Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present and debate Motion No. 222 on seasonal workers and the employment insurance.
The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to restore Employment Insurance benefits to seasonal workers.
The debate on this votable motion is an opportunity for my colleagues and myself to thoroughly look into the issue of seasonal work and try to find short, medium and long term solutions.
I introduced this motion in order to demystify seasonal work. People who work in seasonal industries are often called seasonal workers. We often forget that they are not seasonal workers; their jobs are seasonal.
The main reason I wanted to introduce this motion is the recent changes to the employment insurance plan. Through this debate, I want to highlight the negative impact of these changes on the lives of people who work in seasonal industries and of their families.
I want to highlight the important contribution of these workers to our country and our economy. But most of all, I want to engage my colleagues in an exchange in order to develop solutions that will certainly include a proposal to reform the employment insurance, but also proposals to diversify our country's seasonal economy.
First, it must be mentioned that seasonal work is very important for the Canadian economy. It accounts for one million direct jobs and contributes to the creation of thousands of others. A number of industries are seasonal by nature. A case in point are the industries which are weather-dependent such as fishing, logging, agriculture, mining, construction and tourism. There are other industries such as the automotive industry, education, and cultural industries.
Seasonal industries are an important variable in Canada's balance of payments. Net exportations of agricultural products, seafood, energy and mainly wood products are the main elements in Canada's balance of trade.
The tourism industry is the 12th largest economic sector.
In 1995, shipments by the construction industry were estimated at $22.8 billion. That year, the building materials industry accounted for about 6% of the gross domestic product from manufacturing and it provided direct jobs to nearly 150,000 people across Canada.
In 1996, the forestry sector contributed $20 billion to the Canadian economy. Activities in this sector accounted for 2.9% of the GDP. In 1997, national forestry exports were estimated at $38.9 billion. Moreover, in 1997, the forestry sector provided 365,000 direct jobs.
As for the commercial fishery on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it was valued at $1.6 billion in 1997. Fisherman from the Atlantic provinces are responsible for 74% of that amount.
Looking at these statistics, it is obvious that seasonal industries are important to our economy throughout the country. All these sectors make an important contribution not only to our economy but also to our quality of life.
Part time university professors contribute to the education of our young people but their work often depends on university semesters.
Who does not appreciate a nice lobster, especially here in Ottawa? We often tend to forget that before reaching our plate lobster had to be harvested by a fisherman and packed by a plant worker to be shipped to Ottawa.
Tourism is another example. A canoe rental business can hardly find clients in the middle of winter when rivers are frozen. Therefore, it provides work to its employees only 10 or 12 weeks out of the year, during the summer months.
Seasonal jobs are dispersed throughout Canadian industries. Their contribution to the Canadian economy goes far beyond the activity that is confined directly to the seasonal jobs themselves.
In the forestry sector for example, the harvesting of trees leads to primary sector activity in sawmills, pulp and paper, and plywood and panel board plants. Secondary manufacturing includes planing mills, engineered wood products, manufacturing of paper or cardboard products, wood re-manufacturing, prefab homes and wood doors and windows.
Seasonal activity in forestry generates year round activity in many more sectors.
In 1995, a working committee was set up to examine the issue of seasonal work and employment insurance. Its report contains findings that in my opinion are still valid today.
First, it draws attention to the fact that what is seasonal is not the workers but the jobs. Second, the committee found that the contribution of seasonal labour to the Canadian economy was largely ignored.
Furthermore, it noted that a negative attitude toward seasonal workers was emerging and that these workers were considered responsible for the temporary nature of their jobs.
Finally, it warned the Liberal government of the day that any change to employment insurance would disproportionately affect seasonal workers.
The government had in its possession a document that said what exactly the impact would be on seasonal workers but it chose to go ahead anyway.
What is the situation today? The eligibility criteria are too high and prevent many seasonal workers from receiving employment insurance benefits.
In addition, the government decided to punish workers who frequently claim employment insurance by making them subject to the intensity rule.
The committee was right to say that the government had a negative attitude toward seasonal workers.
Instead of attacking seasonal workers, the employment insurance reform should have taken into account their particular conditions and created a system reflecting the reality of the labour market.
Seasonal work is a subject of special concern because those engaged in seasonal work have fewer alternatives than other workers and are therefore more dependent on EI. They cannot fish when the bait is frozen or cut trees in the spring thaw when roads turn to mud. Very often, workers in seasonal industries live in remote areas of the country where the only work is seasonal and things freeze up in the winter.
The working group has also predicted that the EI reform would have a negative impact on women. In many cases, women who work in fish plants are unable to meet the number of hours of work requirement to qualify for EI.
With the EI reform, the number of hours required to qualify has doubled in certain areas. Besides, the 910 hours required from newcomers on the labour market or from workers who have been away from the labour market for a time result in the exclusion of many women and young people.
This 910 hour requirement penalizes women who have decided to stay home to raise their children during their formative years. When they go back to work and the seasonal work ends, they do not have any income because they cannot meet that 910 hour requirement.
Why did the government choose to make those changes if it knew what the impact on women would be? Perhaps because it wanted to use the surplus accumulated in the EI fund thanks to all those restrictions to reduce the deficit and the debt.
In the last few weeks, we have talked about the rise in the number of children living in poverty. It is not hard to realize that the EI cuts have deprived mothers and fathers of benefits, and that their families suffer because of that.
