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

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague and I can understand why he is upset. I can understand why he is frustrated. He is now supporting a government that he has not supported in the past.

I would like to quote again because I want to ensure it is on the record. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh said this legislation “could be a particular letdown for many in Windsor”. That is the constituency he represents. He knows he is letting his constituents down.

That is why those members are frustrated. That is why they are panicking. That is why they are standing in the House and attacking us. They have to go back to their constituents next week and explain to them why they supported Conservative Bill C-50, which lets them down.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental question, as I said in my remarks, is this. Do we have confidence in the government? I gave a litany of examples of why we have lost confidence in the Conservative government.

I raised a second point that we had an EI working group. We put meaningful proposals forward. What did the Conservatives do? They mocked them, they started a campaign of misinformation, but they had no alternative proposals.

When there was speculation of a campaign, the Conservatives panicked, became nervous and created this EI reform in the form of Bill C-50, which would do very little to help Canadians. That is unacceptable and that is why we oppose it.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, last time I checked, I thought we were debating Bill C-50, a bill that the Conservatives have brought forward.

Speaking to that bill, the flaw that we have seen and clearly demonstrated is that it lacks regional representation. It does not deal with regional fairness, fairness that would help forestry workers in the province of Quebec and fairness that would help seasonal workers across this country.

It is surprising to see the NDP flip-flop. It is also surprising that the Bloc is so outraged. We are making our position very clear. We are opposing the government and we would count on their support in our proposal.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act . This enactment seeks to amend 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 seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada. That is in the summary of the bill.

I believe, and members on this side of the House in the Liberal Party believe, that it is too little too late for Canada's unemployed. Because this is a confidence matter, I and the Liberal Party will be opposing the bill.

It did not have to be like this. Back in June, the Liberal Party was able to convince the Conservatives that we could work together on this issue. We struck an employment insurance working group. However, the Conservatives were more interested in playing games than actually helping Canada's unemployed.

We had agreed to discuss two key issues as part of our mandate. The first was to allow self-employed Canadians to participate voluntarily in the employment insurance system and the second was to improve the eligibility requirements in order to ensure reasonable fairness.

Despite this, the Conservatives did nothing to bring forward any meaningful proposal. Instead, they spent the summer attacking our ideas with fake number that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed as incorrect.

The Conservatives' total cost estimate, including static and dynamic costs of $2.4 billion, presented to the employment insurance working group on August 14 overstates the cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard of EI eligibility.

As the Parliamentary Budget Officer believes, the government's dynamic cost estimate is flawed. More important, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also believes that only static costs should be considered in costing the proposal, given the structure of the program and since the proposed changes to the EI system are in effect for only one year.

Based on the material presented to the EI working group, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations show that the government's own estimate of the static cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard is about $1.148 billion, and that includes the administrative costs.

In the opinion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the $1.14 billion static cost estimate is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed 360-hour national standard of EI eligibility. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government's total cost estimate in excess of $4 billion presented on August 6 is not consistent with the proposed 360-hour national standard, as it includes unemployed individuals not covered by the proposal, for example, special beneficiaries, new entrants and re-entrants to the labour force.

It was Liberal members who brought forward these ideas on how we could truly and meaningfully help long-tenured workers. Yet the minister stands in the House and says with a straight face that we walked away from the table. There was nothing to walk away from. The Conservatives had made up their minds right from the start that they would be unwilling to co-operate.

The government says one thing and does another. How can we work with that? How can we trust that?

Just today, as I heard the minister speak in the House, I was astonished to hear the minister state that no Liberals attended a briefing on the bill which she held yesterday. I would have been delighted to attend such a briefing, but I was never invited. None of my Liberal colleagues were invited either.

How did we get to this situation? It did not have to be this way.

This again raises questions about how can we believe the government, how can we have confidence in the government.

After all, the Prime Minister himself broke his promise not to tax income trusts, which hurt many seniors and others in my riding. He promised he would never appoint senators and yet, in one year, he has appointed more people to the Senate than any other person since Confederation. He promised fixed election dates, but he broke his own law and called an election anyway. He promised not to raise taxes and right after being elected, he raised personal income taxes. Now, he will be imposing a $13-billion job-killing payroll tax, breaking yet another promise.

This flip-flopping and a trail of broken promises would be funny, but this is a very serious matter. The government claims that it wants to help workers, but just as it tries to extend a few crumbs to the unemployed with this bill, it will simultaneously raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses. How does this help our economy as it struggles to recover through this recession? By the way, it was a recession the Prime Minister would not even acknowledge until it was impossible to ignore. Just over a month ago the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development herself said:

We have to make sure, also, that when we come out of this recession that we are not going to be burdening employers and employees with huge increases in payroll taxes.

How does this reconcile with her comments and her increase in payroll taxes? Have her beliefs changed so quickly? This is the reason. This is an example of why we have lost confidence in the government. We cannot believe a single word its members say.

