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.

Second Reading

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy this afternoon to speak to Bill C-308, introduced by my colleague for Chambly—Borduas. This bill contains a host of measures for employment insurance. I will have the opportunity to talk about some of them.

First, I would like to talk about the provisions which would reduce the qualifying period to a minimum of 360 hours of work. I must say that it is completely absurd and distressing to hear the comments from the Conservative members, in particular the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. When we hear their comments, whether they are quoting other people or not, we can see clearly that, in their minds, people who work 360 hours are people who do not deserve employment insurance benefits or people who do not want to work. Some Conservative members should visit rural areas where work is seasonal. Perhaps they would see that the situation is different from elsewhere in the country.

I hope I will not hear, in this House, any more such comments from Conservative members. I invite them to visit a riding such as mine and many other rural ridings, where seasonal work exists and where people have recourse to employment insurance, not because they voluntarily leave their job, but because there is no more work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that this could increase the number of seasonal workers, but one must understand that, under the Employment Insurance Act, people who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How is it possible that more people would receive benefits under a 360-hour rule? It is impossible. People who voluntarily leave their jobs are not eligible to receive employment insurance benefits. How could this measure worsen the employment insurance program as it is today?

We must also look a little further. A threshold of 360 hours was chosen because we want to make sure that workers will be eligible. At present, people from all over the country are not eligible for employment insurance because they do not have enough hours, specifically because of the economic crisis.

I would like to come back to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who was talking about the action plan. The action also serves to ensure that people who lose their jobs will have an income. But let us be clear: that income would be negligible. These people will not get rich with employment insurance.

We have seen some alarming statistics this week. People are losing their jobs, are no longer entitled to employment insurance or have never received it, even though they paid into it. They have to turn to income support. They are forced to do so, because the program is not what is needed in the current crisis.

Our position is very clear: the eligibility threshold should be 360 hours, as my colleague from Chambly—Borduas indicated in Bill C-308. The eligibility threshold should be 360 hours in order to deal with the economic crisis, to ensure that those workers who need it, the most vulnerable workers, can continue putting food on the table for their families. I do not think this is particularly difficult to understand. If we took away some members' salaries for a few weeks or a few months, perhaps they might realize that putting food on the table is a real challenge for some people. I would guess that this is not the case for the members of this House.

It appears that the members on the other side of the House believe that people just want to receive employment insurance and not work for the rest of the year. It is not their fault if they need employment insurance; they lost their jobs. They did not leave their jobs voluntarily. If that were the case, they would not be entitled to employment insurance. When I hear such nonsense in the House, I can only hope that one day, this will be clearer in the minds of many members.

Other factors are aggravating the situation.

The Conservative government seems to be saying that it is there to help. That is what it seems to be saying, but where is it helping? When it introduced Bill C-50 it talked about long-tenured workers. According to the Conservatives, seasonal workers are not long-tenured workers. But they are. They worked for 10, 15, 20, 30 or 35 years not only in the same industry, but in the same company. However, at some point during the year, they must cease working. It is not because they want to. It is not voluntary. They do not want to stop, but that is the reality. However, according to the Conservative plan, all seasonal workers, people who work in forestry, fishing, agriculture, road building, construction or tourism are not eligible for a single cent. There is absolutely nothing for them. That is why we wonder who will qualify for a single cent under this bill.

There is worse. A student who has completed his or her university degree and has worked for one or two years and who unfortunately loses his or her job will not be eligible for those additional weeks of benefits. A mother who decides to stay at home for a few years to take care of her children and who loses her job after having been back at work for a few years will not be eligible for any additional weeks of benefits, contrary to what the Conservatives would have us believe.

In the end, on EI issues, the Conservative program is certainly not a good one. We get the impression from them that people just do not want to work. But there is worse than that, a lot worse. They are proposing a new tax in the form of additional contributions. The Conservatives want to raise annual EI contributions by $600 for each and every worker. That is not money the workers will receive but extra contributions they will have to pay to be eligible to benefits. For businesses, it would be $840 per year.

