that it's important to keep EI premiums as low as possible. That's why in our economic action plan we froze the EI premiums for two years at $1.73, to make sure there were no disincentives in these particularly tough times to employers keeping people on the job. We also wanted to make sure that employees were able to keep as much money as possible in their pockets. So we did freeze it. Obviously, over time, there will be changes, though we didn't want those changes to happen right now while the economy is at its roughest.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Thank you.

I'm going to ask Madame Folco if she has some questions.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, last Tuesday, when officials from your department appeared before us, I asked them a question about the kind of analysis that had been done or not done when you made your decision. They replied that there had been no analysis by activity sector. So, of the 190,000 people who were to receive this extra money, how many of them came from the forestry sector and how many came from the automobile sector?

They also told us that they did not know how many of the 190,000 recipients were women. This is my question. The officials told us that there had not been any functional analysis with regard to women nor any sectoral analysis. You are the minister. Why was there no analysis, when we know that women often work part-time? Why was this analysis not done?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

The figure you mentioned, namely the 190,000 people who will receive benefits as a result of this bill, is an overall figure. We established the figure by analyzing certain data: unemployment rates, for example, or the number of people who received letters about the employment transition program. It is an estimate. You are right, we did not do any analysis by sector because the information does not exist. We do not have the capability to analyze every claim for benefits on a sector-by-sector basis or in a lot of detail. It is impossible.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

I am sorry for interrupting you. You are telling me that the department does not have the means to analyze how many women became unemployed, as compared to the number of men.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

No, we know that, despite the fact that women represent 48% of the workforce, they make up only 20% of the people who have lost their jobs. This is due to the recession. Most of the jobs that were lost were held by men. This is the truth.

However, you asked me if we had any details on a sector-by-sector basis. No, we do not have any. We know that women make up only 20% of the unemployed.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Among the women in that 20%, many were working part time when they lost their jobs. It is tremendously difficult for them to find another job similar to the one that they had, because it was a part-time job. It would be a huge benefit to those people if they were included in the 190,000 recipients of your program. Why did you not do more to target those claimants?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Minister, we're over time, so I'll ask you to give a quick response.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON

Bill C-50 is a targeted initiative. The goal is to help a certain group of people who have lost their jobs. Like all other unemployed people, part-time workers received the five extra weeks that we introduced in January in our Economic Action Plan.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dean Allison

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to the Bloc.

Monsieur Lessard, you have seven minutes, please.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Minister, I want to thank you for being here today. I also thank the officials who have provided us with information up to this point. I must say that we have learned some things, but we still need more information. Perhaps we will get it today.

According to the figures that we were given, Bill C-50 will benefit 190,000 unemployed people, to the tune of $735 million. When we ask questions about this, we get explanations about the way in which these results were obtained. Mr. Beauséjour and Mr. Thompson, among others, told us that it was possible to determine the number of persons who are coming close to exhausting their benefits: 30%. Of that percentage, 21% would be eligible. We already know that much. However, to get such accurate results, it seems to us that you must have a certain amount of data by region and by sector.

For the past three weeks, we have asked you what method you used and the results you obtained. We asked the senior officials about this two or three weeks ago. I asked them those questions, as did my colleagues from the House of Commons. We repeated the request two days ago and we still do not have the information. I am repeating the same request today.

Madam Minister, we have before us a disqualification bill. For some years, more specifically for a few months, there has been a consensus to invite the government to make easier rules for accessing employment insurance. You must have spent the entire summer working on the 360-hour issue. But this bill still excludes as many people as it can. Right from the start, 70% of unemployed people who make contributions are excluded, as well as the people whom you exclude with your ratio. Now add the groups that my colleague mentioned earlier and that are especially vulnerable: all the workers in a precarious position, particularly women and young people, workers who collected employment insurance during the last five, six or seven years, workers in the forestry, in the fishery and in tourism. The exclusions are beginning to add up.

You said that you had targeted certain groups of clients. Who are in these groups? We still do not know, unless we make inferences from what you told us. You said that you had considered the number of unemployed people who had been laid off since January, and as you noticed that there were a lot of them, you tried to target them. To do this, you established criteria such as the number of years and the premiums.

Could you tell us why you excluded so many people, what groups of workers you targeted and which regions they live in?