What is more surprising than the government's position and the lack of confidence that we have in it is the fact that the Conservative's coalition partner, the NDP, has decided to give up on its principles just for partisan positioning. There was rarely a time in the past two Parliaments when the NDP members did not remind us all about how many times they opposed the Conservatives. The NDP members have not been interested in making Parliament work. In fact, they blamed the official opposition whenever we did work with the government. Any time we worked in a meaningful way to help Canadians, to move the agenda forward, they mocked us. They made fun of us. They thumped their chests. They opposed budgets and other money bills seconds after they were tabled. Yet as soon as the Liberal Party made up its mind that we had lost confidence in the government, the NDP always changed its mind. When their vote really mattered, when their vote really counted, they panicked.

Did their supporters ask them to do this? No. In fact Canadian Auto Workers president has described the reforms that are being presented today in Bill C-50 as crumbs for the unemployed, dismissing them as doing little to help the vast majority of the unemployed. Perhaps then they have found some common ground with the Conservatives. Perhaps the government has given into their demands. Not at all. In fact, the Globe and Mail calls this offer thin gruel for the NDP. Why would the NDP members sell out their supporters and their beliefs? I think the Toronto Star summed it up best yesterday when it wrote:

...the New Democratic Party, watching its political fortunes tumble and its financial contributions trickle in, is simply trying to stave off another election even if it means breathing life into a right-wing government.

The NDP, which claims to be the voice of Canadian workers, has abandoned those same workers just because it is too afraid to take a stand.

Let me give another example. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh, a well-respected colleague of ours, said, “the bill could be a particular letdown for many in Windsor because contrary to the human resources minister's claim workers having paid in seven of the previous ten years would see extended benefits, the actual time period is much longer”.

There is a reluctance, a hesitation, a lack of conviction, so why are they supporting the bill?

I want to share a few stories in my riding about the importance of EI, because the economic crisis has hit people in Mississauga—Brampton South very hard. Our unemployment rate hovers around 11%, compared to a rate of about 6.5% when the Conservatives came to power. Within four years we have seen the unemployment rate in that region almost double. Nationally, over 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed, and as of June we had 816,000 Canadians collecting EI. That is an increase of 39,500 people over the previous month.

To put that in perspective, Mississauga—Brampton South has 44,000 households. That is nearly one job lost for every home in my riding, and that is in just over one month. This is a situation unprecedented, yet the Conservatives propose only piecemeal changes and only then when they are backed into a corner.

Are people better off today than they were four years ago? That is the question I ask people when I meet them in my riding, and the answer is no.

I have heard heartbreaking stories from constituents who have fallen on hard times and have been treated very poorly by the government. For example, one gentleman was laid off last September but he was too proud to apply for EI right away. Yet when financial circumstances finally forced him to apply, he was told by the government that he only qualified for $68 a week because he no longer had enough hours. I doubt anyone could survive on such an amount.

Another woman in my riding took a voluntary package from her employer and left her workplace in order to save a colleague's job. The government told her that she would have to wait until her package ran out before she could apply for EI. When she did, which she was told to do, she was denied her benefits because they had given her bad advice. These are all documented cases in my riding.

As another example, a woman struggled to make ends meet with a new baby in the house when maternity benefits were delayed for three months after she had given birth.

One especially tragic story is of a constituent who was denied EI benefits because he was literally one hour short of the standard. Yet, if he lived in Burlington, a short drive from his home in Mississauga, he would have qualified. None of these stories seems to matter to the Conservatives, because they did nothing to bring forward meaningful legislation or proposals on EI reform.

In our critique of Bill C-50, I have been very clear about our concerns and why we in the Liberal Party are opposing it. What is our plan? What is our proposal? What is it that we are willing to present as an alternative?

Having 58 different standards for eligibility for EI is an obvious problem. Every Canadian should have equal access and not be judged based on his or her postal code. This speaks to Liberal values, a belief in fairness and equality, which underpins all of our policies. That is why the Liberal leader has been advocating for one national standard.

We propose the 360-hour standard of eligibility. If implemented quickly and in a timely manner, this proposal could help another 150,000 people out of the 1.6 million Canadians who are unemployed.

We even indicated that we would be flexible in terms of what that standard would be, but again the Conservatives have responded by ignoring our ideas and replying with propaganda and misinformation. We hear that time and time again. They continue to attack our ideas and misinform and mislead Canadians as opposed to having meaningful dialogue and debate on the substantive matters of our policy proposals.

I demonstrated that very clearly when I talked about our cost estimates, which were verified by the PBO, as opposed to their outrageous cost estimates, which were part of their propaganda and misinformation exercise.

This is not a Liberal way. We have proposals to fix EI and provide the support that Canadians need to weather this financial storm. The government has proven it cannot be trusted to look out for the interests of its citizens. It has lost our confidence and the confidence of Canadians. Canadians do not deserve crumbs. They deserve real, meaningful reform and help.

