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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my colleague's question.

In my riding, business people are very dynamic. Despite the present economic crisis, the unemployment rate is approximately 5%. Employers keep their employees as long as possible in spite of the economic crisis because they have a hard time finding new employees. When employees leave a job, they find another job in another company. In my region, things are going well in the private sector because the job market is very strong.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-50 because it has such a profound effect on the working people in my riding.

I want to start with a bit of history. When the Liberals gutted the EI system, and I mean gutted--they cut and hacked and slashed the EI system to the point where it was a shadow of its former self and completely ineffective as an income security machine--it took $20 million a year out of my riding in income maintenance that used to flow from the EI system.

In that one riding of downtown Winnipeg, $20 million a year of federal money that used to flow into my riding no longer did because they changed the rules so that no one qualified anymore. Then they started milking it like a cash cow, spending the money that was obviously going to accumulate. Workers had no choice but to pay into the program, but nothing was getting paid out. They spent that money that was supposed to be for income maintenance of unemployed workers on the--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. On a point of order, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, bilingualism no longer exists at the Olympic Games, and it seems to have temporarily disappeared from the House of Commons, as well. I would ask the interpreters to push the right button so we can hear the translation.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order. Apparently there is a problem with the translation.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre can continue. All his colleagues can hear him now.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak slowly for the translators, if that is the issue. Some members are saying that I should start from the beginning, but in the interest of time I really cannot.

I thought it was important that we revisit some of the historical context of the need to reform the EI system, because when the Liberals gutted the system they made a devastating impact in the riding I represent.

There was $20 million a year of federal money that used to come into my low-income riding. The same was true for Winnipeg North, represented by my colleague. She lost $25 million a year. Some ridings in Newfoundland lost $50 million a year of unemployment insurance money that used to come into their communities and was spent locally.

The Liberals gutted that system. They changed the rules to the point that virtually nobody qualified anymore. It ceased being an insurance program and it became an income tax again. It was a payroll tax that they used as a cash cow to pay for anything they could think of.

This is why we welcome this opportunity to try to flow some of that unemployment insurance money into the pockets of unemployed workers, where it properly belongs. That was the intent, purpose and mandate of the unemployment insurance fund. It was to provide income maintenance, not to be a cash cow for the Liberal Party. We wonder where that $54 million of accumulated surplus went. This is the shocking thing.

Now we have an opportunity to do the right thing. We have workers who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed due to the economic downturn. Their unemployment insurance is going to run out. The last thing we want to do is have an election now. That would preclude the possibility of any EI reform, because we would be on the hustings instead of in Parliament facing the legitimate problems our constituents are dealing with.

We welcome the opportunity to make Parliament work. It is said so often here that it is almost a cliché, but that is why we were sent here. If we lose sight of that, we do not deserve to be here. I can say with complete comfort and confidence that we are doing the right thing by enabling this $1 billion to flow into the pockets of the unemployed.

That is not to say that we will stop seeking unemployment insurance and other program reforms. The NDP has 12 private members' bills in the system calling for the reform of various other aspects of EI and those will percolate through the system. We can debate them, bring them to committee and discuss them, but that should not preclude moving forward with one positive development that we do have the power to initiate now to get that money flowing into unemployed people's pockets.

The unemployment insurance system is just that: an insurance program. It is mandatory. The problem with the system now is eligibility. What would one think of a house insurance program that a person was forced to pay into, yet if their house burned down they have a 40% chance of being able to collect any benefit? One would not call that an insurance program at all. They would want the head of the insurance agent who sold them that worthless insurance policy.

That is almost how unemployed people feel in this country today. They are forced to pay into this employment insurance system and they have about a 40% chance of being able to collect anything should the unfortunate reality of finding themselves unemployed come about.

The system is broken; the wheels have fallen off it. The heart and soul of it was ripped out by the Liberal Party in the most ruthless and heartless period of Canadian history, where they undermined and gutted virtually every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians. They ripped the heart out of it.

We gave them the opportunity for far too long to rule this country. They left no stone unturned to undermine every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians. They were the most neo-conservative, right-wing government in the history of Canada, and they should be condemned for it.

I do not use the terms lightly when I say that they were gutless, heartless and spineless, and they are exhibiting the same characteristics today. They are often mean-spirited in their development of policies. We gave them far, far too long.

The really unforgivable thing about the Liberals is how they chose to pay down the deficit on the backs of the unemployed by milking the unemployment insurance system like some cash cow.

The second thing they did was to take the $30 billion surplus from the public service pension plan. They did not share that with the beneficiaries of the plan. They did not share that with public servants. They took the whole $30 billion by legislative edict. The last thing Marcel Massé did in this House of Commons before he slunk out of here with his tail between his legs was that he grabbed the whole $30 billion out of the public service pension plan so they could put it into their Liberal slush funds and do God knows what with it. That is how they paid down the deficit when they were given the opportunity.