The government talks about employment insurance, but it tries to take as much money as possible out of workers' pockets. That is what I call a tax on workers, or a tax on work. On the other hand, the government is making sure that workers cannot qualify for benefits after working 360 hours. I am convinced that the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas does not stop at this 360 hour threshold. I am sure he agrees with people working 450 hours, and if they have the opportunity to work 700 hours, he will be happy for them, just as I would be happy if people in my riding could work 700 hours. However, that is not always the case, and the situation is not the same everywhere in Canada. So, why not ensure that, in a time of economic crisis, people can qualify for financial assistance?

We also have to be realistic, whether or not we are going through an economic crisis. When someone has money in his pockets, he is going to spend it. He is going to pay for his basic needs, such as shelter, heat, transportation, gas and groceries. That is the reality. If a person does not have money, he cannot spend. And if that person does not qualify for EI benefits, he is not getting any money at all, and he simply cannot spend.

In the context of economic recovery, if someone has money, he will make sure that he can pay for his basic needs. So, making people eligible for EI benefits allows them to have some money. They are not going to invest that money. They are not going to follow the Prime Minister's advice, who once said that when the stock market is experiencing some turbulence and people are losing their pensions, that is the time to buy stocks. That is not the point. If people have money in their pockets, they will be able to buy groceries. If they have more money, they will be able to buy other things.

These are all basic needs, but the government must show compassion. The system must be a compassionate one, but members of this House must also show compassion. All MPs must realize the importance of maintaining the EI program, and of looking at eligibility, so that nobody is left out. In doing our job here, we are supposed to behave like good fathers. Therefore, let us make sure that we do not forget anyone. Let us make sure that we look forward and that we provide the necessary tools and incentives to workers and their families, so that they will feel their government is a good government. Right now, they cannot feel that way.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the member for starting this debate.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to his bill, Bill C-308, and I thank the member for putting it forward.

As the House has heard, this bill seeks to make far-reaching amendments to the employment insurance program including reducing the entrance requirements to a minimum of 360 hours of work for regular benefits. Let us put this into clear language. What the member and his party propose is a 45-day work year. Our government believes that the amendments proposed by the bill would be nothing short of a policy catastrophe.

Jeane J. Kirkpatrick once said that history is a better guide than good intentions. While I have no doubt about the good intentions of the hon. member, history shows us the components of the bill are nothing more than a return to the Liberal policies of the 1970s. These policies would have the same catastrophic effects on our economy today as they did then. These are not just my words. In using the term “catastrophic effects” I am quoting David Gray, an economist with the University of Ottawa, who clearly articulated these points in early August. This is when the Liberals were still espousing the 45-day work year as a panacea for the entire EI system. This was before the Liberals walked out on the EI working group, abandoning Canada's unemployed.

One of the primary objectives of the EI program is to provide temporary income support to Canadians who are between jobs. In other words, the program is designed to help unemployed Canadians facing transition find employment and reintegrate into the workforce. Shortening the qualification period for EI would be tantamount to encouraging higher employment turnover of workers. The result of that kind of misguided policy would be a permanent rise in the unemployment rate.

Allow me to quote the Canadian Chamber of Commerce from its July 23 press release:

--moving to a national standard of 360 hours or 420 hours of work as the basis for qualifying for EI...would have substantial adverse impact on Canada's labour market -- it would discourage work, increase structural unemployment, exacerbate skills and labour shortages, and stifle productivity.

On August 1, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said that the 360-hour proposal was “just ludicrous”.

On the same day, Colin Busby, a policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute, said that lowering the entrance requirement “could create seasonal unemployment where maybe it didn't exist before. The consequence of lowering [the minimum threshold]...in places like Alberta from 700 hours in most places to all of a sudden 360...it's likely that you'll create more forms of seasonal unemployment over time”.

On June 3, in the National Post, Jack Mintz said that the flat 360-hour proposal, this 45-day work year proposal, is one of the worst ideas getting serious attention”.

The government is focused on taking prudent action to help Canadians and help them get back to work as soon as possible. Our economic action plan is working on three fronts by protecting jobs, providing income support and helping families and Canadians get the training they need so that they can get back to work as quickly as possible and on to a new career path.

The proposal put forward in Bill C-308 would truly hurt our ultimate goal of encouraging and supporting unemployed Canadians in their efforts to get back to work. The issue is not access but rather duration, duration of benefits and ensuring that people can transition effectively into the workforce.

Let us look at how this government has addressed the issue of access.

