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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we spent the entire spring trying to get important changes into the EI system, which the government just totally blocked.

I know the hon. member wants to help his constituents and the industries in his area, but he has to understand that the official opposition has a greater responsibility than simply to pick and choose. We have a responsibility to make sure that Canadians know that we have tried and tried, and that the current government cannot be trusted. We can get some peanuts every now and then, but when it gets down to doing the real work on behalf of Canadians, the current Conservative government is not the one that is going to deliver the goods for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Having consulted the major unions in Quebec, we know that they are unanimously opposed to this bill. Acadie Nouvelle reports that unemployed groups, especially on the Acadian peninsula, are against the bill. I believe that my colleague also seriously questions the claim that 190,000 people would benefit from this bill and the $935 million, while our NDP friends are going one better and saying that the figure is now $1 billion.

Do they understand how they come up with these figures? To get 190,000 people, 85% of unemployed workers would have to receive their maximum benefit entitlement, whereas only 25% actually do.

Can my colleague tell us whether he has looked at these figures?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Mississauga South, a short answer, please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do the member's question justice. However, what I can say to him is that there is a litany of problems here with the current government where it always gives us big numbers, such as $4.5 billion to do this when in fact it is only $1.5 billion.

Look at the history the government has with the Parliamentary Budget Officer; an officer that in fact the Conservative Party insisted be brought in to oversee and ensure that the government's numbers are right. What do the Conservatives do? They farm the Parliamentary Budget Officer underneath the Library of Parliament and do not give the PBO enough resources to do the job properly. That is not accountability. They are not with the member, and I agree with him. This bill has a billion dollars that is being spent on EI. I believe that there are better initiatives than EI which would help the unemployed today.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill C-50. I have the privilege of sitting on the particular committee that looks at these kinds of issues.

I will be speaking to the details of the legislation in just a few moments, but first I want to step back and initially give something of a more general perspective as we get started here.

In the short-term, the Canadian economy is going to recover. Our economy has held up relatively well throughout this recession, though of course that does not mean that it hurts any less when Canadians lose their jobs, particularly for those Canadians who have lost jobs in this period of time. It does not hurt less for those Canadians who have not been able to get back into the workforce as yet.

In the long-term, however, our economy is going to change, and through Canada's economic action plan we are dealing effectively with our current difficulties but we also have a vision for the future. It is crucial that that be said and crucial to have at this point in time.

I do not claim to have the gift of prophecy. I am not a prophet, or the son of a prophet as the Good Book says, but I think it is safe to say that the economy of the future will rely upon some different things. It will rely upon high technology, including forms of technology that we cannot even imagine today. Our traditional industries, especially our resource-based industries, are also seeing some major transformations in this light. We want Canadians to be working in that new economy.

I believe that the world is on the cusp of an economic transition, a crucial change coming that will be just as important in its own way as other major transitions of the 18th and the 19th centuries.

The industrial revolution, to take one example, was a tremendous shock to the traditional economies of Europe and America. Millions of hard workers were put out of business by the coming of steam power and mass production. Millions were forced to learn a new way of working. There was a human cost to industrialization but it was temporary, and in the end industrialization created many more jobs than it destroyed. It also brought about a much higher standard of living, and that is important and obvious as well to note.

From the vantage point of two centuries, it is easy to see that industrialization was a good thing. Although there are people who lament its coming and hark back to an earlier era, we do believe that on the whole it was a good thing. In the middle of an economic transition it is not so easy, however, to be philosophical, as we are in these few moments here.

I want to put it rather bluntly. When people are out of work, they cannot pay their mortgages. They stand to lose their cars and their houses. When they do not know whether they will ever have jobs again, because the industry appears to be dying and the skills that they have honed for decades look like they are obsolete, it is not so easy to take that long view, because they are right in the middle of it.

