Bill C-50 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants. It also increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada.

Employment Insurance Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc has worked very hard on the whole issue of EI. In fact, it has a bill before the House which would attempt to remove the two-week waiting period, which, by the way, the NDP certainly supports.

However, this is a bill that is aimed at 190,000 workers, a billion dollars, and is intended to help in another way to solve the EI problem. There is nothing stopping the Bloc members from supporting this bill in principle, getting it to committee, trying to make the amendments they want at committee, supporting the bill and getting it through, and at the same time working on getting their existing legislation through the House.

We too have bills on EI before the House. We are not going to give up on those bills just because the government wants to pass this one. If this bill passes, we are going to keep working on these bills that are parallel to this one. Why would the Bloc not do the same thing?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, the Bloc Québécois offered to put this bill on the fast track, but the government did not want that.

Personally, I remain convinced that the employment insurance system can be improved in a much more efficient manner. The debate and the work in committee will allow us to do that. I am confident that someone across the floor, on the government side, will finally understand. Common sense is important. The Conservatives will have to start using their common sense. Hopefully, they will seize the opportunity with this bill and start showing that they do have some common sense.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and for his clarity. I would like to ask him a specific question.

This morning, I saw the headlines in the newspapers saying that the Liberals wanted to speed up the adoption of the bill in order to annoy the NDP. The Liberals hold a grudge against the NDP. I was surprised to read that. In fact, the Liberals oppose the bill for partisan reasons, not because of their convictions. I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of the Liberal position on employment insurance. I think he has much to say about that.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to say everything I would have to say about the Liberals' position, and what they have done or not done while in government. I came to this place 11 years ago, in 1998. At the time, the hot topic, the most popular one, was employment insurance. It was a topic of discussion 11 years ago. I once told colleagues who had been here for a while that, while EI was admittedly an important issue, it was raised rather often. In light of the answers provided by the Liberal Party at the time, I came to realize that questions had to be put repeatedly.

I will never forget the time when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, answered a question about employment insurance. He said he was eligible for benefits. A minister gestured to him that he did not. Then, he indicated that perhaps he did not need any. In itself, this goes to show that, from the Prime Minister to the then human resources minister, the Liberals were completely out of touch with what a good employment insurance scheme for the people should be. The economy was doing well then, so much so that the government could afford to pay down the debt on the backs of the unemployed, even though the unemployment rate was not very high at the time. The fact remains that the money used to pay down the debt belonged to the unemployed. The Conservative government will run up a $57 billion debt. I am afraid to think about what the next—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill, which will extend regular benefits for long-tenured workers who are unemployed. Many such workers have a hard time finding a new job after working for the same employer for most of their working lives.

I am particularly pleased to take part in today's debate because it allows me to speak on behalf of people who have worked hard their entire lives, who have paid their taxes and their EI premiums, and who have never or rarely had to rely on support from the government.

For the purposes of this new measure, long-tenured workers are defined as those who have paid into the EI system for years, who have rarely had to rely on it, and who come from all sectors of the economy. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of those who pay into the EI system across Canada correspond to this definition of long-tenured workers. A little more than one-third of those who have lost their jobs across Canada since the end of January and have filed a claim for EI benefits are long-tenured workers. Thanks to their hard work and commitment to their employers, these workers have contributed to the success and prosperity of Canada and Quebec.

In a time of greater economic prosperity, these workers could have finished up their career with the same employer, eventually enjoyed a well deserved retirement and benefited from the corporate pension plan they have contributed to for decades. However, as we all know, the current economic situation is a problem. The current global downturn has devastated economies all over the world, and Canada is no exception.

We only have to look at the morning papers or watch the evening news to see that another company is cutting jobs, laying off employees or closing its doors. Although such events are sad for our country and the communities where they occur, they are a tragedy for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. These are very serious circumstances for long-tenured workers who must now face a job market that has changed dramatically and often requires completely different skill sets than they possess.

Although long-tenured workers are being laid off throughout the country, certain Quebec communities have been particularly affected because they are dependent on manufacturing and forestry, two industrial sectors that have been hit hard. For that reason, as a Quebecker, I am proud to see the government taking decisive action to ensure that long-tenured workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada will obtain the additional assistance needed to face the challenges.

Therefore, what proposals does this bill contain and why are they so important to workers who find themselves in this situation? In a nutshell, with this bill the government will provide additional assistance to people who have paid employment insurance premiums for a long time and who, up to now, have not often collected benefits. To be eligible, a claimant must have paid into the system at least 30% of maximum annual premiums in at least 7 of 10 calendar years. They must not have collected regular employment insurance benefits for more than 35 weeks during the past 5 years.

The definition allows up to 35 weeks of regular benefits during the past five years because, in recent years, workers from some industries, including manufacturing and forestry, have received employment insurance benefits during temporary work stoppages.

It is estimated that approximately 190,000 workers, one-quarter of whom live in Quebec, would benefit from this temporary measure.

