Evidence of meeting #49 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was unemployed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I agree. Thank you very much.
I'm going to let Ms. Minna ask some questions.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Earlier I was talking to Ms. Washington with respect to women, and to Mr. Georgetti and Mr. Weir as well, if they have any data.... The minister earlier said that of the unemployed, 20% are women. Is the number that low? Do you have any data as to what percentage of the current unemployed would be female in our country? Has your organization done any analysis to that effect?
4:55 p.m.
Economist, United Steelworkers
It would certainly be higher than 20%, if I heard the question correctly. Certainly the unemployment rate is higher among men than among women now, and there were more men in the workforce in total, so there would be more unemployed men than unemployed women, but it would be a relatively even split, as it is in the general population.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
We can't get that data from HRSDC. We've asked for it. We've asked for gender breakdowns and other breakdowns, and we can't get the data.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay. I've asked for the same.
Mr. Chair, could we please ask the department to give this committee that breakdown and the disaggregated data? If we could get it for next week, prior to coming back, so that we could take a look at it, that would be helpful. Maybe we can share it with our witnesses as well.
Thank you. I appreciate that, because that's something I've been trying to get at because of this legislation but also because of what we said earlier with respect to the number of hours.
I understand, and I accept, obviously, Mr. Georgetti and Ms. Washington, what both of you said with respect to passing this bill and the importance to the group of people it benefits. My angst, though, is because of the fact that, as I said to the minister earlier, there are people who work full time. There are immigrants who have worked full time for five, six, or seven years, depending on how long they've been here. It's been a difficult time. Many of them were unemployed or worked part time or had two or three jobs for many years before they got permanent jobs, as we all know. But they're not included. If you have under seven years—that's the minimum number of years under the scale—you're not even part of the program, because somehow you're not deserving or haven't worked hard enough. I'm not quite sure which one the minister is accepting.
Again, I have in my riding an area where there are about 12,000 to 18,000 people, most of them new immigrants. I'm not saying that this bill doesn't help. It helps some people. I guess I'm saying that my angst is that I don't like playing God and choosing who in my riding gets aid to pay their mortgages and who doesn't. My question to all of you is—and it's not fair, I suppose—what the absolute, immediate next thing you would like this committee to do would be, in addition to passing this bill.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
It would be to extend benefits for everyone who's unemployed, quite frankly. There is a fund there. This is the only time in Canada when someone would pay into insurance and then be denied a claim to collect the insurance they paid for. The money is there. Someone spent it, but if you can spend the surplus, then you should find the money when people are in need. The only change I have is that I'd like to see a better bill. But not passing this bill would just hurt more people. That's the only problem we're stuck with. We'd like to see a bill that decreases the hours, increases the duration, and increases the amount.
I'm like Rosalie. I couldn't live on $50 a day. I don't think you could and I don't think she can. People are being driven into poverty. And when this economic thing turns around, it's going to be that much bigger a struggle to get out of being in abject poverty, and that's a problem for all of us, not just the unemployed.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay. We're now going to move to the next round and Mr. Lessard.
You have the floor for seven minutes, sir.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank my friends from the central labour bodies and I thank Ms. Washington for having come to testify here today. You must be aware that, in the House of Commons, opinion is divided about Bill C-50. This committee is studying it to get a better understanding of if, and most of the time, we are guided by clarifications from people like yourselves.
Sometimes, by wanting to rush things, we miss out on the clarifications. The motion that was tabled yesterday by our colleague Mr. Godin could have deprived us of the clarifications. Others will provide clarification too. When we are just dealing with a technical measure that is intended to determine the way in which the bill will be implemented, an exercise like this is worthwhile in any democracy. I believe that you work in the same way in the labour movement.
Mr. Georgetti, I entirely agree with your opinion about the comprehensive reform of employment insurance that must be done. You probably know that I tabled Bill C-308 on behalf of my party; it includes most of the measures that you mention. During the previous session of Parliament, we, together with the Liberal Party and the NDP, made some headway towards some amendments to the bill. We could have done it, but because of the rules of Parliament and the election, everything was dropped.
I am also reminded that, as we listen to you here, we are consulting, and in every one of our ridings, my colleagues, even those who are now talking and disturbing everyone, are also holding consultations. For a bill of this nature, we consulted with those whom we call the have-nots, as well as labour confederations, groups of the unemployed, and so forth. You are probably aware that they think that this bill should not be held up.
Mr. Chair, this is such a disturbance. I do not know if they are at same meeting as we are. I do not want this to eat into my time. I find it very disturbing and lacking in courtesy towards our guests. I hope that we have not upset them too much.