According to the results of a Statistics Canada employment insurance coverage survey, among the unemployed who have paid premiums and then been laid off or quit with cause, 82% were eligible to receive EI benefits in 2008. In fact, fewer than 10% of those who paid premiums and lost their jobs lacked the required hours to qualify. Furthermore, since last October, more than 82% of Canadian workers who qualify and are in need of accessing EI do qualify and are receiving the benefits.

As a result of the variable entrance requirement, from October 2008 to September 2009 access to EI became more responsive for workers in 38 of 58 regions across Canada. These include 15 in Ontario, all 6 in British Columbia and all 4 in Alberta. In light of these statistics, I trust the hon. member opposite will appreciate that the variable entrance requirement mechanism far better meets the needs of unemployed Canadians across the country than do changes proposed in his bill to accommodate a 45-day work year.

It is also very important to note that during this period where work has become more difficult to find during this global recession, the duration of benefits has increased. Our economic action plan is now temporarily providing an additional five weeks of EI right across the country.

In regions of high unemployment, we are also increasing the maximum number of weeks of benefits available under the EI program from 45 to 50 weeks. This means that claimants who previously had their benefits capped at 45 weeks can now receive an additional 5 weeks.

Our Conservative government has introduced more measures in Bill C-50 to ensure that Canadians who worked hard and paid into the EI system for years are now provided the help they need while they search for employment.

This bill will provide between 5 and 20 weeks of additional benefits to long-tenured workers should they need the extra help. This is an important step for Canadian workers who have worked hard and paid into the system all their lives, but because of the global recession and through no fault of their own have found it difficult to get back into the workforce. In these challenging economic times, these measures are giving hard-working Canadians who would otherwise have had to use up all of their benefits more time to find a job.

We have also said that we will be introducing further legislation to help the self-employed. All of these things are good for Canadians.

While the current economic environment is very challenging, under the prudent management of this Conservative government we are seeing progress. The economy will recover. This is why we have proposed that regular EI and long-tenured workers measures that enhance the system will be temporary. One of the reasons for these temporary proposals is that we were facing a labour shortage before this economic downturn and we will be facing the same challenges as the economy begins to recover.

That is why we acted early to help the hardest hit. That is why we expanded work sharing, which is now protecting over 164,000 jobs, making sure that shops do not lose their workers and workers do not lose their skills. This action by our government will help Canadian businesses gear back up when times are better.

To ensure that Canadian workers have the skills that our economy needs, we have increased training programs. We have helped people to transition back into the workforce with the best skills so that they can compete not just with their neighbours but with the whole world.

While I thank the member for putting forward this matter for debate, I respectfully suggest that it is a bad proposal and I will be voting against it. However, I will continue to support our economic action plan which helps people who are going through hard times get back on their feet.

When this global recession is over, Canada will emerge stronger than ever.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in relation to what day the House will be doing its annual tributes to the sacrifices of our veterans and those in the Canadian Forces currently serving, that will be under negotiation. I suspect that is something that will be discussed among all House leaders in the days ahead. We will decide, obviously, collectively and co-operatively on the appropriate time to make that important tribute.

In regard to our ongoing justice program, obviously we are going to continue along, as we have last week and this week, for the remainder of the week with our justice legislation. I would note that since my last statement, we introduced Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act, and Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. Both of those additional bills are a key part of our ongoing efforts to reform the justice system in our country.

We sent to committee this week Bill C-42, Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-52, Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act; Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; and Bill C-47, Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act.

By the day's end, we hope to conclude debate on Bill C-43, Strengthening Canada's Corrections System Act. If we do that, I intend to call Bill C-31, the modernizing criminal procedure bill, and Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Tomorrow we will continue with yet another justice bill, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, followed by the remainder of the justice bills that I noted if they have not been completed.

Next week I intend to call Bill C-50, the employment insurance for long tenured workers' bill, which is at report stage, having had it returned from committee.

Following Bill C-50, we will call for debate the report and third reading stage of Bill C-27, Electronic Commerce Protection Act, and second reading of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act,

Finally, Wednesday, November 4, will be an allotted day.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skill and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our employment insurance system treats everyone equally. It treats men the same as women. There are no gender differences. Everyone pays into the system at the same premium rate. Everyone receives the benefits for which they qualify on the same basis, regardless of whether they are men or women.