When people lose jobs through not fault of their own, it is a tremendous blow to their identities, self-confidence and sense of security. When we see our families and friends losing their jobs and businesses shut down in our communities, it is hard not to feel real fear about the future; apprehension, anxiety and real fear.

Believe me, our government would like nothing better than to be able to assure Canadians that the downturn will become an upturn and give a specific date, a certain, definite point, but this is a global recession and we are, to a significant degree, affected by what happens in other countries around us and across the globe. Nevertheless, the economic news is encouraging. We can now see the beginning of the end of the recession and the start of our recovery. Canada has weathered that downturn better than most other countries, and I believe we can attribute that to actions by this Conservative government, actions to stimulate the economy, actions to protect jobs and support the unemployed.

We, as the Conservative government, took concrete action to help Canadians through the employment insurance program. We made timely improvements to help Canadians by providing five extra weeks of EI benefits, by making the EI application process easier, faster and better for workers and businesses, as well as increasing opportunities for unemployed Canadians to upgrade their skills and get back into the new and emerging economy.

Canadians are benefiting from those improvements to the EI program. More than 240,000 Canadians have received additional weeks of benefits thanks to the extra five weeks of benefits included in Canada's economic action plan. Canadians are also benefiting from improvements to service delivery. Between April and July, over 750 additional claims-processing staff and over 250 more agents answering calls were hired and trained to help even more Canadians receive their EI benefits as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

Canada's economic action plan also announced the freezing of the employment insurance premium rate for 2010 at $1.73 per $100 of insurable earnings, the same levels as in 2008 and 2009, and actually its lowest level since 1982. I would point out to the Liberal members opposite that while the previous Liberal government may have reduced EI premiums, it is our Conservative government that has them at their lowest level in a quarter of a century.

This government has also created the employment insurance financing board to ensure that the EI premiums paid by hard-working Canadians do not go into general revenues and that they are not available for future governments to use on their pet political projects or to fudge deficit numbers, like the previous Liberal governments did.

I am hearing about the kind of recommendation we are putting into place from chambers of commerce, including the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, that EI premiums should not go into general revenues to be used in a slush fund, pet political project kind of way. Our government's action on that issue is another good thing for Canadians.

I will go back to the freezing of EI premiums for this year, 2009, and next year, 2010. Keeping the EI premium at the same level in 2009 and 2010 rather than allowing it to rise to the break-even level will achieve a projected combined economic stimulus of $10.5 billion. That measure keeps premium rates lower than they would otherwise be. From an employer perspective, the measure provides an incentive to create and retain jobs, and at the same time it leaves more earnings in the hands of employers, which impacts on consumer spending.

We are assisting businesses and their workers experiencing temporary slowdowns through improved and more accessible work sharing agreements. More than 165,000 Canadians are benefiting from work sharing agreements that are in place with over 5,800 employers across Canada.

It is important to ensure Canada's workforce is in position to get good jobs and bounce back from the recession. To help, we have the career transition assistance program, the CTA, a new initiative launched by our government that will help an estimated 40,000 long-term workers who need additional support for retraining to find new jobs.

Through that initiative, we have extended the duration of EI regular income benefits for eligible workers for up to two years for those who choose to participate in longer term training. As well, we are allowing earlier access to EI for eligible workers investing in their own training by using all or part of their severance packages.

This initiative is being implemented in partnership with provinces and territories. The federal government provides income support through the EI program, and the provinces and territories are responsible for providing training support. By working with the provinces and the territories through this and other programs, we are providing Canadians easier access to training that is tailored to the needs of workers in our country's different regions.

As I read the reports from the different chambers across the country, again including my own Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, they are certainly supportive of that training component and EI funds being used to that very good end.

The new legislation we are introducing is part of those efforts. Bill C-50 is about extending regular EI benefits to workers who have lost their jobs after working a long time and who have never, or rarely, collected employment insurance or EI regular benefits; in other words, those who have a long-term attachment to the workforce. That is what this bill is about.

These Canadians have paid taxes and EI premiums for many years. It is only fair and right that we support them and their families in this special time of need.