Since many poor families are headed by single mothers, the fact that women do not qualify for EI has contributed directly to the increase in child poverty. The saddest thing of all is that this negative impact was very likely intentional
The EI reform has had a negative impact on seasonal workers. This impact was predicted and can be observed today.
It is time to admit that errors were made. It is time to make changes so that seasonal workers can again qualify for EI premiums.
But the government must not stop there. I am often accused of suggesting EI as the solution to all problems. That it not true. Really.
What must be remembered is that the EI program is there to help workers who have, through no fault of their own, lost their job. It is a temporary measure to help during the transitional period, but this government is forgetting that this temporary measure is necessary for both workers and for the economy. When workers are denied EI premiums, small and medium size businesses suffer too.
Even the Liberals agreed with us. In 1993, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition, he said:
By reducing benefits and further penalizing those who leave their jobs voluntarily, the government shows very little concern for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of getting to the heart of the problem, it goes after the unemployed.
What happened to our Prime Minister? Perhaps the same thing that happened to the red book, the GST and all the rest.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
These measures will have a disturbing impact.
Is it not ironic that when he came to power our Prime Minister did exactly what he spoke out against? He went after unemployed workers and the result was very disturbing.
The Prime Minister was not the only one to oppose relentlessly the proposed changes to employment insurance. On July 31, 1989, my predecessor, Doug Young, said that the taxpayers of New Brunswick should vigorously oppose these changes, which would have serious consequences on the region.
I am prepared to give credit to the Liberals. They understood the situation before taking office in 1993. They knew that employment insurance was an important program that was part and parcel of the social fabric of our country.
I even believe that they know now that they are wrong. But the employment insurance fund is accumulating a surplus of $7 billion every year and they do not want to give up what this surplus brings them. As I said before and continue to say, workers are the victims in this case and this is unacceptable.
My hon. colleagues opposite sometimes point out to me that workers are abusing the employment insurance program. But the workers are not the ones dependent on the employment insurance system, the Minister of Finance is. He cannot do without it and he relies on it.
But to talk about employment insurance is not good enough. The problem with seasonal industries is that we do not think in the long term about the diversification of the economies dependent on these industries.
Seasonal work is found mainly in rural areas where natural resource development is the main activity.
It is not that people do not want to work. It is a situation where once their working season comes to an end, be it in forestry, the tourist industry, fishing or construction, there is no other work to be had.
Thus, apart from giving them access to the EI program, we must also invest to ensure economic diversification.
Too often these communities harvest the resource. For example, in communities like Caraquet, Shippagan, Lamèque, Bouctouche and Cap Pelé in New Brunswick, fish is caught and then sent to Japan for processing.
Why not do the processing at home? Why should we not do secondary and tertiary processing? Why do we not develop aquaculture, which could represent the future of fisheries?
However to develop such industries, we need a long term vision that builds on the experience and the know-how of all the players, investors, workers, community groups and elected officials, whatever their political affiliation.
For too long now Atlantic Canada has suffered because of decisions based on political motives rather than on the best interest of the communities. This has to change. We cannot go on like this.
The Liberals will have to stop giving away money only to their friends and start looking at the real economy and the way to develop it. What they are doing is the way things were done by politicians a century ago. It has to change. We have to work together to change things. We cannot go on like this. We need a long-term vision on how to develop the economy of our country and of our rural areas. As long as we do not do it, we will be missing the boat. We will be missing the boat and a great opportunity. We have to recognize the difference between rural Canada and urban areas.
We need to invest in our infrastructures so that our rural communities can become as competitive as our urban centres.
Again, in my province of New-Brunswick, the natural gas pipeline runs from Sable Island to the south, but does not go to the north. How do you expect northern New-Brunswick to compete with the south when the infrastructures serving these two areas are not the same?
Besides investing in the infrastructures, we have to invest in people. We have to give them some training. Not just any kind of training, but training in the industries that are liable to develop in their region.
We have to try to improve access to training. In order to diversify the economy, we need to provide the workers with the support they need to get jobs in the new industries.
The working group, in looking at the seasonal worker and employment insurance, said:
What is lacking in many areas dependent on seasonal work is the infrastructure to make diversification possible, for example:
Core infrastructure such as transportation, telecommunications, basic services such as water, electricity and waste disposal;
Access to research institutions with the corporate-government and university liaisons and the means to develop and market research ideas;
Access to education and training institutions, both the buildings and the hardware and software to reach rural communities;
Access to financial institutions to bridge the financing requirements at a reasonable cost for start-up companies and companies in need of restructuralizing, rationalizing or expanding.
In other words, we need some planning. We have to determine which regions rely on seasonal work and then develop strategies based on their specific needs.
We have to remember that seasonal workers are here to stay. We will always want to eat lobster and need lumber to build our houses.
We have to stop penalizing seasonal workers and try to find solutions to extend the working season in the communities that rely on seasonal work.
While we wait for medium and long-term solutions, we need to make the EI benefits more accessible by reducing the number of working hours needed to qualify.
We have to stop hurting seasonal workers. We have to get rid of the intensity rule. And lastly, we have to increase the benefit rate to 60%.
I have submitted my short, medium and long-term solutions to the seasonal work problem and I look forward to hearing your suggestions.