Once promulgated, this legislation would extend by 5 to 20 weeks the benefits for long-tenured workers, depending on the number of years they have worked and paid EI premiums.

For workers to benefit from this measure as soon as possible, it would be accessible to claimants who are long-tenured workers and whose benefit period was established on January 4, 2009, or nine months before this bill comes into force, whichever is later. The measure would apply to all claims from long-tenured workers established before September 11, 2010, which means that the extended benefits could be paid until the fall of 2011.

This is good news for people who have spent most of their lives working for the same employer in Quebec or in the rest of Canada.

As useful as this new initiative is, it is just one element in a much wider effort to improve the fairness of the employment insurance system and its ability to help workers and their families deal with the present economic downturn.

Canada's economic action plan contains several measures to provide employment insurance benefits to individuals for a longer period of time, together with more efficient service.

The career transition assistance initiative may be very valuable for long-tenured workers.

It extends the benefit period for up to two years while long-tenured workers participate in long-term training. In other words, it enables eligible long-tenured workers to access employment insurance more quickly if they use some or all of their severance pay to cover the cost of training.

The work-sharing program also helps people remain in the active population by providing employment insurance income support to workers who agree to work fewer hours per week while their employer recovers from the economic crisis.

In Canada's economic action plan, we have changed the program to give employers more flexible options to help plan their recovery.

In addition, the agreements can be extended by up to 14 more weeks to optimize the benefits during the economic slowdown.

With this program, employers will be able to avoid hiring new employees and retraining laid-off workers once the company recovers, and employees will be able to continue working, thereby keeping their skills up to date.

As of September 6, 2009, some 165,000 Canadians were benefiting from more than 5,800 work-sharing agreements across Canada.

In addition, as part of the economic action plan, we are investing $60 million more over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers to help workers between 55 and 64 years of age update their skills and gain the work experience they need to get new jobs.

To broaden the scope of the initiative, communities with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants are now eligible for funding.

Under the economic action plan, the government is also providing an additional $1 billion over two years under existing labour market development agreements with provinces and territories to help employment insurance clients acquire the skills they need to get and keep new jobs.

Also, under the strategic training and transition fund, we are investing $500 million over two years to help individuals benefit from training and other support measures, whether or not they qualify for employment insurance.

Since the provinces and territories are in a better position to meet the needs of their own labour markets, this money was delivered through the existing labour market agreements.

Furthermore, the action plan offers an apprenticeship completion grant of $2,000 to apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeship training in a red seal trade. That is in addition to the existing apprenticeship incentive grant.

Through these two grants, an apprentice could receive $4,000. Up to 20,000 Canadians could benefit from this brand new grant.

The Government of Canada also protects jobs and supports struggling companies in key sectors of our economy. This applies to sectors such as forestry, agriculture and mining, sectors that are particularly vital to Quebec, given their large share of the Quebec economy.

We are helping them through the community adjustment fund, which will provide $1 billion over two years to help promote the economic diversification of communities affected by struggling local industries.

The government is also supporting aboriginal people in Canada with a $100 million investment over three years in the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program. This program offers job training in sectors such as tourism, construction and natural resources, through partnerships between employers and aboriginal organizations.

In addition, the aboriginal skills and training strategic investment fund gives aboriginal people access to important skills training so that they can fully participate in the economic recovery.

Lastly, we recognize the importance of temporary income support for people who are experiencing difficulties, and we are extending regular employment insurance benefits by five weeks—the maximum length of benefits in regions with high unemployment has been extended from 45 to 50 weeks.

All of this means that the Government of Canada will spend some $5.8 billion more than it did last year on employment insurance benefits for Canadians.

It gives me great satisfaction to note that recent statistics have confirmed the effectiveness of the EI system in reacting to Quebec's changing economy. This is proven by the fact that more than 70% of Quebec workers can access the EI system more easily now than one year ago. This is due to the variable entrance requirement, which gives the EI system the flexibility needed to automatically react to changes in local labour markets. When unemployment rates increase, eligibility criteria are relaxed and the duration of benefits is extended.

These standards are adjusted every month, to take into account the latest local unemployment rates. So, the amount of assistance provided increases as the unemployment rate rises, which means that funds are directed to those regions and communities that need it most.

These are just some of the measures introduced by this government to help Canadians and Quebeckers cope with the current global recession. However, despite everything we have done, there is much more to do, such as ensuring that long-tenured workers obtain the additional weeks of support they deserve, and need, to find another job during this difficult time. That is the goal of Bill C-50 before us here today.

Recognizing the importance of this matter, I will vote in favour of this bill, so that long-tenured workers can obtain the assistance and support they need. I strongly encourage all members of the other parties to do the same.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that it is very important for Quebec, but it is also very important for Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we are talking about forestry.

The member talks about long-tenured forestry workers. I want to clarify something with this bill when he talks about long-tenured workers because that seems to be the message we are getting from the government.