This is why I say with great pride that I am going to do what I can to put $1 billion back into the pockets of working people that was denied them by the last regime in this House of Commons.

We have an opportunity today. The last thing we want to do is delay the flow of this money by having another election at this time, because it would be a guaranteed eight weeks before anybody could take any action to assist people whose employment insurance is running out.

We are going to do the right thing. We are going to get that money flowing at the earliest possible opportunity.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the member for Winnipeg Centre's speech, and I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the House to give him an extra half hour to continue.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the minister have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will have 10 minutes.

The House resumed from September 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to take part in this vital debate that concerns so many Canadians. I will begin by saying that I think Canadians are looking to this government to provide meaningful assistance and we are delivering the goods to Canadians.

It is mystifying, however, how the leader of the official opposition and his party are behaving. On the one hand, they apparently care so little about the unemployed that they could not actually be bothered to show up at committee meetings that were held this summer and technical briefings on this particular bill. We had great hopes for these particular meetings and it upset many of us to find that the Liberals were not prepared to work with us.

On the other hand, they say that they want to rush this legislation through so it will not interfere with their scheme to plunge the country into another unnecessary, expensive election. Nobody wants an election because we are currently fighting a global economic downturn and we need to have this government continue to show the stewardship and good management that we are showing.

The Liberals do not care about the nearly $1 billion in assistance for long-tenured workers because they are too interested in spending one-third of a billion dollars to advance their leader's personal ambitions. They should be ashamed.

This Conservative government is focused on fighting the recession. The Leader of the Opposition is focused on fighting the recovery. As part of our efforts to ensure economic recovery, our government has introduced many enhancements to the EI system. The bill before us today continues this process. It continues to help Canadian families. It is a much needed step to meet the needs of long-term workers.

It is no secret that the global economic slowdown has affected the lives of many working Canadians from coast to coast. Through no fault of their own, many workers who have held down jobs for years, often in a single industry, have been laid off, in some cases for the first time ever. With the rapid pace of change, it is not clear that these so-called long-tenured workers will even get those jobs back as a result of changes in the global economy.

Before I address how Bill C-50 would help these workers, I will reflect on the changes that are driving it. I want to focus particularly on the auto industry, which has been such an economic powerhouse for our country over the past years.

For generations, manufacturing was the heart and soul of our country in Montreal, Quebec, Ontario and many other parts of the country and the auto industry was the leader of the pack. Even today, with the global economic recession and what has taken place in Canada, it contributes close to 14% of Canada's gross domestic product. That is right, it employs nearly 1.8 million Canadians and that does not include all Canadians who work in jobs that service the auto industry.

An increasing global economy means more competition from low cost producers and there are more speed bumps slowing down our economic growth. Dramatic fluctuations in energy and commodity prices, as well as the Canadian dollar, for example, make it more difficult for our producers to plan ahead and export at a competitive price not knowing whether they will continue to have workers to build these automobiles and continue the manufacturing process in Canada.

These forces hit the industry hard and continue to hit the industry. The recession has only made conditions more difficult. Nervous investors sit on their capital instead of helping to buy new technology that could make industries more innovative and productive by spending their money. Anxious consumers even sit on their wallets waiting to see if prices will drop even further or whether things will happen differently. Meanwhile, too many new vehicles sit on the lots gathering dust and workers' jobs are in jeopardy.

Through all the shifting fortunes of their industry, Canadian auto workers have rolled with the punches. They have done their jobs and done them extremely well but increasingly they have gone home at the end of each day knowing they might literally be at the end of the line. These dedicated workers have paid their dues. As I mentioned, some have never been laid off before and have had these jobs for 30 years or more. They paid their taxes and have not significantly drawn benefits from employment insurance programs because the jobs have been steady and the manufacturing sector has been strong.

However, many are now laid off and their benefits are fast running out. They deserve more and this Conservative government is delivering more. Through Bill C-50, it is determined to give it to them.

I will now highlight how long-tenured workers would benefit from these proposed changes to the EI system.

The changes before the House today would provide additional EI benefits to long-tenured workers. Specifically, they would provide from five to twenty weeks of additional benefits, depending upon circumstances and individual eligibility. In so doing, this initiative would provide these individuals with extra time to find alternative programs and employment.

For the purpose of this new measure, long-tenured workers include workers from all sectors from coast to coast, and about two-thirds of EI contributors meet the definition of long-tenured workers. Just about a third of those who have lost their jobs since the end of January and have established an EI claim are also long-tenured workers. Bill C-50 would provide valuable extra time for these people.