I appreciate the reasoned support of the NDP, and I wish that other members of the House would support something like this on behalf of their constituents. I encourage all members of the House to support these measures.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite in terms of the compassion that members of Parliament feel towards those who have lost their jobs and whose families are impacted. I certainly share that view.

It was an interesting, contextual and philosophical set of comments. The word that really struck me, though, was when the member used the word “timely”. If anything, this proposed bill is completely untimely. We have a government that in its update last November claimed that Canada would be in surplus for this year and future years. That was pretty untimely. It was already a country in deficit. The untimely budget in January proposed a $32 billion deficit, which soon after has skyrocketed to $55 billion.

The thing that is completely mystifying in terms of the government's performance is that it did absolutely nothing to table this measure during the summer, when there was a Liberal-Conservative EI working group to make exactly the improvements to EI that the member claims this bill is about. Instead, the—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the question was, but I will do my best to respond to the general statements that were made. I do know that the constituents contacting my office have a great appreciation for the five-week extension. I suspect that is the same for members across the way and in this party as well.

We will be extending employment insurance, yet again, for those who have had a long-term attachment to the workforce, and I think that is much appreciated. As the member said, it was a compassionate, caring measure to take. We listen to the input that comes from across the way. In particular, we listen to the input from the Canadian people, who have relayed to the government that this is the kind of temporary measure that is necessary.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. He is an interested person and member. I am wondering whether he would explain the ramification of an issue that was brought to the table by my colleague from Mississauga South, and that is the whole question of accountability and trust.

Here we have a member of the government who glories in the achievements of his government, but not one of them has given an indication of what has happened in the last 10 months, where we went from a surplus to a $56 billion deficit. That is $60 billion of deficit.

We ask ourselves what that means. It is either an investment or a shortfall. If it is an investment, I would like the member to tell the House what the Canadian public has received for that $60 billion, because it should have added up to at least 500,000 jobs instead of 500,000 unemployed. Alternatively, it could demonstrate that there is a shortfall of government revenues. Since the Government of Canada takes about 20% of the GDP in taxes, it would mean there has been a shortfall of $300 billion in economic activity.

Under those circumstances, what would possibly possess Canadians to think they ought to renew confidence in a government that is that incompetent and untrustworthy?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member in the past. Maybe he should move into the finance critic position and replace the Liberal member who is there; he seems to marshal a fair bit of the supposed evidence at hand.

I would disagree on the premise of a number of the points of why we are in the particular economic condition we are in and, as a government, the extraordinary measures we have had to take. There has been crucial stimulus and infrastructure spending across the country. Those dollars are getting out.

I have done several events and announcements this week. It is much appreciated. People recognize that this is for a period of time. It is infrastructure that is needed in the good times and the bad. It is not for frills or superfluous kinds of stuff; these are very vital things that are being done across the country.

We are in a position of having spent money, but we will come to where we no longer have these deficit budgets and we will work diligently at reducing the major deficit we have in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Essex for his enthusiasm. He always jumps to his feet in my support. I take it as a great compliment.

Bill C-50 puts us in a situation where, once again, we bring up employment insurance. I have been here for five and a half years. Time and time again we have talked about employment insurance. We have several amendments on the table. Most of them have to do with the fact that members want to lower the qualification period, or at least the barriers to qualifications in that first period. With Bill C-50, we find ourselves talking about the back end of the system, meaning one gets additional weeks. Usually we do not get that. In private members' legislation we usually get a qualifying period that allows people who are unable to find work to benefit when under normal circumstances they would not.

I welcome this debate. However, I believe the bill completely lacks a focus on those people who are unable to qualify.

Over the past few years we have seen several resolutions passed in the House; some have been voted down and some have been voted for. They have included things like lowering the hours to qualify, such as 360 hours for re-entrance. We also talked about 55% to 60% of the benefits to be paid out when one is receiving EI benefits.