I have outlined very clearly why we have lost confidence and why we cannot trust the government. I have also very clearly articulated some examples that I have seen first-hand in my riding of how the EI system in its current form is not helping people and how people are falling through the cracks.

We will continue to work hard to earn the trust of Canadians, because I believe the proposal that I described, that Liberals have been advocating for months and months now, on which we tried to work with the government and other parties, is a proposal that makes sense and will really help people.

We can do better, we will do better and I am confident that with the trust of Canadians, whenever the next election takes place we will be able to earn that trust and form a Liberal government that will be able to implement real, meaningful EI reform.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a great speech. From my personal interaction with him, I know of his hard work and compassion for the less fortunate in our communities.

One of the things I worked on since first being elected was the issue of providing increased opportunities for skilled trades workers. Recently I was able to participate in announcements at Conestoga College for the expansion of opportunities for skilled trades workers through the knowledge infrastructure program. In addition to that, my colleague will know that our government has made significant strides in encouraging apprenticeships with the incentive grant and the completion grant. These are important initiatives to address the issue of skilled trades labour.

With those provisions and all of the great provisions in Bill C-50 to reach long-tenured workers and provide additional training opportunities, I wonder if my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie could comment on what he thinks the reasons are that the Liberal Party has chosen to ignore the plight of the workers which my colleague has outlined so well.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, as history has shown, at the end of former Prime Minister Trudeau's reign, for every dollar in revenue that the Government of Canada was bringing in, that government was spending $1.03. Can anyone imagine trying to run a government while it was spending more money than it was taking in? That is why we had such crippling deficits.

The following administration reduced that at the end of its tenure. We all know that once a program is in place in governments, it is very difficult to cut off the tap. However, at the end of the following administration, that government had cut down revenues to the point that the government was only spending 97¢ for every dollar it was taking in. In other words, it was cutting down on the massive debt left by the former Liberal government.

We need to ensure we have history straight.

With respect to his specific question on those workers who are working less than 35 weeks a year, whether they are in the forestry industry or other industries, Bill C-50 deals specifically with long-tenured workers. The provisions in that bill do exactly that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for talking about the strong banking system that we have. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I say that he is welcome.

I would like to discuss some of the issues. He talked about the notional deficit and general revenues. The general revenues were used at the time to erase what was a $50 billion deficit. No, I think it was $42 billion back then, was it not? It is hard to keep track. However, that was the deficit back then as opposed to the deficit the present government has today.

I would like to touch on one subject. He talked passionately about long-tenured workers and the forestry industry. I would like to show him an illustration, based on Bill C-50, of what we are talking about. There are a few gentlemen in my riding who have called and they are loggers. The logging situation is that it is primarily a seasonal industry. If he is so concerned, and he says that this bill would do so much for people in the forestry industry, what about a logger?

This is the situation. Subclause (2.1) states quite clearly that over the past 260 weeks, “If a claimant was paid less than 36 weeks”. Hopefully my math does not fail me, but that is about 7.2 weeks per year over a five-year period, which basically means that Bill C-50 means nothing for that logger he speaks so passionately about. They are out.

I would like him to comment on that. When it comes to seasonal work, why will those people he speaks so passionately about not be accepted by Bill C-50?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand you gave admonitions to people with heckles. Maybe we could do the same on the Liberal side.

It is widely known and quite correct that the previous Liberal government took approximately $50 billion in excess payments from the EI fund and put it into general revenues. By anyone's standards, I would believe that would have to be considered unacceptable. Nonetheless that was the situation of the day.

The Liberals had also put in a formula based EI program, which various regions of the country would react to needs of the unemployed in different fashions. What I mean by that, is in certain regions unemployed workers could qualify for EI after 420 hours of work throughout the year. In other regions of the country they could only qualify for EI benefits after up to 700 or 720 hours.

That certainly was not a perfect system because of the overcharging of employees and employers to the tune of $50 billion. However, the formula itself had some merit at its time.

However, what happened about a year ago, as we all know, there was an unprecedented economic meltdown throughout the world. This was precipitated not by any actions of our government or our country, but because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis that occurred in the United States.That hit all countries in the industrialized world quickly, swiftly and without precedent.

In fact, every country in the G20, as well as many other countries throughout the world, were reeling from the effects of that sub-prime mortgage crisis. It affected so many countries in a manner in which number one stock markets started to crash, unemployment made drastic increases, economies almost collapsed in some jurisdictions and banks did collapse.

In fact, which I will speak to later in my presentation, Canada was the only country I believe in the G20 that did not have to bail out any of its banks. We have the strongest banking system in the world. I think we all know that and we should all be proud of it. However, that is how severe the economic downturn, the global crisis was.

It affected every country with which we do business. All our trading partners were affected and the G20 was reeling.