By definition, long-tenured workers have been busy working for many years, decades in some cases, and it can be a terrible shock for them to be suddenly unemployed. On the government side, our hearts go to them. We will continue to fight for their priorities in Ottawa and ensure they get the retraining and the benefits necessary in order to continue their lives and their quality of life. Our goal is to get these extended weeks of benefits to claimants as soon as possible.

The changes proposed today should be seen in a larger context, however. Through Canada's economic action plan, our Conservative government has introduced measures that support all unemployed Canadians. Specifically, we have improved the EI system by extending the duration of regular benefits, by making it easier to take part in work-sharing agreements and helping long-tenured workers make the transition to new careers.

We are also freezing EI premiums until 2010 at the same rate as this year. We are providing an additional $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to help support skills training, which is so important for these tenured workers who cannot go back to the same jobs they had before.

I also want to pay particular attention to an initiative that complements the one before the House today.

Of all Canadians who lose their jobs, long-tenured workers may have the biggest struggle to get back in the labour force. Many have a specific expertise, such as the auto sector, honed from years of practice and work, which is not readily transferrable to another job in this new marketplace and new global economy. These individuals may need training to develop new skills that can help them find meaningful work in new industries or new occupations.

The career transition assistance initiative, which is part of Canada's economic action plan and of which I am so proud, was designed to meet the particular needs of long-tenured workers.

The government has taken some very positive steps and this case has two components. The first is provisions for up to 104 weeks of regular EI benefits to long-tenured workers taking part in training that extends more than 20 weeks. The second provides earlier access to benefits for long-tenured workers who invest part or all of their severance packages in training.

Many hard-working Canadians have held down jobs for years and rarely have drawn upon the employment insurance program. Now, when times are tough, they deserve a government that will come to their aid. They deserve every opportunity to sharpen their skills without falling further behind, and we in this Conservative government are doing just that. The career transition assistance initiative gives them that chance.

I have spoken at length about this initiative because it concerns long-tenured workers, the same target group that we are addressing through Bill C-50. Indeed, by extending EI benefits for long-tenured workers, this bill is a natural complement to existing initiatives put in place through Canada's economic action plan. An extra five to twenty weeks of employment insurance benefits could make all the difference to long-tenured workers and their families, workers who have given so much of themselves to their jobs and who are now out of work, often for the first time.

By helping to meet the specific needs of these workers, the bill would ultimately help all of us. It would help all Canadians and our economy. Our country cannot afford to let long-tenured workers stay idle too long. They have too much experience and we need to put that to work for Canada, and they certainly want to get back to work just as soon as they can.

This government is coming to the aid of Canadian workers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with fascination to my hon. colleague's dissertation. What has concerned New Democrats for some time now, as we have seen this economic crisis roll across manufacturing, particularly in the resource sector, is entire communities have had their economic base wiped out. Simply turning that around is not feasible at this moment. Expecting people to reinvent themselves as entrepreneurs in communities like Red Rock, Smooth Rock Falls and Opasatika is simply not realistic.

The issue for us is if we can get these workers through the winter when we are trying to get smaller value added operations up and off the ground. It is the difference between restoring some fundamental economic viability and seeing entire regions plunged into heavy levels of poverty.

I know my hon. colleague represents a resource-based region. Many workers in my region have gone to his region and we would like to have them back working in our region. However, given the issues before us, how soon can we get this money flowing so we can assure those workers they will make it through the winter and can make their house payments?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, if the Liberals would not have walked out this summer during the EI committee special hearings, maybe we could have already had this in front of the House for a vote, and we look forward to the support of the NDP. However, the government is moving forward. We are trying to get it done as quickly as possible. With those members help maybe, we might be able to get this money flowing as quickly as possible.

I appreciate the member's constituents who come to northern Alberta. Six per cent of the GDP comes from my riding. Right now we need people working there because there are jobs. We expect those people to go back home and take that money with them so they can share it across Canada. We enjoy them being there and very much welcome them.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, accountability in this place really gets strained at times. The member will know that the government did not propose any new initiatives at the summer meetings, none. The Conservatives could have suggested the idea of this bill, but they did not. Now the member is somehow suggesting that the Liberals walked out. The Liberals had no meeting to go to. There was no meeting called after the failure to table the documents by the minister.

The other point I want to make is this, and I hope the member will comment on it. It seems that the minister and the member now are making hay over the fact that there was a meeting called to give a briefing on this important bill. They are saying not one Liberal showed up for the meeting. However, if the member would go to the minister's office, or the minister's aide and look at the email that was sent out, he will see that only one Liberal member was given notice of it. If he is complaining that no Liberals attended, it is pretty hard to attend when we do not even get notice. I hope the member will withdraw his criticism of the members who would have liked to attend.