Madam Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for his motion. I think that the issue of seasonal workers is a real concern.
This is the third year of the intensity rule which penalizes seasonal workers, taking away 1% of their benefits every time they receive employment insurance benefits for 20 weeks. This means three years during which, in our ridings, the Liberals have condoned the unfair treatment of these people, who have earned these benefits through their hard work.
The motion, as it stands, is dynamic and interesting. We must change the intensity rule, the number of weeks where benefits can be paid out, the weekly employment insurance benefits and the number of hours to qualify. These four factors deeply influence the financial status of our seasonal workers.
Because of these requirements, young people and women who could have seasonal jobs are leaving some areas because they cannot work the 910 hours required to qualify. This is also true for our seasonal workers.
Most importantly, the law implies that these people have chosen not to work longer. That is what is left of the whole debate initiated by the Prime Minister when he called unemployed workers beer drinkers. Well, we have seen the consequences in the legislation. Today, a couple of weeks before Christmas, there are people who are wondering if they will have enough money to get through the holiday season and to survive until their next job in the spring.
The reason is not that there are fewer jobs than before, and the Liberals should understand that. Right now, we are in a period where the economy is strong but there are seasonal workers who have a job only during the summer. Because of restrictions in the EI program, either they qualify or they do not qualify, but the bottom line is that their annual income is lower than it was before the reform. This is totally unacceptable.
This proposal with regard to seasonal workers did not come only from opposition parties. It did not come only from the people we talked to on this subject. It was supported by the premiers, particularly those affected by the intensity rule that penalizes seasonal workers through a reduction of the number of weeks of benefits and the weekly amount.
Forestry workers who work hard but cannot work all year long find it difficult and unacceptable to see the government treat them as if they were lazy, especially when they do not have enough money to support their family. They then find that they do not have enough dignity to assume their responsibilities as family breadwinners and that is even harder on their self-esteem.
Farm workers live the same situation. In my town of Saint-Denis de Kamouraska and in all other villages, some must try to qualify, but ultimately they still may not receive enough money to support their family. The situation is serious because farms are the backbone of rural areas. It will last until that infamous rule is abolished. The Government of Canada is saying to seasonal workers that they do not deserve the same status as other workers. Yet during all the years when the plan was a valid one, they were allowed to earn an income.
We were happy to have those workers being employed, often for low wages, so that in the industrial urbanized areas, particularly in Ontario, people could earn a good income in the processing industries. However, there were no processing industries in our own areas.
In the meantime, people end up working in agriculture and forestry. There are also those who work in turf pits. I know families around Rivière-du-Loup in which the husband works at the turf pit and the wife works as a secretary. However, her job is also seasonal because the company hires her for only part of the year. They have a combined income of about $30,000 a year. At the end of the day we end up with the intensity rule, under which for every 20 weeks of EI, benefits are cut back from 55% of earnings to 54%, then to 53% and so on. This means that over three years almost all seasonal workers see their benefit rate reduced to 50%.
The consequences of that are absolutely absurd. In my area, between 1992 and 1998 the federal government invested, from year to year approximately $85 million less in the regional economy. That means that even if industries are very aggressive and manage to get $2 million or $2.5 million out of the Canada jobs fund, there is still an $83 million shortfall in the end. Those who rely on these industries and are seasonal workers do not benefit from that.
Faced with this situation, the federal government must respond quickly. Action is urgently required. The amendment the Liberal majority put forward earlier is not enough, in my opinion. It should be much more specific. I recall that at the first meeting of the Committee on Human Resources Development, the year following the 1997 election, there were members of the NDP, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc Quebecois who asked that the first issue the committee were to consider be the EI reform.
The observations made today have already been made everywhere in our regions. The Liberal majority told us “This will not be on the agenda; we will not start on this right away.”
I do not like the amendment introduced by the Liberals because it could lead to “committee-itis” and we will end up with the same song and dance from the department. The minister has been telling us for some time now “We are going to review the reform. We will assess the new plan after one year and then we will act accordingly.”
A new minister is appointed and we get the same answer. We are now into the third year and soon enough it will be five years. Seasonal workers do not eat in the long term, they need to eat every day. They need rules providing them with enough money to feed their family when they are in between two jobs and retain their dignity.
This is what the federal government has failed to understand. I believe the amendment on the table is a sign the Liberal government has come to the realization that if it goes into an election with its employment insurance reform as it is, fewer liberal members will be elected in the maritimes and in Quebec, particularly in the areas concerned, and possibly in others too.
The liberal member said “There are three stakeholders in this: the government, the employers and the employees.” But the only thing the government has done so far is pocket the employment insurance fund surplus and pay down a part of the debt with it.
However, those who contributed, the employers and the employees, believe that $6 out of $18 billion going every year to fund something else than what it was intended for is highway robbery. It is embezzlement. This is what it looks like to them. This is what is being put directly on the table.
In light of all these issues, it seems to me that the valuable motion introduced by the hon. member should be amended. Therefore, I move:
That the following words be added at the end of the motion: “and that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development review the situation of these workers at its next sitting”.
I am submitting this subamendment to the Chair to ensure that action will be taken in the short term. This amendment is supported by the hon. member for Portneuf and I hope that it will also get the support of the House. It would allow us to go beyond idle promises so that after two years all those who kept pushing to have this issue looked at by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development would finally get some result as early as at the next sitting.
If the committee decides to sit tomorrow morning or the day after, it will not be a problem, we will be there. We will ensure that we can work on this issue.
I am urging the House to support the amendment and the subamendment so that seasonal workers can finally get justice. This is also an opportunity for the Liberal government to eliminate the terrible burden that it put on workers.
Seasonal workers are not lazy people. They want to work but the government has deprived them of the dignity associated with working. We must give it back to them.