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.

[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.

Employment Insurance

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are officials unable to justify the government's inflated figures on the number of unemployed people affected by Bill C-50, but they are also unable to specify which regions will benefit.

Will the government admit that it does not want to elaborate on this because Bill C-50 favours Ontario's automobile workers and excludes Quebec's forestry workers?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now the government has been unable to justify its figures on the number of workers affected by Bill C-50. Again yesterday, senior officials were unable to explain the government's calculation, which confirms the fears of the Bloc Québécois and several agencies in Quebec that the Conservatives' figures are grossly exaggerated. We see to what extent Bill C-50 is nothing more than a band-aid solution to a serious problem.

Will the government finally accept that it will take a complete overhaul of the employment insurance system to satisfy the needs of the unemployed and the needs of Quebec?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to come back to the figures that we were provided with. This is important because it helps us to understand the scope of the program in its application. More specifically, I am addressing Mr. Beauséjour.

Let us begin with the fact that 30% of all beneficiaries are considered as long-tenured workers. We agree on this point. In July 2009, 787,700 people received employment insurance benefits. Let us round the figure off to 780,000. Taking 30% of this figure of 780,000, we get a figure of about 200,000 long-tenured workers who would be affected. Of these 200,000 long-tenured workers, about 21% would be eligible. This amounts to about 40,000 long-tenured workers.

Would this not be the result of implementing Bill C-50, Mr. Beauséjour?

[Paul Thompson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm here today to speak to the committee about Bill C-50, an Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits. With me today I have Mr. Louis Beauséjour, the director general of employment insurance policy, and Mr. Philip Clarke, the director general of benefits processing with Service Canada.

The purpose of this bill is to temporarily provide additional weeks of employment insurance regular benefits to long-tenured workers. Let me explain to whom the legislation is referring when we use the term “long-tenured workers”. These are experienced workers who have paid EI premiums for years but have made limited use of EI regular benefits. Some of them, in fact, are unemployed for the first time in their lives. More specifically, they're workers who have paid at least 30% of the annual maximum EI premiums for a minimum of seven out of 10 years.

This allows claimants to remain eligible even though they have had temporary absences from the labour market.

Bill C-50 also allows for the use of up to 35 weeks of regular benefits in the past five years. This is in recognition of the fact that it is customary in some industries for employers to shut down for a few weeks every year for retooling or retrofitting. In these situations, industry sectors often have to make use of EI.

There are long-tenured workers all over the country and in every sector of the economy.

It's estimated that about half of Canadians who pay EI premiums qualify as long-tenured workers and that about one-third of those who have lost their jobs since the end of January 2009 and have made a claim would qualify as long-tenured workers. This proposed legislation would give these workers more weeks of EI income support while they look for jobs.

Let me take a few minutes to explain how the bill itself is laid out. First it deals with the benefit period. This is the period during which claimants must use their entitlement. This benefit period is normally 52 weeks, but it will be extended, through the legislation, where necessary, to accommodate the additional weeks of EI regular benefits being provided to eligible long-tenured claimants.

The second part then sets out how many additonal weeks of EI regular benefits will be provided to eligible long-tenured claimants. It also deals with the gradual transition out of the measure.

Specifically, Bill C-50 would provide from five to 20 weeks of additional benefits, depending on how long a person has been working and paying EI premiums. For example, to be eligible for five weeks of extended benefits, long-tenured workers must have paid at least 30% of the annual maximum EI premiums for a minimum of seven of the last 10 calendar years. This 30% threshold represents the most inclusive definition of full-time workers and is based on what a full-time worker at minimum wage would contribute throughout the course of a year. For every additional year of contributions, the number of weeks of benefits would increase by three weeks, up to a maximum of 20 weeks.

The third part of the bill sets out how many additional weeks of EI regular benefits are to be provided to eligible long-tenured claimants who live outside of Canada.

The last part of the bill addresses the coming into force of the legislation. It states that the measure takes effect two Sundays prior to royal assent.

The bill concludes by listing the sections that will be used once the measure is terminated after September 11, 2010.

Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that about 190,000 workers will be eligible for the assistance provided under Bill C-50. This number is based on information pertaining to three key factors. The first is the current population of long-tenured claimants. Second are the benefit exhaustion rates of long-tenured claimants in the past. And third are private sector forecasts of the national unemployment rate. Those are the three component parts that underpin that estimate of 190,000 workers.

Among those 190,000 are many workers who have been in the same job or the same industry all their lives and now face the prospect of having to start all over again.

Bill C-50 is a temporary measure designed to provide additional support to long-tenured workers while they look for jobs in a recovering economy.

As I said, eligibility for the extended benefits for long-tenured workers will continue until September 11, 2010. This means that the payments of those extended benefits would continue to the fall of 2011, approximately one year later.

This measure to extend the benefit applies not only to new claimants, but also to existing claimants. In fact, eligibility extends back nine months from the coming into force of the legislation. This will reach back as early as January 4, 2009.

In order to ensure a smooth and gradual transition out of the measure, the additional weeks of benefits would be reduced in five-week increments, beginning in June of 2010.

Mr. Chairman, this temporary measure for long-tenured workers builds on other measures introduced under the Government's Economic Action Plan.

There is one program in particular that is closely linked to this proposed measure that I would like to draw attention to. This is the career transition assistance initiative, which helps this same population of long-tenured workers.

Under the career transition assistance initiative, long-tenured workers who have opted to undertake training are already eligible for extended benefits of up to two years to help them make a transition to a new field or a new occupation. We have already sent out more than 370,000 letters since January to individuals who qualify as long-tenured workers. In addition, these workers can also get earlier access to EI if they pay for part of their training using their severance package.

The economic action plan also provides other measures to help all unemployed Canadians, measures such as providing nationally the extra five weeks of regular EI benefits and increasing the number of weeks in regions of high unemployment from 45 to 50.

Mr. Chairman, many of the Economic Action Plan measures as well as the legislation before us are temporary.

Bill C-50 is intended to help workers faced with the difficult challenge of finding a new job. The goal is to help them bridge to new employment.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would be happy to answer your questions about this bill with the help of my colleagues, Louis Beauséjour and Philip Clarke.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 29, 2009, Bill C-50, an Act to Amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, we will start today.

I want to thank the witnesses, once again, for coming on probably short notice, although I'm sure that if you saw the bill passing through the House, you'd be coming to see us at some point.

I don't know who's going to be speaking on your behalf, Mr. Thompson, but we're going to turn the floor over to you. You guys know the routine. The microphones will come off and on for you as I acknowledge you, and then what we'll do is get through some rounds of questioning.

I'm probably going to suggest to the committee that we break at around 5, because we have some committee business to take care of. So we'll look at dealing with questions and answers over the next hour and a half.

Mr. Thompson, welcome again. It's good to see you. The floor is yours, sir.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians, our economic recovery, and help for those hardest hit by the global recession. That is precisely why we introduced Bill C-50. This bill would provide extra weeks of EI to help support unemployed long-tenured workers who have worked hard and paid premiums for years as they look for new employment. That is the fair and right thing to do.

Last week, the Liberal leader instructed his party to vote against this bill and help for those workers. He should be ashamed. This is yet another example that shows the Liberal leader does not care about unemployed Canadians; he cares only about himself. The Liberal leader wants to force an unnecessary, opportunistic election that Canadians do not want. He needs to explain why he is fighting our economic recovery and why he wants to prevent long-tenured workers from getting the support they need.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are engaging in a public relations exercise about employment insurance at the expense of the unemployed, with announcements that do not meet their needs or the needs of Quebec. The latest announcement is about introducing parental leave for self-employed workers, which Quebec has had since 2006. Just like Bill C-50, which excludes forestry workers, seasonal workers, vulnerable workers and victims of intermittent layoffs, this bill leaves Quebec in the lurch.

When will the Conservative government understand that what is needed is comprehensive reform that meets the needs of the unemployed and of Quebec?

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today. I would like to address this motion, not only from my point of view as government House leader, but as a member representing the interests of British Columbians. As House leader, I am proud of what our government has delivered in Parliament for Canadians and I might say, just look at what we have accomplished in this week alone.