In a word, this bill establishes that there are good unemployed people and bad unemployed people, with all the disqualification that implies. You have done an extraordinary job, as we have, in amending the employment insurance system so that more unemployed people can have access to it. However, this bill contains measures that will eliminate as many people as possible. The minister has said that this bill is for those workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. There cannot be many unemployed people who are responsible for their own unemployment. I think that we share this opinion.
This bill is based on a similar principle. I would like to hear more from you about the good and bad aspects of this bill. Let me finish with this, just to make myself clear. This bill disqualifies people. Senior officials told us that, of the 757,000 unemployed people in July, only 30% were close to exhausting their benefits. Twenty-one per cent of this group would be affected by Bill C-50; that comes to 49,600 unemployed people in all of Canada. This is far from the figure of 190,000 unemployed.
I would especially like to hear from you, Mr. Georgetti, and probably you too, Mr. Weir, because, like the NDP, you maintained that the real figure was not $935 million but $1 billion. To get to $1 billion, 85% of the claimants would have to have exhausted their benefits.
I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Who would like to answer that?
We're actually out of time, but I'm going to allow a response of about 30 seconds.
5:05 p.m.
Economist, United Steelworkers
I think that you are right about the serious problems posed by this bill, but ultimately, I feel that it gives extra help to unemployed people who need it, and therefore it is important to have this bill. That is our bottom line.
5:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
We're negotiators, and if something is on the table that will benefit a lot of people and we say we'll take it, it never stops us from working for the rest. The alternative...as I said previously, we wouldn't be happy if no one got it, and at least someone here will benefit. We have to keep grabbing what's on the table.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
This bill could be tabled for the workers out there to suit all the workers who have paid into EI. It's something we have to work at. We can't just let it go by. Once you pay into EI, you should be able to receive something.
Madam was saying that she has people in her riding who have worked for seven years, but cannot...because they were at different stages before. Once they pay into EI, they should be able to receive something in spite of how many years they've been in the workplace. Unemployment insurance is for all those who work. That's what it's there for. They pay into it and they should be able to receive something from it.
We should be able to table a bill to suit the workers. It may not be perfect, but we can work at it. It's something to work at. Each and every person who works needs EI when they're not working. They need some kind of fund to tide them over until they get a job. Without those funds to tide them over, where are they going to get money to take care of their bills and households?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I apologize for this, Mr. Chair, but this is not the first time that you or people in other committees have done this. I know that you do this unwittingly, but when you address the men you address them as “Mr.”, and when you address Madam Washington, you call her by her first name. I know this isn't meant to be disrespectful, but I'd appreciate it if you would call Madam Washington, Madam Washington, just as you call Mr. Weir, Mr. Weir, and Mr. Georgetti, Mr. Georgetti.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to welcome our witnesses.
So that no one is offended, I will address you as Ms. Washington. I can guarantee, Ms. Washington, that the NDP will vote for Bill C-50 and that you will have it. I can guarantee you that. Some political parties have already stated publicly that they will not support it. But I am one who believes that we must keep working hard to improve the employment insurance system.
This is not the first time that the employment insurance system has been changed without solving the entire problem. When the Liberal government came up with a bill about the 14 best weeks, I can assure you that, at home, we wanted the 12 best weeks. But we did not reject the 14 best weeks, because it was an improvement for the workers.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chair, we deal with witnesses here in an entirely proper way, I feel. When we participated, like the Liberals, in no way did we discredit the positions of the other parties. Mr. Chair, this is not an exercise in political rhetoric; it is in order to better understand peoples' positions.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's not a point of order.
Thank you.
We'll add to your time, Mr. Godin.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree that it was not a point of order: I am still in Canada and I have freedom of speech.
We heard about the changes that were made. Just now, the Liberal Party asked some questions. I do not know whether my colleague Mr. Lessard feels that I am now entitled to ask questions too, but I remember hearing, for example, that this did not help people in Nova Scotia because it takes 700 hours to be entitled to employment insurance benefits. The Employment Insurance Act should be amended, but let us not forget that the bill was introduced by the Liberals in 1996. If there are people in Nova Scotia today who do not qualify for employment insurance because of the required 700 hours, it is because of the employment insurance reform that was done in 1996. At that time, there was an economic crisis and all the fishers in the Atlantic provinces lost their jobs; at the same time, the employment insurance fund was robbed like never before. To be precise, $57 billion were taken from the employment insurance fund and transferred to general revenue.
Mr. Georgetti, as the president of more than 2 million workers in Canada, could you tell us once more how damaging that reform was? Are you asking all political parties to support this bill despite the fact that it does not make all the changes that the workers need? It was the workers who contributed to employment insurance, it is insurance for the workers. It belongs to the employers and to the workers; it is not so that the government can fill its coffers and say how well it is managing the budget. The workers are the ones who need this fund during a time of economic crisis or when they lose their jobs, not the government.