We have made a number of changes to the EI system in the past year, changes that are providing additional benefits to more Canadians, more quickly and for a longer period of time. Those extra benefits we offered to both men and women to help them through these difficult and challenging times were in the budget and the New Democratic Party voted against that, and its members were proud of voting against it.

They were proud to vote against providing five extra weeks of benefits across the country to everyone, both men and women. They were proud to vote against freezing EI premium rates for this year and next. They voted against literally billions of dollars of extra help for Canadians to get more training, skills upgrading or to help them in their transition to new careers. They voted against all of those provisions that apply to men and women. How do they justify the statements now being made today?

They were proud to vote against all of the other stimulus measures and help that our Conservative government is providing through Canada's economic action plan. Why is that? They said that it was not good enough. They were mistaken.

The kinds of things our Conservative government has done on EI are good and many Canadians also think we did the right thing. However, the New Democrats rejected that because, in their view, it was not perfect. Not always will a program be perfect but it does address the issues at hand.

In the case of Canada's economic action plan and our measures to help the unemployed, the NDP voted against what most Canadians thought were good steps. Unfortunately for the NDP, the idea of perfect is very far from what most Canadians want or are prepared to accept.

I am encouraged, however, by the fact that our New Democratic colleagues have seen the error of their ways and are supporting the government's recent actions to help Canadians through Bill C-50, which would provide between five and twenty weeks of additional EI benefits to Canadian workers who have worked for years and have paid into the system during that time.

We hope they will support legislation that we have signalled we will introduce, legislation to give self-employed Canadians access to EI's special benefits. An increasing number of Canadians are self-employed or have self-employment income, and many of them are women. This will be another positive step for Canadians, especially during the beginning of our economic recovery.

I do want to touch on something my colleague said in her original question back in June. She said:

Coverage rates for unemployed women have declined from 82% in 1989 to 39% in 2008....

In fact, women's access to EI regular benefits is high. In 2007, 81% of unemployed women who had been paying premiums and who were laid off or quit with cause were eligible for regular benefits. In 2007, more than 56% of permanent part-time workers were eligible for EI regular benefits.

Women's access to EI special benefits, such as maternity and parental benefits, is very high. Ninety-seven per cent of women working full-time have enough hours to qualify for special benefits. This is the same level of access as men. It is important to note that among women working part-time, 62% have enough hours to qualify for special benefits compared to 59% for men.

Our government is doing a lot for unemployed Canadians, for men and women alike. I am glad the NDP has understood that our government's actions are good for Canadians and will be supporting Bill C-50. I hope it will continue with that type of support.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. She wants to lower premiums and at the same time spend more.

What we will not do is balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed, as the Liberals did. We will not take $50 billion from the EI program and we will not cut transfers to provinces and municipalities by $25 billion. Anyone can balance the budget doing that kind of thing. We will not do that.

Liberals have two ideas, a 360-hour work year or a two-month work year, in which people would work for two months of the year and then collect EI. We will not support that.

Liberals also like to say no. They said no to Bill C-50. They said no to Canadians, they said no to long-tenured workers. What good is saying no to any Canadian, even one Canadian? What does that do for hard-working Canadians who have worked for many years in the automotive industry and find themselves out of work? It does nothing. No will not help them.

What will it do for forestry workers? It will do nothing. It will not help one forestry worker if Liberals vote no on Bill C-50 or any of its clauses. What will it do for manufacturing workers? It will do absolutely nothing. The stand the Liberals are taking will do nothing and that is wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I and my party will not support Bill C-50 because we believe that it does not treat Canadian workers equally and fairly, and it does not address the issue of regional fairness.

If we want to talk about a government's record, let us look at the record of the government that took office in 2006 with a $13 billion surplus and has frittered that surplus. One of the first actions the government did was to break a promise that it made during the 2006 election that it would not tax income trusts. It turned around and did that less than a week after it was elected to government.

Let us look at the government that claims it is reducing s taxes and yet, when one reads the budget very carefully, it has a $15 billion payroll tax that will start at the end of 2010, but it claims that it is lowering taxes. That is not lowering taxes.