One of the many things we did, once the realization of how severe and how widespread this economic downturn was, was to start making plans to change the EI program. We realized that many hard-working Canadians were losing their jobs through no fault of their own. Employees in the auto sector, the forestry sector and the manufacturing sector were losing their jobs because their companies were going bankrupt because of this global economic downturn.

Therefore, it was imperative for our government, and I believe governments throughout the world, that fundamental, substantive and necessary changes were made to employment insurance programs to protect those workers, to give them the benefits they required and they needed so desperately as they tried to recover and transition from this economic downturn that was affecting all of us.

What did this government do? The first thing we did was to start consulting widely and broadly with Canadians from coast to coast to coast and people who had an interest and an expertise in employment insurance. We wanted to find out from average Canadians and the experts what they believed was necessary in EI reforms, what could we do as a government, what changes could be implement in the employment insurance program that would best serve the Canadian people and Canadian workers.

We heard from thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They told us the first thing that needed to be done was to extend the benefits because the benefit period was not long enough. Many workers had been working for 15 and 20 years and had suddenly lost their jobs. They were out on the street, as it were, trying to transition and find new work, but they did not know how long it would take them. This economic crisis was so severe and so widespread that job loss was rampant across the country and countries across the world. It would not be the easiest thing in the world for anyone who had lost a job to find new employment quickly. Therefore, we extended the benefit period for EI.

The second thing we heard was that we needed to put more money into skills training and upgrading so workers who were laid off or lost their jobs in an industry, where they had worked for perhaps 15 or 20 years, could get the necessary training to transition and find work in a different industry. We did that.

I am proud to say we put over $1.5 billion into training programs. People who could qualify and even those who did not qualify for EI could access these training programs so they would be ready when the time came to take a new job, or perhaps start a new career to be able to fend for themselves and their families. The dollars that we put in were helping approximately 150,000 Canadians. We know that because that is how many Canadians have accessed these training programs to date.

However, that is not all. We expanded a work-sharing program. It was a program currently in place but we expanded the number of weeks that employers could access it. That allowed Canadians to keep their jobs, approximately 200,000 people, Canadians who were able to continue in their jobs because of expanded work-sharing opportunities.

That is one other thing in which our government should take great pride. Canadians, again, from coast to coast told us that is what they required.

We did more than just that. We decided we would freeze EI premiums for the next two years. We understood that employers and employees needed to keep more of their money in their pockets to help them through these troubled times.

All of this was done swiftly. We consulted with Canadians, they told us what they needed and we acted. We put these provisions into place as quickly as possible and they passed in the House. Those provisions are now helping hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

However, there was one other thing we said quite clearly and forcefully. We recognized there might be more required. No one could tell at the time how long this worldwide recession was going to last, how long this economic downturn, which has affected millions of people around the world, was going to last. We stated we would keep monitoring and observing the EI program to determine whether more changes were needed.

I must point out that during this time we heard from members of the opposition who gave their input and suggestions as to what was required to further improve the EI program.

What did we hear consistently, first from the NDP and then the Liberal Party of Canada? We heard that they felt the panacea to all the problems with the EI program could be solved by one single course of action. What was that? They suggested we lower the threshold on which individuals could access employment insurance to 360 hours.

Were there more suggestions? Absolutely not. That was it. That was the single suggestion that we heard. Again, as I mentioned, in their minds that was the complete solution, the panacea to all of the ills.

However, let us examine that a little closer. What does lowering the threshold to 360 hours really do? Does it help those workers who have worked for the last 20 years in the automotive industry and who suddenly found themselves out of a job because one of the big three auto manufacturers was going bankrupt and laying off workers by the thousands? Of course not. Did it help the forestry workers who have worked for 10, 15 or 20 years in the forestry industry and who put in literally thousands of hours in full-time employment year after year? Did it help them to lower the threshold to 360 hours? Absolutely not.

In fact, one could argue that the only people who would be helped by lowering the threshold to 360 hours might be part-time workers or students perhaps, but it certainly did not do anything to assist those workers who had been in the workforce for almost all of their adult life working 40 hour weeks, month after month, year after year. It did nothing to help them.

That is why, as many of my colleagues this afternoon have already observed, we thought it rather, to put it bluntly, silly and counterproductive to accept a suggestion that would do nothing to help those people who desperately needed help. That is why when we offered five weeks of extended benefits it was received universally well by workers across this country. When we decided to put billions of dollars into skills training and upgrading programs, it was universally applauded by workers and industry leaders across this country. When we decided to increase the work share program so that thousands of Canadians who were on the precipice of losing their job would be able to continue to work at their places of employment, it was cheered.

However, never did I hear from any people who had a full-time position, who had worked for years in their industry and had lost their job, that lowering the threshold to 360 hours was what they wanted.