However, before I get to this important list of the things we have accomplished, I would like to indicate to the Chair that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Blackstrap.

On Monday, we tabled in the House of Commons the third report to Canadians on our economic action plan. It reports that 90% of the stimulus funding for this fiscal year has now been committed to more than 7,500 infrastructure and housing projects. Over 4,000 of these projects have been launched in the first six months of our 24-month plan.

On Tuesday, Bill C-50 was adopted at second reading and sent to committee. The bill will provide additional employment insurance regular benefits to unemployed, long-tenured workers.

On Wednesday, the government introduced the second economic recovery bill. The bill will implement the home renovation tax credit and includes other measures from our very successful budget 2009.

The government is making this a productive Parliament for all Canadians. Even as the House adjourned for the summer, this sitting of Canada's 40th Parliament had seen more government bills introduced than in any Parliament's first sitting since 1993, 54 pieces of legislation in total. Yet what is especially remarkable amidst a Parliament that this motion we are debating today is attempting to kill is that 26 of those bills attained royal assent or passed into law. That is the second highest royal assent rate for a first sitting of a parliamentary session since 1993, and as members know, that was a majority government.

The legislation passed has been diverse, meaningful and ambitious including the legislation that allowed us to implement our economic action plan. It is that very plan that has inspired greater confidence in our government among British Columbians and my constituents in Prince George—Peace River amidst this global economic recession.

The resource sectors in B.C. were among the first to be hit by the global downturn, yet throughout the past several months our government has taken targeted, tangible action that addresses the economic needs of British Columbians. The forestry sector in B.C. is benefiting from the $1 billion green transformation fund which will help struggling pulp and paper producers become more energy efficient and competitive in tough economic times. The fund provides forest companies with 16¢ per litre of black liquor produced by mills in the 2009 calendar year so that they can lower their energy costs and their carbon emissions.

We also enhanced the employment insurance work-sharing program which is used by mills to avoid layoffs during adverse market conditions. This has been incredibly successful right across the country, but especially in my riding of Prince George—Peace River where the expansion of the work-sharing program has meant the retention of hundreds of jobs. Thanks to these improvements, thousands more forestry workers will remain gainfully employed until market conditions improve.

Furthermore, we significantly expanded training opportunities under the EI program to ensure laid-off British Columbians can get the training they need to transition into a new career or industry. Older workers, long-tenured workers, aboriginals, contractors, the self-employed and those just entering the workforce are getting more training and skills assistance from this government than they ever have before. Just as workers must diversify and expand their skills during this downturn, communities must also adapt and restructure their economies.

Our government has partnered with the provincial government, municipal governments, local economic development organizations and businesses to ensure our hardest-hit communities emerge from this recession stronger than before.

The $1 billion community adjustment fund alone has brought tremendous hope to struggling towns and villages throughout the province of B.C. and things are happening quickly. In central and northern B.C., the federal government partnered with the Northern Development Initiative Trust to deliver $30 million in community adjustment funds to support local projects that are creating jobs and restoring economic stability now in communities heavily reliant on resource-based industries such as forestry and mining. I would like to pay special tribute to the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, my colleague from Blackstrap.

The Northern Development Initiative Trust, or NDIT as it is known, identified projects, many of which are already under way, that will create or preserve over 1,400 jobs in central and northern B.C. NDIT has also been instrumental in helping municipalities and businesses access federal and provincial funding by teaching them how to write better grant applications. The result has been that some of the smaller communities in central and northern B.C., especially my riding, which have limited resources and staff, have been able to secure the funding they need to sustain their infrastructure. These are opportunities they may have missed in the past. These opportunities are offered through the expanded building Canada communities component, through the recreation and infrastructure fund, through the national trails partnership, through the stimulus fund, and the list goes on.

Last week I was joined in Vancouver by B.C.'s premier to announce the latest round of Canada-B.C. infrastructure investments, a further 174 projects totalling $719 million, which will add to the frenzy of construction activity that B.C. residents have been witnessing throughout the past several months.

