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.
5:20 p.m.
Economist, United Steelworkers
Yes, absolutely. I began my remarks today by calling upon Parliament to pass the bill. That certainly remains my union's position.
I'd certainly echo what Ken said, that many more improvements are needed. Although there have been a number of improvements, which you've identified, those improvements are starting from a very low base, starting from a system that was completely inadequate. I think to get EI to where we need it, further improvements are also going to be required.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Let me ask you this, as a point of question for the Liberal leader of the opposition, the members of the Liberal Party. Do you expect them, and want them, to stand up and vote in favour of this bill?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Now, the fact that we've actually had a program, called the career transition assistance initiative, that helped those who were long-tenured to receive up to two years in benefits if they were engaged in training...was a positive long-term benefit. Do you see what we're proposing in Bill C-50 as being a bridge to that, and an extension of that, that's quite useful for that particular class of workers?
5:25 p.m.
Economist, United Steelworkers
Yes, I think that's fair to say.
I think the other way to look at Bill C-50 is that it's potentially a substitute that does something for those workers who aren't in a position to avail themselves of training opportunities. I know that lots of workers who do meet the long-tenured criteria haven't been able to find qualifying training opportunities. At least Bill C-50 will give them some extended benefits, some additional income to live on, to try to weather the economic downturn.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I guess I would conclude by just pointing out that back in the nineties--I think it's been alluded to already--when the unemployment rate was near where it is today, the system was significantly gutted, if you want to call it that, by the then Liberal government. The steps that we've taken here are sort of a progression in the other direction.
You'd agree with me on that?
5:25 p.m.
Economist, United Steelworkers
Yes, absolutely. As I said, I think the system was at a very low base going into the economic crisis. It was probably the weakest EI system Canada has had going into any recent post-war recession. We have seen some modest improvements, but as I said, more are required.
Just on the analogy, though, to the changes that were made in the 1990s, one feature of this bill that is slightly troubling is this business of excluding workers who have already had to use 36 or more weeks of benefits. To me that's very reminiscent of the experience rating that the Government of Canada tried to shove into employment insurance during the 1990s. We haven't gotten completely away from that problem yet.
5:25 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
I want to just step in and make one point.
The benefit level in 1990 was higher. In the 1990 recession, it was higher than it is today.
So this system today is worse than it was in the recession in 1990.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.
I want to thank Mr. Weir and Mr. Georgetti.
Again, Ms. Washington, I meant no disrespect. I really appreciate you sharing your story. It was very powerful, and it speaks to why this bill needs to be passed very quickly. Thank you for being here today.
The meeting is adjourned.