I only point that out to the members of this place because, while it is a legitimate debate point, I have yet to hear a member of the opposition, who had been advocating lowering the threshold to 360 hours, fully explain to me how that would best serve Canadians who had been working for the last 15 to 20 years in full-time employment. The reason they have not been able to articulate an answer is because it does not help them. Workers needed more than just lowering the threshold. They needed money in their pockets and they needed extended benefits, which is why we took the actions that we did.

However, we recognized, as this recession and the global downturn kept churning along relentlessly, that there may still be other improvements that could be made. Again, I reiterate that for 13 years under the previous government there were absolutely no changes made to the program except for the fact that it kept siphoning off money from employers and employees.

In consultation with the official opposition, we decided to set up a bipartisan group of parliamentarians to examine the EI changes that we have currently made and to examine what additional changes and improvements to the EI program could be made to better assist workers. This working group of parliamentarians started their work but, unfortunately, somewhere down the way it was derailed because the Liberal members of that group walked out. When they were attending the meetings, they were still advocating a 360 hour threshold for employment insurance benefits and that was all.

We, on the other hand, wanted to go further than that. We felt there was much more that could be done. Therefore, even though our colleagues in the Liberal Party had walked out of that committee, we decided that we would go it alone.

We again consulted with Canadians from coast to coast to coast and we brought forward some further improvements that are contained in Bill C-50. What are those improvements? Quite frankly, they were targeted at those long-tenured workers that I was referring to earlier in my remarks, those hard-working Canadians who perhaps had been at the same job, but at a job nonetheless, in usually full-time employment, or close to full-time employment in almost all cases, for years and years.

We have all heard the stories. I am sure every person in this place has heard stories from constituents in their own ridings that have almost ripped their hearts out. We have had men and women, age 50, 55 or older, coming and pleading with their parliamentarians for help because they had been working at a job for 20 or more years and found themselves unemployed. They needed assistance because they were not sure how long it would take them to find a new job. They needed our help.

Even though we extended the benefit period by five weeks for those who were collecting EI premiums, we felt there were some special needs for those Canadians who were in that category that we would consider to be long-tenured workers because they were the most vulnerable.

I think we all know that for Canadian men or women who are middle aged or getting close to retirement and they lose their job, it is not easy for them to find a new job. These people would come in with stories of anguish, relating to me, and I am sure every other parliamentarian, stories of their fears and their concerns, not only for themselves but in almost all cases for their families. How do they feed their families? How do they keep a roof over their heads? How do they clothe and feed their families? They feared that in a number of weeks or perhaps up to a year their benefit period would run out and they still would not have new employment.

What could we do for them? We decided to act. As we did when we made our first improvements to the EI program, we decided to specifically target long-tenured workers. We have come up with a program, the provisions of which are contained in Bill C-50, that deals with exactly that.

Bill C-50 purports to change the EI program to deal with long-tenured workers so that an additional five to twenty weeks would be available for those workers who are in the situation of being unemployed after working most of their adult lives.

I can say from personal experience, and I think all of my colleagues on this side of the House can say the same, that when we proposed those changes, they were universally applauded. I have had workers in my riding phone me, write me and tell me face to face that this was something they thought might ultimately save their families' futures.

At the same time we were bringing forth these changes, we wanted to get clear acceptance from members of this House. What did we hear once again? We heard members of the official opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, state that they would oppose absolutely every initiative this government brought forward. I understand the opposition leader's need to justify his existence by forcing an election but I do not understand why any member of any opposition party could possibly stand in this House and argue against the initiatives that we have brought forward.

We are doing what we feel is in the best interests of Canadian workers. We have heard from Canadian workers, those unfortunate souls who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and they have told us loud and clear that we are on the right course. The actions we are taking to improve the EI system are necessary and they are appreciated by working families all across this country.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill C-50, a bill to once again improve the Employment Insurance Act, this time to deal with improvements to payments and benefits to long-tenured workers.

Before I get into the essence of the bill itself, it would be beneficial to all to take a little trip back in history to try to determine exactly how we got to this point today.

Some of my other colleagues in this place this afternoon have indicated that for 13 years under the previous Liberal administration there were really no substantive changes to the EI program whatsoever. What we did find out though, however, was that during that time there was an incredible amount of surplus in the EI fund, a notional fund, of upwards of $50 billion which the previous government basically put into general revenues. This was widely known and quite frankly unacceptable to most Canadians.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-50.

I would like to begin simply by correcting some of the information we have been hearing in this House, particularly from members of the Conservative government, suggesting that the Liberals brought forward only one proposal during the work of the employment insurance working group, namely, the proposal concerning the eligibility threshold of 360 hours a year, which they described as 45 working days for one year of EI benefits. The Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that the government was not telling the truth when it made such a statement and that the government was exaggerating the cost of the Liberal plan.

I was a member of that committee, which met on several occasions. The Liberals presented their plan concerning an eligibility threshold of 360 hours, explaining that it would be for workers who receive regular benefits and that it would be for a period of one year. We estimated the cost of this measure at $1.5 billion, for approximately 160,000 workers.