Under the Liberals, the EI taxes went down every year. That is not happening under the Conservatives. They froze them and now they are going to raise them.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member had to say about the regional variable entrance requirements but I should remind her and her party that that was introduced during their term of office when the unemployment rate was at 8.7%. I might also remind the member that the Liberals tried to balance the budget and the books on the backs of the unemployed by taking approximately $50 billion from the EI fund and using it for general revenue. At the same time, they tried to balance the budget by taking $25 billion and cutting it from the transfer payments to the provinces and municipalities. The member needs to remember where this came from and she needs to look at the larger picture.

We have taken steps under the economic action plan and under the employment insurance program to help those who are unemployed. We have given five extra weeks of benefits across the country to those who require it. We have spent billions of dollars to help people upgrade their skills and their training. We froze the EI premiums for 2010-11 to the same level as they were in 2009 and 2008, the lowest level in a quarter century.

We have assisted employers and employees with work-sharing agreements, allowing people to claim EI and continue to work share. We have helped about 5,000 employers across the country and 167,000 Canadians.

We put the career transition assistance program together, helping about 40,000 long term workers to benefit from training for two years or more. We have put together the bill that the hon. member refers to, Bill C-50, which would bridge that particular program by adding 5 to 20 weeks of benefits to help ensure these long tenured workers who have paid into EI for years, who have not benefited from the system and who now find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own, are able to quality for extra benefits.

I have a hard time understanding how that member, her leader and all members of that party stood in the House and voted against helping approximately 190,000 long tenured workers, a figure that I know she disagrees with. If she had been in committee today, she would know how the 190,000 was justified, but it is a lot of workers who are being helped with 5 to 20 weeks.

How does she sit in the House and face those workers and say that she voted against that bill in the House and voted against every clause? We went through the bill clause by clause today in committee and every member from her party voted against that. On top of all of the other benefits that we are doing for the unemployed, why would they stand in the House and vote against them, except for the purpose of wanting an election. The basis and the premise of their voting against the bill in the first place was self-interest as opposed to the interest of the unemployed who find themselves without work and who need extra benefits.

We are putting a bill before the House that, fortunately, is being supported and will eventually pass through the House. How does the hon. member justify not supporting that? Is that finding solutions? No, it is not. Is it finding solutions for long tenured workers? No, it is not.

We are working to extend benefits to self-employed workers. We are getting Canadians back to work, not only through historic investments, through infrastructure and through the steps we have taken on the economic action plan, but, for those who are not able to do that, we have taken steps to bridge the gap, to be there for them when they need us and we have not done it on their backs. We have not balanced the books, as the Liberal Party did back in the nineties, on the backs of the unemployed, on RNs, on municipalities and on the lack of infrastructure. We are not doing that and we will not do that. We will take steps to stand behind those who need us at this difficult economic time, and that is exactly what we have done.

The member and her party should get behind us and support Bill C-50 that would help approximately 190,000 Canadians who are out of work and would have the benefit of approximately $1 billion over three years. That is something that is significant and substantive and she should support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, last May 26, I asked a question in the House concerning employment insurance and the regional disparities and discrimination based on eligibility rules that picked out winners and losers.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development went on about some of the changes that had been made to EI benefits but refused to address the issue of regional disparity and in fact regional fairness. I would again like to hear what the government has to say.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge. The Prime Minister and my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, put together a bipartisan working group composed of three Conservatives and three Liberals, and I was one of them, to work over the summer. The only party that put forward any kind of proposal at that particular working group was the Liberal Party.

In their usual manner, the Conservatives came out with figures that inflated the actual cost of the Liberal proposal. Members do not need to take my word for it, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an independent assessment of the government's estimate of the Liberal proposal and said that the government had overestimated and that the Liberal proposal for one eligibility rate standard of 360 hours would cost approximately $1.2 billion and not the $4 billion that the government claimed and continues to repeat, notwithstanding that the independent assessment proved it wrong.

The government has now come out with Bill C-50, which would extend benefits anywhere from 5 to 20 weeks but, again, has not addressed the issue of regional fairness.

The government has claimed that Bill C-50 would help approximately 190,000 Canadians. However, the veracity of that particular number has been questioned in the media, by third parties and in committee itself. The bill is now before committee at second reading.

Experts are saying that the figure is not 190,000. In fact, they believe the number of beneficiaries would be as low as 60,000. The government has refused to provide clarity on how it comes up with its figure of 190,000 Canadians who will be assisted by the changes it is proposing in Bill C-50.