There is one classification of forestry workers who are considered long-tenured and they are the loggers. On average, they claim two or three months of EI benefits per year. They have been loggers for a good deal of time, in some cases up to 30 years, on average 10 to 15 years. Certainly, for this particular legislation, over the past five years, they have accumulated more than the required 36 hours.

Here is the problem. I would consider loggers to be long-tenured, but they do not qualify under this particular legislation. What am I supposed to say to these individuals who say, “The Conservatives told us it was fair”? It is, however, not fair to these people. Perhaps specifically, the member from Quebec would like to tell me how I am supposed to deal with that situation?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, forestry is a very sensitive sector and one that was deeply affected by the global economic crisis. As we know, it is all about markets. Demand for wood products is down and so are prices. This has created tremendous difficulties for many firms, both upstream and downstream from the industry. This has seriously affected those who cut and transport logs, the suppliers and others.

Some mills in the forestry sector have had to close and may one day reopen. Those who have worked there all their lives—for 10, 15, 20 or even 30 years—and who are just about to leave the job market because they are at the end of their working lives—not their actual lives—know that their benefits are about to run out.

Long-tenured workers will receive an additional 5 to 20 weeks and benefit from other measures, such as workforce training, to help them find a new job or wait for the mill to reopen. Those 20 weeks are of vital importance to these workers.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise that he is first and foremost a Quebecker and proud to stand for that within the Conservative Party. Personally, I cannot accept that because, in my riding of Manicouagan, we have workers who become unemployed from time to time due to the fact that industries in our region rely heavily on natural resources. There is the forestry industry, the fishing industry and the tourism industry. Legislation cannot divide unemployed workers into the good and the bad. That cannot be done.

The bill states that claimants are not eligible for benefits if they have not contributed at least 30% of the maximum annual premium in 7 of the past 10 years, or in 12 of the past 15 years. The same bill also states that claimants who were paid more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past 5 years, or an average of 7 weeks of benefits per year, are not eligible either.

Who is this bill meant to help, then? It is directly geared toward Ontario's automotive industry, an industry that has seldom had to make massive layoffs, although it is having to do so during this economic crisis. It is tailored to fit the automotive industry in Ontario and does nothing for the workers in the riding of Manicouagan and many other parts of Quebec.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that I am proud to be a Quebecker and to sit on this side of the House to be able to really help Quebeckers.

As far as seasonal workers, like those in the tourism and fishing industries who work during the summer, let me tell my colleague that they are still eligible for every other EI measure. There is no problem in that regard. The bill is aimed at long-tenured workers whose EI benefits are running out. They will get 5 to 20 more weeks. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about. That is what serving Quebeckers means.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by the approach that my friends in the Liberal Party are taking on this issue. While they were the government for 13 years, they pretty much rammed the EI system and restricted the number of people who could collect. They built up a big surplus in the EI system and then used that $57 billion surplus to pay down the debt. Now they have decided that they want to make improvements in the EI system and have been trying to introduce legislation in the last little while.

Finally, the government has come up with an approach that would deal with 190,000 workers at a cost of $1 billion. We have a choice between supporting that or causing a $300 million election and the Liberal Party has chosen the $300 million election. That to me does not make sense if the Liberals really want to improve the EI system.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

My answer it that this measure for long-tenured workers will cost in excess of $900 million, close to $1 billion, but all the initiatives for EI included in our economic action plan amount to $5.8 billion more for Canadians, for mothers and fathers who need this money this year.

That is what we call taking the initiative on this side of the House. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the answers the parliamentary secretary gave to the member for Manicouagan, and I was completely dumbfounded.

What I understood is that he was saying that a worker who is unfortunate enough to be a seasonal worker, to work in the tourism or forestry industry, will have access to regular EI benefits, but not to the extended benefit period. The government is telling them, “too bad“. They are not fortunate enough to work in a factory that has never shut down.

It is inconceivable that a member from Quebec is in such denial about the job situation in the regions of Quebec. There are many seasonal workers there. Furthermore, this year, there was probably less work in some regions because tourism was affected by the economic crisis.

How can the parliamentary secretary be so stubborn about his position when he knows very well that many unemployed workers in the regions of Quebec will not be eligible for this measure?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that workers in the tourism and fishing sectors and other seasonal industries have surely been working this summer and are thus eligible for EI.

Our bill is aimed at long-tenured workers, people who lost their jobs after working for 10, 15 or 20 years for the same employer. Because of the economic crisis, their jobs are no longer available or their plant is closed indefinitely. Accordingly, these workers will receive between 5 and 20 more weeks of EI benefits.

These people are men and women, fathers and mothers who really need the benefits. We are pleased to put forward this bill for them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during this global recession Canadians are looking for a couple of things. First of all, they are looking for a government that responds in times of need, and Bill C-50 shows that this government is very responsive. We also want an insurance program that is going to work. There is no use putting something together that is not going to work.

I wonder if small businesses in the member's constituency are speaking the same language as they are in mine. The CFIB and others have told us not to fall for the 360-hour work year, 45-day work year, because it would be too costly to employers, to the economy, to productivity and everything else. Is my colleague hearing that message?