We asked the government and its officials to examine our plan and assess the costs involved in such a measure with an eligibility threshold of 420 hours, 390 hours and 520 hours. We also asked the government to show us how it would benefit unemployed workers if, instead of using a three month period to determine the unemployment rate of a region, we used a one month period, or 30 days. In other words, we wanted to know how many workers who are entitled to benefits would be eligible for EI. We made several requests and several proposals. Everyone agreed that the department and its officials should assess those proposals. It was the minister herself who, in a meeting on August 23, informed the members of the committee that she had unilaterally decided to instruct her officials to stop all assessments of the Liberal proposals because the government had no intention of examining those proposals.

The Conservatives never submitted their own proposals. They did not do it on July 14 or July 23, on August 6 or August 13 or August 20. We were supposed to have our last scheduled meeting on September 3, according to the established procedure, and the two co-chairs were supposed to speak previously with each other to determine the agenda. The Liberal co-chair, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour in Nova Scotia, phoned the minister on Friday, August 28 and left a message to the effect that he wanted to discuss the agenda for the meeting on September 3. The minister did not call him back that day. She did not call him back during the weekend, or on Monday, on Tuesday or on Wednesday. We decided on Wednesday, therefore, that we would not attend the meeting in view of the fact that the minister had clearly signalled that the Conservatives had no more interest in working with the Liberals. I just wanted to correct the misdeeds of these Conservatives and the disinformation being spread in the House.

Insofar as Bill C-50 is concerned, I think my colleague who spoke before me said it very well. Seasonal workers in Quebec, for example, will not benefit from the measures in it. The same is true of workers in the forest industry and workers in the fishing industry and pulp and paper industry.

There are cycles in these kinds of industries. People may work for the same company for 25 years while being laid off for certain periods because the work is seasonal. The Conservatives have long known that. They are doing with this bill what they always do: cherry pick.

In saying that 190,000 unemployed will benefit from these measures, the Conservatives are trying again to put one over on Canadians. They already exaggerated the cost of the Liberal plan. They did not just double it, they quadrupled it. It is not I who says this, it is the parliamentary budget officer. I wonder if they have not also exaggerated the figures on the number of workers who will benefit. How much, as a percentage, have they exaggerated?

Third party experts from trade unions and business people have studied the bill and cast doubt on the government’s figures. In their view, it is false to say 190,000 workers will be helped. It will be more like 60,000. The government has conflated three years but tries to make Canadians think it will be 190,000 workers a year. This is typical of the Conservatives. They say the truth one little drop at a time.

The government is engaging in disinformation and is saying things that are not true. The Conservatives think that if they say things often enough, people will believe them. I was not the one who said that. They inflated the figures in the Liberal proposal and refused to assess the other proposals the Liberals were prepared to examine.

The minister is insisting in this House that it was the Liberals who refused the Conservatives' proposals. That is not true. The minister is misleading the members of this House and Canadians who are watching the debates. The Conservatives never submitted any proposals, not even in connection with their election promise to make self-employed workers eligible for employment insurance during maternity and paternity leave. I was the one who, at the July 23 meeting, asked whether they had any proposals for making EI available to self-employed workers. I asked them to at least present their election promise and to come back on August 6 with a proposal and the figures they quoted during the election campaign.

Sometimes I am just gob-smacked—but not for long—by how the minister and her colleagues are in cahoots. I am sure that the Conservative member who gets up to ask me a question will dish out some more disinformation.

The Liberal Party will vote against this bill, because it has no confidence in this government, which is not telling the truth and is trying to scam Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Oshawa, it is with great pleasure that I extend my full support for Bill C-50.

This bill will provide further assistance through employment insurance to workers particularly affected by the economic downturn.

The new temporary measure we are introducing through the bill will help Canadian workers who have contributed to the economy for years and years and who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed.

Bill C-50 offers the right and fair way to ensure that the EI program is responsive and responsible. It is responsive to the needs of those long-tenured workers, like the ones in Oshawa, who have contributed to the EI program for a long period of time and have made little if any use of it. It is responsible to all Canadian taxpayers.

Let me follow up on some of assertions made today by one of my hon. colleagues across the floor.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour stood in the House and with great flourish tried to assert once again the Liberal monopoly on compassion. He went on to say that the Liberal Party scheme to create a 45-day work year was sensible, adding that the government was playing political chess.

The only people playing political games in the House are the members of the opposition who are refusing to be forthright with the Canadian people. This government is taking action to help Canadians after the member opposite walked away from the unemployed. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour walked away from 190,000 long-tenured workers. That is shameful. He may call this nothing but this government finds that notion offensive.