How can the government justify throwing numbers out for which there is no basis? It refuses to explain its methodology. It refuses to provide the actual figures. It is doing the same thing with the issue of Bill C-50 and backing up the exact number of Canadians who will actually be assisted by it that it has been doing with the infrastructure and stimulus plan.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government is providing information in such an obscure manner that it is impossible to independently verify the government's claims.

Income Support Program for Older Workers

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I want to recognize a friend of mine, Kevin Shular, who happens to be in Ottawa today. He has been a valuable member of our community in Lincoln and the town of Beamsville. He is in the gallery today with his son. He is moving to the Edmonton area. I have a number of colleagues in the Edmonton area who are going to have the benefit of the great work that he has done. I wanted to recognize him and say that he is going to be greatly missed in our part of the world in Ontario.

I am pleased to speak to this motion. Our government's great concern is that all Canadian workers make it through this economic downturn and be prepared for the coming recovery.

The hon. member's motion calls on the government to implement a passive income support program for older workers who lose their job in order to ease their transition from active employment to pension benefits. In other words, the hon. member is giving up on workers aged 55 to 64.

A passive income support program is not even a band-aid solution. It does not really help anyone, workers, employers, communities or the country at large. In the face of challenges, I do not think taking a passive uninspired approach to experienced hard-working members of our workforce is becoming of Canadians. I do not think that is the kind of economy, society or country we want to build, nor is it the world that we want to build.

Witness the March 2009 meeting of the G8 employment and labour ministers at which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, called publicly subsidized early retirement schemes “a policy mistake”. Why was that? It was because such a passive approach reduces the long-term supply of experienced workers and increases dependency on pension and retirement benefits. Also, it is unquestionably not in the interests of workers themselves.

The fact is we are seeing encouraging signs of an economic recovery on the horizon, resulting in a greater demand for skilled workers. Employment has recently, albeit in small numbers, started to increase.

I know the fundamental point raised by that side of the House is that many affected older workers come from isolated or single-industry communities, and once unemployment hits, there is no alternative work available. I understand that point, but again I do not think being passive helps Canada or Canadians.

Communities are not static and the economy is not static. People are always coming up with ways to diversify, improve and build. When our government is there, we should be there to encourage and support. We should be proactive, not passive.

This government believes in an active approach, and we have a strong record of action. For example, Canada's economic action plan is helping communities restructure through investment in the community adjustment fund, which supports activities that foster economic development; science and technology initiatives; and other measures that promote economic diversification.

Through the Canada skills and transition strategy introduced in the economic action plan, our government is taking more concrete action. For example, we have set aside funds for older workers. Specifically, we are investing an additional $60 million over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers to continue to help older workers gain skills, upgrading and work experience so that they can transition to new jobs.

We have expanded the program's reach, allowing access to older workers in larger communities, as well as in smaller cities affected by significant downsizing or closures. The targeted initiative for older workers created by our government in 2006 is building on success. It is helping older workers get back into the workforce. It is an active, constructive program to help older workers. It is not passive.

We know that certain sectors of the economy have been hit harder than others. For example, the manufacturing sector, wood products and motor vehicle industries have experienced the most dramatic deterioration in their labour market conditions.

In the current global recession, we are all well aware that a significant number of Canadian workers, many who have spent their working lives in one industry, have lost their jobs.

To ensure that these workers have support to retrain for new jobs, possibly in another industry, their EI benefits will be extended up to a maximum of two years while they participate in long-term training. Over 40,000 Canadians could benefit from this career transition assistance over two years.

In addition, eligible workers will have earlier access to EI if they invest in their training using all or part of their severance package. Of course, the House and the human resources committee, of which I am the chairman, have been examining Bill C-50. We just passed that at the committee this afternoon, so that is great news. It will provide comparable measures for long-tenured workers, the same people who fit the criteria for career transition assistance.

These measures will help ensure that the long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided with the help they will need while they search for new employment. Our government will provide five to 20 weeks of additional benefits depending on how long an eligible individual has been working and paying into EI. It is fair and it is the right thing to do for these hard-working Canadians. We expect this measure to help approximately 190,000 long-term workers.