Some of the other issues, including the two-week waiting period, also come up, but time and time again they come up as private members' bills. Now we have government legislation in this direction.

Let me start with my own riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. I want to talk about two types of industry and juxtapose their situation with the intent of this legislation. Let me start with seasonal work and the shrimp plant workers. Work in the plant is a seasonal occupation, as anyone in this country can understand. I am hearing a lot from people who work in particular shrimp plants. Prices have been low. There has been labour unrest in certain cases. They cannot seem to settle on a price. People are unable to qualify for EI in the off season because they lack the hours to qualify.

Bill C-50 does absolutely nothing to address that. At some point I hope the government will give credence to that issue. I would like to see it go to 360 hours, for the reasons I just stated. The majority of my constituents would feel the same way, and I get a lot of feedback from them.

Let me look at another aspect, and this is where we get to the crux of the matter on Bill C-50. Time and again members of the government will stand in the House and say the bill does wonderful things for the long-tenured worker. I would like to give an illustration of a long-tenured worker who has many questions. I live in the town of Bishop's Falls near Grand Falls-Windsor. It recently suffered a major setback when the AbitibiBowater mill closed in the spring of this year. There were upward of 700 people who lost their jobs. Many of these people have called me. They were loggers. We go back to the idea of seasonal work. They were loggers who worked so many weeks of the year and the other weeks could only receive 55% of their income through EI.

Many people will say they do not want to feed into that. They do not want to have someone claiming EI time and time again when they can do other work. One has to understand that this is an aspect of rural Canada. All parties in the House agree it is difficult for seasonal workers in rural areas to get work in the off season and therefore this system was required. We still need someone to log our forests. We still need someone to farm. We still need people to pave our roads. Rural Canada, especially rural Newfoundland, is now so popular because of its rural aspect. Who will be waiting to show people around? It will be tourism workers. They will be in the same situation. People ask why they cannot do something else. In a town of 100 people or less, there is not a lot of industry to go around. This type of policy helps sustain communities such as this.

I have 172 communities in my riding and only one town, Grand Falls-Windsor, has 13,000 people. I have a collection of communities that is vast but the people are proud and this is the type of legislation they need to sustain themselves within their community.

I want to go back to the logger situation. Bill C-50 is what I have a problem with and the loggers want me to ask the government about a situation. If a claimant is paid less than 36 weeks of regular benefits in the 260 weeks before the beginning of the benefit period, they can qualify. What does that mean? Of the 260 weeks, which is approximately five years, if people have received benefits for over 36 weeks, they are out and receive nothing more. Loggers are included in that but my definition of a logger is a long-tenured worker. What do the Conservatives say to them? What do they say to the shrimp plant workers in this situation?

There is a lot of talk in my province from many corners and not just us. I will quote an individual who has done extensive work on the EI system. I respect her opinion because she probably knows more about the EI system than any person I know. Her name is Lana Payne and she is the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Labour Federation. She has a few things to say about this. She said that Bill C-50 divides the unemployed into two groups: those deemed deserving by the Conservatives of extra benefits and those who are not.

She went on to say that the proposed changes by leaving so many unemployed out essentially blames people for their job losses by penalizing workers who may have had to avail of EI benefits in the past five years.

That brings me to my next point. Many Conservatives have said that they have had people working in the auto industry and had auto plants in their riding and have people who work in newsprint mills and other types of mills. I have a question for them. It is not seasonal work, but in the past five years those mills have suffered shutdowns. The mill was shut down for whatever reason: too much inventory or market conditions persist such that they had to close the mill down for a period of time.What did these people do? They went on EI. For a mill worker, a long-tenured worker, if he or she has received more than 36 weeks, which is about seven weeks a year, which is highly possible, they are out.

The Conservatives tell us that they had to cut it off somewhere. Well, this is not the place to be doing that. I do not think it was well thought out in this situation. We could have done something for these individuals. They are long-tenured workers who, through no fault of their own, were in a situation where they were laid off for a period of time which put them in a very rough situation.