A week earlier, B.C. residents celebrated the Prime Minister's announcement in Washington, D.C. that the Government of Canada will contribute up to $130 million toward the construction of B.C.'s northwest transmission line. I think it is important to note that this project is located in the riding of the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Financed through the green infrastructure fund, this project could advance a connection between southeast Alaska and the North American transmission grid, via B.C. The transmission line will ensure a more efficient electricity grid and increase the use of clean and renewable sources of energy.

Our government is investing in projects that ensure both economic stimulus and environmental stewardship in the long term. I am proud that the Bear Mountain wind park, located in my constituency, just outside of Dawson Creek, will be B.C.'s first operational wind farm, thanks in part to a $20.5 million investment by our federal government. The Bear Mountain wind project has created hundreds of local jobs during construction, and when it comes online it will create more employment and training opportunities. It will also power up to 25,000 homes with clean, renewable, greenhouse gas-free and pollution-free energy.

The government has earned the confidence of Canadians by getting job-creating projects like these under way in communities all across our country, helping to cushion us against the impact of the global economic downturn. What is more, these activities will ensure that our cities, towns and villages possess critical energy and infrastructure, highways, roads, bridges, recreation facilities, sewers, water systems and more, so that communities and residents can thrive and flourish for decades to come.

This brings me to the question: Why are the Liberals proposing a motion of non-confidence in our government today? We are getting things done in Parliament. I have explained that. We are getting things done now, good things, throughout communities right across the country. No one wants an election. It would be irresponsible to go to the polls just as our economy is beginning its fragile return from the recession. Who in their right mind would want to interrupt that?

What is scary is that while our government and the rest of the country are focused on economic recovery, the Liberal Party and its leader are focused on prompting an unnecessary election. In the motion itself, the Liberals provide no reason for their lack of confidence in the government. That is because they simply have no reason, other than their opportunistic attempt to grab power.

I have not been able to find a single Canadian who wants an election, and I have travelled across our land. The leader of the Liberal Party was asked in the chamber to name a Canadian who wants an election. Presumably he could not name one this morning, because he did not name any. He should set aside his desire for an unnecessary election and a premature return to Harvard, and instead commit to working with our government for the betterment of all Canadians. With the help of the opposition, we can stay the course to the betterment of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, I said that Bill C-241 has been out the longest, but because it's government business, Bill C-50 will take priority over that. So we will get right to Bill C-241 after Bill C-50. It's government business, and government business takes priority over private members' business. We'll work on it right away, as that has been the one that's been outstanding the longest. We still have two private members' bills, and we'll determine how to work those in, in between witnesses and what we have.

How does that sound as far as moving forward is concerned?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Based on what I'm hearing, this is what I'm going to suggest we look at as we move forward.

I'm going to suggest that we try to start Bill C-50 right away, invite the minister right away. I'm going to look at four meetings to start, but if we need to hear more witnesses, we can. My suggestion is that the first meeting would be with the department. We would look at that on Tuesday. The second meeting could be with the minister for half and witnesses for half, depending on the minister's availability. A following meeting the following week, which is after the break week, would be on the Tuesday and would be with witnesses once again. Then we would have clause-by-clause on the Thursday.

Now, if we get an overwhelming number of witnesses, then we're going to have to add there. I'm suggesting for the time being that we try to contain our witnesses to two meetings. If we feel we need to hear more, by all means we could have that conversation. This is for the purposes of the clerks as well as the researchers to try to get some information out.

I'm going to suggest that right after that, Mr. Lessard, we look at Bill C-241 and get that dealt with--right after we deal with Bill C-50--because it has been the one that's been on the longest and I feel it should be done.

In the meantime, Mr. Martin, I'm going to suggest that the clerk look at putting together a plan without dates on it, just what it will cost to go to wherever we're going to be. If we're in Edmonton, it would maybe be a northern jaunt from Edmonton, or Calgary, if that happens to be the case. I'm going to leave it to the clerk to talk about that. Make that a week in the west. And we could also try to cover off a rural part, as well as a northern part. We don't need to put a timeframe in, but we do need to cost it to get approval, as Mr. Martin has said.

So I'll recap. My suggestion is that we start Bill C-50 this week, as in Tuesday, when we come back. We'll look at it for a potential minimum of four meetings, but have that done, and then right after that we'll look at Bill C-241.