I would like to remind the member that it was his party that implemented the failed EI policies of the 1970s that had a catastrophic effect on the Canadian economy. Thirty years later in a blatant political positioning manoeuvre, it was the Leader of the Opposition who proposed similar measures during a global economic downturn. I ask, who is playing political games?

This government is protecting unemployed workers. The Leader of the Official Opposition has shown once again he is in this for himself. Here is the action this government is taking with Bill C-50.

Long-tenured workers will now get the additional support of extended weeks of EI while they look for work. The proposed temporary measure would extend nationally regular benefits for long-tendered workers by between five and twenty weeks. Depending on the length of time claimants have paid EI premiums, the more weeks of benefits they will receive.

Our goal is to ensure that people get these extended weeks of benefits as soon as possible. Through this bill these workers who have contributed to the economy, many of them for decades, will have a longer time to seek alternative employment.

The temporary measure that we are introducing today shows that the EI program is able to provide support to those most in need when they need it most.

We have a record of making fair and timely improvements to EI. Through Canada's economic action plan alone we have provided longer EI benefits, more efficient service, support for training, and protection of jobs through work sharing agreements. We have also have introduced the career transition assistance initiative that provides two timely measures. One extends EI benefits to a maximum of two years while workers participate in longer term training. The other provides earlier access to EI to long-tenured workers who invest all or part of their severance packages in training.

Let us also remember that a key component to our action plan provides five additional weeks of EI benefits to regular beneficiaries. In areas of high unemployment, the maximum duration of benefits has been extended from 45 to 50 weeks.

The work sharing program is another way we are helping workers stay in the labour force. It does so by offering EI income support to workers who are willing to work a reduced work week.

Under Canada's economic action plan we have made changes to the program that allows more flexibility for employers' recovery plans. Agreements have also been extended by an additional 14 weeks to maximize benefits during this economic downturn. This measure allows employers to retain employees, therefore avoiding expensive rehiring and retraining costs. In turn, employees are able to continue working and keep their skills up to date. These are people who would rather work a shortened work week and get a little less income than to be laid off. Work sharing makes that possible. Right now there are close to 5,800 active work sharing agreements across this country benefiting more than 165,000 Canadians.

We know that good programs and service are especially important in difficult economic times. Our government has acted quickly on both counts.

Our government is also helping older workers make the transition to new careers. Through the targeted initiative for older workers the government is providing an additional $60 million over three years to help workers aged 55 to 64 years get the skills upgrading and the work experience necessary to make the transition to new employment.

We have also expanded this initiative's reach so that the communities with a population lower than 250,000 are now eligible for funding. With this change an additional 250 communities could be included in the program, depending on provincial and territorial participation. This is especially valuable for my area of Oshawa.

Under the economic action plan, workers will also benefit from an increase in funding for skills training. With our strategic training and transition fund, we will be investing to help individuals, whether or not they are eligible for employment insurance, get training and other support measures.

Our economic action plan offers an additional 2,000 apprenticeship completion grants to apprentices who successfully complete an apprenticeship program in a “red seal” trade. This builds on the existing apprenticeship incentive grant. An apprentice could now receive a total of $4,000 in grants through both these programs. Up to 20,000 Canadians could take advantage of this latest grant. This is great news from my community in Oshawa.

The Government of Canada is also protecting jobs and supporting businesses in key sectors of our economy that are in difficulty, such as forestry, farming and mining, and the automotive industry. To help them we are providing a two-year community adjustment fund that will support economic diversification in communities affected by the decline in their local industries.

This bill is another example of how we are taking action to help Canadians now. We are responding quickly with measures to meet current needs. I ask members to join me in supporting Bill C-50 and helping these workers.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate since we first introduced Bill C-50 and started the debate this morning. Certainly that question has been asked many times and it has been answered many times.

Bill C-50 is an extremely important bill. We, as the Conservative government, have been focusing on what matters to Canadians. We have been helping those who have been hardest hit. We know that the global recession has caused a great deal of concern to many Canadians and we are providing the support to Canadians when they need it.

Bill C-50 is just another part of the support we are providing for Canadians. We have introduced legislation today to provide extra support for long-tenured workers. Prior to that we had support for other Canadians who need it through the economic action plan. The best way to help the unemployed, their families and the economy is to get people back to work. We need the extra program to help those long-tenured workers who want to work, who have worked for years and now find themselves unemployed. This program will give them that extra time to find work. It will give the extra time for the economy to rebound and those workers who want to work will be back to work.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks on Bill C-50, this very important bill that we are proposing which will do even more for long-tenured workers under the EI program.

These Canadians deserve our continued support while the economy recovers. Bill C-50 will provide between 5 and 20 weeks of additional EI regular benefits to unemployed long-tenured workers. It will help Canadians who have worked hard and paid EI premiums for many years and who now find themselves in need of a hand up.

It does not represent permanent change in the duration of EI regular benefits. It is a temporary response to a temporary situation. We think that that is prudent.