There is yet another program under EI that has received additional support under our economic action plan, namely, work-sharing. It helps to protect jobs that would otherwise be lost. The work-sharing program helps companies facing a temporary shutdown in business to avoid laying off their workers by offering EI to workers willing to work a reduced work week while the business recovers.

We have extended work-sharing agreements by 14 weeks to a maximum of 52 weeks over the next two years. We will allow more flexibility for the employers' recovery plan. As of this week, there are over 5,900 work-sharing agreements nationally, benefiting almost 167,000 Canadians.

Even when we talked to the people who came in to our committee to talk about Bill C-50, they told us about what a great program work-sharing is. Companies have the opportunity to share the work and some of the EI so that they do not need to shut down. It gives them additional time to get stronger and to get back on their feet. It was pretty much unanimous among all the people who came in to see us that it has been a great program.

Through our economic action plan, we are giving thousands of Canadians opportunities to upgrade their skills or train for a different career. We are investing under the action plan and training programs delivered by the provinces and territories, as they are closer to the labour market challenges in their respective areas.

Close to 150,000 workers across the country will benefit from these initiatives. They will help Canadians retrain to keep their jobs or transition to new work and they apply whether these workers are eligible for EI or not. It is clear that our government is aware that older workers face special difficulties re-entering the workforce once they have been laid off.

That is why we commissioned the work of the expert panel on older workers in 2007 to study the labour market conditions affecting older workers. Its report talked about two fundamental themes: enhancing labour market prospects for older workers and supporting older worker adjustment. It confirmed that our government is moving in the right direction with our active approach to older workers.

What the panel did not do is advocate a passive income program like the one members opposite are proposing. Older workers need to be valued. Their experience and skills should not be taken for granted and they should not be overlooked. Passive income support for older workers is an easy way out. It does not speak to the human potential to do better. It does not inspire us.

As I said in the beginning, such programs do not favour the workers, the employers, the community or the country at large. That is why I call on members of the House to defeat this motion.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, a representative from the International Union of Operating Engineers, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, recommended that apprentices be put in the same category as workers who receive special benefits. In short, he was asking that the new legislation encourage apprentices to continue learning their trades and pursue training, instead of penalizing them by making them ineligible for EI benefits. Bill C-50 penalizes apprentices.

Is the government prepared to amend Bill C-50 to avoid penalizing apprentices?

Forestry Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the AbitibiBowater plant in Beaupré shut down indefinitely yesterday. Nearly 360 workers lost their jobs. Bill C-50on employment insurance is designed to help Ontario's auto workers. It does nothing to meet the needs of Quebec's forestry workers. A complete overhaul of the EI system is needed to enhance accessibility and improve benefits.

What is the minister waiting for to help forestry workers?

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke a few questions that will be easy to answer. In his speech, he mentioned that Bill C-50, which is currently being studied, would help forestry workers.

I would like him to identify these forestry workers: in which regions do they live and how many are there?

Bill C-50 actually does not benefit those forestry workers. I imagine he could reconsider what he said. I would just remind him that Bill C-50, supported by the New Democrats, will help people, but only those who have not drawn more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past five years.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

It is with great pleasure that I take the floor today, on this Bloc Québécois opposition day which is dealing with an issue of great importance for Quebec.

I would like to say to the hon. member who has just spoken that we are well aware that this is an issue that also affects all of Canada. However Quebec has been particularly affected by this crisis.

The motion tabled today criticizes the inaction of the Conservative government, as has been said in this House, in dealing with the forestry crisis. We have had some measures that are flatly inadequate to support the development of this industry and its workers, such as Bill C-50.

While the federal government has allocated the forestry industry some $70 million, it must be said once again, the Conservatives have granted the automotive industry over $9.7 billion. It is shameful. It is not that providing more support to the auto industry is shameful. We are not against support for the auto industry. But that support has been provided without consideration for the needs of the forestry industry in Quebec. That is our objection.

Granting $9.7 billion to the auto industry versus $70 million to Quebec’s forestry industry in a crisis situation is simply unfair and unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Let us not forget that the crisis in the forestry industry affects 825,000 workers, compared with 500,000 workers in the automotive sector. It would be entirely justified to support the forestry industry as much as the auto industry, but that is not what has happened.