We still have two other private members' bills, but as I said, once we get going on this I'm going to suggest that we call a steering committee just to look at future business and try to work in how we can look at some of these things.

Mr. Lessard, I see your hand.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I agree with your recommendations so far. I think we should move quickly to deal with Bill C-50. In fact, I have names of some witnesses here today to table with the clerk.

I'd actually like to see us get this done next week, if we could. My initial thoughts were that we would have one day of witnesses and then a day of clause-by-clause. I'm certainly open to as well, and would probably welcome the presence of, ministry officials for a session and the minister herself to come and talk to us about this amendment and to answer any questions we might have. That might take three days, or perhaps four, but I would not like to see us go beyond that. Personally, I think we have a lot of people out there who are waiting and wanting this relief that will come, if and when we pass this amendment, so that they can deal with the challenges of daily living. That would be my first comment.

I was hoping as well that in the interest of getting a study done that's very important, that we've put a lot of effort and time into so far, crossing two parliaments, we would move to try to finish the study on poverty. I would recommend that we agree that we are in fact going to travel, with perhaps a week out west, where we could hit some of the communities agreed upon earlier, and we might also, while we're there, get up into the territories or to an aboriginal community.

I also want to see whether we could somehow spend at least a day in a rural area so that we get a sense of that. I had suggested earlier that Saskatchewan might be a good place to do that, although Mr. Komarnicki tells me there's no more poverty in Saskatchewan. We might want to check that out for ourselves and see if that's true or not, but we would do that.

I put forward today the request that we travel as part of the western leg of the poverty tour, so we can actually put a request before the committee that determines and agrees to the resources necessary to do that, and we can get that moving now. When that is approved, we can look for a week when we can see ourselves clear to do that.

We can deal with the other private members' bills in between and try to get as much work done as we can between now and the Christmas break, in the interest of trying to assist the significant number of people out there in our constituencies who are challenged in this difficult economic time.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We sometimes tend to speak of seasonal workers when we should call them seasonal industry workers. It is the industry that is seasonal.

As my colleague rightly said, the bill before us will help 190,000 workers across Canada. There is nothing in it, though, for seasonal industry workers, absolutely nothing according to our studies. We asked the government to provide us with a province by province breakdown of these 190,000 workers.

Where can these 190,000 workers be found? The program is tailor-made for workers in the automobile industry in Ontario. I agree they may have been affected, but Bill C-50 does nothing for our seasonal workers. The entire question of eligibility in this employment insurance program should be reviewed. We agree about this with the Sans-Chemise and Action Chômage movements, which want the threshold to qualify for employment insurance reduced to 360 hours.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. He did not manage to get to employment insurance in the short amount of time he was allowed.

In Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord and in Manicouagan, we have fishers, forestry workers and seasonal workers in the tourism industry. There are also some people who work in winter or summer, depending on the season. It is as hard to harvest berries on the North Shore in February as to ski on the Massif de la Petite-Rivière-Saint-François in July. These people often find themselves on employment insurance.

The government's Bill C-50 will not help the people of the North Shore.

I would like the hon. member to tell me whether many seasonal, occasional, temporary or vacation replacement workers in his riding and all over Quebec will receive any employment insurance benefits at all under Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I want to welcome everybody back. I don't want to keep you here too long today. We really want to talk about future business. I know that we've been talking amongst ourselves, but I want to make sure we're on the same page as to where we're at.

Since Bill C-50 has been sent to our committee, we should look at starting it right away and working through it. My question is whether I have agreement from the committee that this is how we'd like to proceed.

Just to throw out some of the other things we have on our plate, we have a couple of private members' bills. We probably added one last night to make that three. We are also trying to complete our study on poverty. It would be nice to complete it by the wintertime, but we'll see what happens. There's the possibility of travel out west as well. We'll talk about that too.

My question to the committee—and you can determine how long you want to stay today—is whether this is the process we want to move forward on, starting with Bill C-50. We'll have other steering committee meetings to determine what some of the other orders of business need to be. But for the sake of moving forward right now, that's what I want to propose to you at this time.

We'll take names if anybody wants to speak to that.

Tony, you have the floor.