Lana Payne said it quite well. As a matter of fact, it is not just Newfoundland and Labrador but it is also the Canadian federation, the CAW. It is of the same ilk where it claims that the government will qualify 190,000 people. People with the CAW are experts. They are not paid to confront the government. They are not just the opposition. These are people who actually stick up for the people who have jobs or used to. I do admit that some people in the mill at Grand Falls-Windsor where I am from will receive extra benefits, if need be, but a lot of them have gone away to work which disqualifies them yet once again.

Finally, just before last January, if workers were laid off before 2009, they are out. So much for Lewisporte Wholesalers in my riding. I do agree that we need more benefits but this particular bill leaves out so many to the point that it becomes an injustice to actually spend so much time to help so few people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and it is very clear that the issues of EI are far from being settled.

The question that needs to be asked is how we settle the issue of EI. Do we continue to work as a Parliament and continue to press the government that has been fundamentally against so many of these changes from the beginning and bring change, or do we all jump off the cliff with the Liberal leader because he wants to be prime minister? Those are the questions people are asking me back home.

Many of my constituents who are unemployed will not benefit from this, but they are saying that if they have a choice between giving $1 billion to the unemployed generally or going to an election at this point, they would rather give to the unemployed.

However, that does not mean the issue of EI is over. In fact, we have our bill, as does the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. These are bills that are still being brought forward because there are so many problems with EI.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to put it quite simply to the Canadian people. If it is not good enough, does that mean he will be walking away from the $1 billion that is on the table so the Liberal leader can force an election, or will he propose clear enough changes so we can make this work and people will get some money?

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

Mr. Speaker, in this particular situation I respect some of the bills that he is speaking to in way of lowering the qualifying period. There is no doubt that some people in his riding and in my riding will benefit from this.

However, he did refer to the partisan aspect of it, and I am glad he did. In this particular situation, after going through two years, they wrote to me through these ten-percenters and talked about how the Liberals were propping up a particular government when it was such sacrilege to them.

If the member wants to throw out some partisan arrows, let us have a look. The NDP members, in this particular situation, have now done, in politics, in this particular House, the equivalent to a triple salchow in figure skating. They have twisted themselves into such a pretzel that now they have become this voice of reason when it was no holds barred before this.

I respect his ideas and his will to change EI but I do not respect how disingenuous the partisan snipes are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was quite entertained by that little outburst.

The reality is that his party voted to kill Kyoto, voted to kill pay equity for women and voted to get rid of the right to strike for public sector workers. There is a difference between rolling over and saying “Don't hit me” and trying to present that as a piece of public policy, and saying “if you want to keep this Parliament going, put something on the table.”

We have a $1 billion on the table. That party has delivered nothing over the last two years except to be a hand puppet for the Conservatives to keep them in power.

I would like to ask the members a question. There is $1 billion on the table. Will they be taking their toys and going home or will they work with us to get this $1 billion rolling?

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

Mr. Speaker, did I just hear this correctly? Maybe I will check the record.

I have been called a hand puppet. I know my diminutive stature may dictate as such, but is there not a new coalition underway, or am I mistaken here?

The member has become such a hand puppet that he was not even born. I believe he was created by Jim Henson. It is insane in this particular matter that he could do this and it sounds so disingenuous. I find this absolutely incredible.

Let us get back to the fact that those members killed Kyoto. Let us talk about pay equity. If they felt so compelled, they should take the government down now and then change it. They should go ahead. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Now all of a sudden it is two years of down, down, down they go. What do we say? We say that maybe we will take the government down and that maybe there is no confidence. Now all of a sudden the story changes. No, actually we do have confidence. They flip a coin.

I used to be a weatherman and sometimes predictions would go off track. Sometimes we may want to flip a coin to predict weather. Maybe I should start flipping a coin to find out where the NDP are.