What is unfortunate is that the opposition members continue to advocate for the 45-day work year scheme which is both irresponsible and unaffordable. What is worse is that they walked away from the table and away from efforts to help the unemployed.

Now they are playing political games here in the House today, again without taking proposals to the table where these things are usually worked out.

This side of the House is focused on Canada's economic recovery and on helping Canadians come through this rough time. Further to the help we are proposing for Canadians in Bill C-50, we have already taken other measures to help long-tenured workers.

Long-tenured workers who need a transition to a new industry can get help through the career transition assistance initiative introduced in Canada's economic action plan. Through this initiative our government is providing help to long-tenured workers who have been laid off to upgrade their skills. This initiative has two main parts.

First, we have extended the duration of EI regular income benefits for long-tenured workers who participate in long-term training. They can collect benefits for up to two years or 104 weeks. Second, it allows earlier access to EI for long-tenured workers who invest all or part of the money from their severance package in training. Thousands of long-tenured Canadians could benefit from these measures.

We are working with the provinces to help Canadians with this initiative. I would also like to remind the House that while all long-tenured workers are not necessarily older workers, for those who are we have other programs in place to help those older workers.

The targeted initiative for older workers, or TIOW, is not a new initiative. It has been around since 2006 when our government introduced it. It has done a lot to help older workers in this country, and now with the global economic downturn it is needed more than ever.

Through our economic action plan we are investing an additional $60 million over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers to enable people 55 to 64 years of age to get skills upgrading and work experience so they can make the transition to new jobs.

We are doing this because we believe in the skills and experiences of Canada's older workers. We believe they can be retrained and get back into the workforce if they want to continue working.

We are also building on this successful program to extend its reach and scope. The targeted initiative for older workers was designed to meet the needs of people in what we call vulnerable communities; that is, communities with a high rate of unemployment or a high reliance on one employer or industry affected by a significant downsizing or closure.

This year we expanded the number of communities that are eligible for the program to include more cities. Why did we do this? Well, because the recession has been difficult for everyone, but it has been particularly hard on people over 55. In fact, with this change an additional 250 communities could be eligible.

When older workers lose their jobs, we want to help them get back into the workforce as soon as possible. We know it is not easy for an older person to start a new career; however, through TIOW projects unemployed older workers can acquire the skills they need to find and keep new jobs or even start up their own new businesses.

These projects typically offer services such as skills assessment, job search strategies, work experience placements, skills upgrading and income support. This new federal-provincial joint investment will help older workers across the country build their skills and find work.

There are many other success stories from this program. They all involve older workers who had to face a major life change, a change that could have been devastating, but they were able to regroup and retrain for a new career. Thanks to the TIOW, they were able to do that in the company of people their own age. The new funding we are putting into the TIOW will enable more older workers to receive the specialized support they need to make the transition to new jobs. With practical help from the TIOW, older workers can continue to contribute to their communities and to the Canadian economy.

Our government is demonstrating its commitment to supporting all Canadians who are affected by the downturn but especially older workers and long-tenured workers. We do not want an unnecessary election. We want to continue to work to help Canadians. That is what the bill would do. I urge everyone in the House to support Bill C-50.

The House resumed 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.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It would be nice if members would demonstrate a little bit of respect for me as we did for the hon. House leader from the official opposition when he was making his statement a few moments ago, if he would not mind.

Whether it is the issue of the NAFO deadline, which I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is seized with, as she is with all fisheries issues, or whether it is trying to negotiate a way forward to expedite the passage of Bill C-50, we need to ensure that we do it right. We need to ensure that that particular bill, which is so important to workers and their families, is passed. However, we need to ensure that the help we are all seeking to provide unemployed people across the country is done in a proper and expeditious manner.

I believe that we will be successful. I am certainly hopeful. I called a special meeting after the two motions from the two opposition parties that made motions this morning. I called a special meeting of the House leaders in my office some two hours ago. I was hopeful that we would have an agreement by now on how to proceed with Bill C-50. That has not happened. One of the parties is still taking a look at a compromise that I have suggested to wrap up debate by tomorrow on this bill and then see it sent off to the committee. I am hopeful that we can perhaps arrive at such a compromise.

That addresses my hon. colleague's issue with Bill C-50. Obviously, as he noted, the House is currently debating second reading of Bill C-50. That will continue after question period.

Tomorrow, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, the House will vote on ways and means Motion No. 9 that implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, and to implement other measures.

Following the vote, we will continue and hopefully complete second reading stage of Bill C-50, so that it can move on to committee as quickly as possible. Backup bills for tomorrow, should they be needed, are Bill C-37, the National Capital Act, and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act.

When the House returns after the constituency break, I have planned to call, but not necessarily in this order, Bill C-37, the National Capital Act; Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement again; Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act; Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act; and the Budget Implementation Act, No. 2, that flows from the ways and means motion that will hopefully be adopted tomorrow.