The Conservative government had partisan electoral interests in Ontario when it tabled its latest budgets. In its choices, the Conservative government has decided to abandon the forestry industry and focus on the automotive industry, which as we know full well, also had certain needs.

However the forestry industry, the forest workers of Quebec and all the forest workers of Canada are worth more than this.

The Quebec forestry sector is made up of close to 88,000 Quebeckers who work in sawmills and pulp and paper mills, representing about a third of Canadian jobs in this sector.

In Quebec, approximately 230 cities, towns and villages are primarily dependent on this economic sector, including 160 small, rural villages which are exclusively dependent on the forest. At the moment they are being devitalized and torn apart by cuts. They have not been listened to by this government.

The softwood lumber crisis, which we remember very well and which preceded the present economic crisis, did much more harm in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. On this subject I would have liked to respond to my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier.

No fewer than 10,000 Quebec workers were directly affected, collectively losing the equivalent of 3,200 years’ pay. That is not nothing.

Collectively, sales in Quebec fell four times more than the Canadian average. That was due not only to the broader economic crisis, but also to a lack of support for the forestry sector from the government.

Since April 2005, it has been worse still. The forestry industry, if we include related activities such as forestry and transportation, has lost an additional 25,000 jobs.

Today, the forestry industry is experiencing a major crisis that presents a serious threat to some of these communities, which are experiencing a loss of vitality and a major population exodus.

In the riding I represent, hundreds of workers have lost their jobs. Communities like Saint-Gabriel-de-Brandon, Mandeville, Saint-Alexis-des-Monts and Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc, which are rural municipalities, are experiencing job losses in the forestry industry. Those industries need support from the federal government to modernize their equipment. We have talked about loan guarantees. They need help, and this government has turned a deaf ear.

To enable all of these workers to survive while they wait for this crisis to end, the Bloc Québécois is of course proposing that employment insurance be made more flexible, to provide the workers hard hit by this crisis with a decent income. As we have seen, that is not what is done by Bill C-50, introduced in this House by the Conservative Party with the support of the New Democratic Party. That bill provides employment insurance for people who have essentially not had to claim employment insurance in the last 10 years. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are still refusing to provide support for the unemployed.

What is even worse is that the Conservatives have turned a deaf ear to what forestry workers and people losing their jobs are asking for. They are also trying, in Bill C-50, to define certain categories of unemployed workers.

Some workers or seasonal workers in the forestry and manufacturing industries have had the misfortune of having to claim employment insurance several times in recent years. Those people will not receive the same benefits as people who have not had to claim employment insurance as often in recent years. This means that those workers will be further impoverished. And that is of course why we are voting against this bill.

In short, the measures announced would have little effect in Quebec because they are not accessible to seasonal workers or forestry workers.

As well, in the riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, there is a category of workers not covered by the bill. I am talking about the entire situation of workers in the tourism industry. Here again, these are seasonal jobs. These people do not have access to any support. If the waiting period for employment insurance had been eliminated, these workers would have been penalized less; they would have been less impoverished, unlike the situation with the measures proposed by this government.

In addition, to enable the sawmills and factories that are having problems and that could employ these workers to get through the crisis, the Bloc Québécois proposed a set of measures that has been on the table for several months. Today, we continue to press ahead to help this industry, one of the most important in the economy of Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois has laid out a set of demands in its recovery plan for the forestry industry, including loan guarantees, for example. We have been calling for this for years. We asked the Liberals for them, in their day, and we have continued to ask the Conservatives for them. We are calling for loan guarantees so that more efficient production equipment can be acquired. We are calling for massive investments or tax measures to promote innovation and research and development in the industry. We are proposing that the research and development tax credit be refundable, so that even companies that are not making a profit will be able to innovate and develop new products.

It is also important to note that all these measures are consistent with the softwood lumber agreement, whatever the Conservative ministers and members might say.

I will conclude today by saying that the purpose of this motion is to provide support for the forestry industry and our workers in that industry. That is why we have introduced the motion in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Yukon who certainly has done a great deal for rural affairs since I have known him in 2004.

In the meantime, let us talk about the sabotaging of the EI bill. I will go back to the point that they keep missing. A lot of long tenured workers in the forestry sector will not benefit from Bill C-50 as the Conservatives claim they will.