Debates of Oct. 19th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the Speech from the Throne referred to the employment insurance program. It shows that the government is fully aware of all that has to be done to resolve the problems that affect not only Quebec, but all parts of the country. We have a long history of ensuring that the employment insurance program remains responsive to the needs of all Canadians.

Employment insurance continues to provide temporary income support to people who involuntarily leave their employment. For example, in 2002-03, 1.4 million people received $8.2 billion in regular income benefits. According to the 2003 monitoring and assessment report, 88% of employed workers would have been eligible for EI benefits if they had lost their jobs with just cause.

Employment insurance helps Canadians re-enter the labour force. Nearly 640,000 participated in active employment measures and 220,000 returned to work.

May I remind my colleague from Chambly—Borduas of all the changes the government has made to the employment insurance program so that it can continue meeting the needs of Canadians in a rapidly changing labour market. For example, the intensity rule was repealed because it did not help increase labour market participation. The clawback provision was amended, and now no longer applies to Canadians who seek temporary income support for the first time or who receive special benefits. As well, parents who re-enter the labour market after staying at home to take care of their young children can establish their eligibility for benefits by accumulating the same number of hours of employment as other workers.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has indicated that among the OECD countries Canada has the second lowest long term unemployment rate.

As for the employment insurance account, I would like to remind my colleague that on the advice of the auditor general of that time, there has been no separate EI account in existence since 1986. That is even before you were elected to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. All surpluses and deficits are now part of the consolidated revenue fund. In fact we have been reducing premiums every year for 10 years. As a result, the premium rate dropped from $3.07 in 1994 to $1.98 in 2004, the lowest level since 1940. Our objective is to balance revenues and expenses, and we believe we will achieve that this year.

This government has understood what Canadians need and that is why we are proud of the improvements we have made and will continue to make in this important program.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear. The hon. member has just confirmed that the surplus is used to balance revenues and expenses. What is not normal is that only a segment of the population, namely the unemployed, is asked to bear the brunt of this.

I would also remind the hon. member that he is providing the House only with absolute figures about the unemployed. Why does he not talk about the percentage of the unemployed who may now be eligible for EI benefits? Only 38% of all EI contributors are eligible for benefits, because the rules have become too restrictive. Such is the plight of the unemployed.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on this instead of quoting figures that have nothing to do with the question I asked.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's deep interest in this important subject. The objective is jobs rather than employment insurance, and he would agree with that. The employment insurance is there for temporary support.

With respect to jobs, in Quebec alone 50,100 jobs have been created this year so far. Since 1996, the year of the employment insurance reform, 563,000 jobs have been created, again, in Quebec alone.

In addition to the various changes the government has made, which I have mentioned, the member should recognize the Government of Canada transfers some $600 million each year to Quebec for active labour market programs to help workers, including older workers and younger workers, find and keep work. The annual transfer that this represents has increased considerably from $427 million in 1996-97.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my second intervention concerns the question I raised on October 14, regarding the leaders' debate.

At the second leaders' debate, the Prime Minister promised to correct the 910 hours of work requirement that young people must meet in order to collect EI benefits. In response to a question by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the Prime Minister said that he would solve this problem and promised to do so.

As we speak, there is nothing to that effect in either the throne speech or the bills that have been introduced, despite the response the minister gave me on October 14. He is giving no indication as to how the problem will be solved.

I would like to hear this from the parliamentary secretary. What does the minister intend to do to eliminate this discrimination in terms of the requirement young people face? I indicated the percentages earlier. Eligibility for benefits stands at 38% for the working class as a whole. However, less than 30%--approximately 23% or 26% I think--of young people are eligible for EI benefits. Why? Because the government has imposed rules that deny them access gradually, despite the fact that they contribute.

Young people have the added requirement of 910 hours of work. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary on this.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I compliment my colleague on his interest in this important topic. I have already mentioned that 88% of employed workers would have been eligible for EI benefits if they had lost their jobs with just cause. The member may not know that differences in eligibility range only four percentage points across the country, from 85.5% in Alberta the low, to 89.5% in New Brunswick.

Entrance requirements vary across regions to take into consideration the unemployment rate of the region concerned. As unemployment rates increase, entrance requirements ease and the duration of benefits increases to recognize the increased difficulty of finding work in the region concerned.

With regard to the entrance requirements for new entrants to the labour market, and the member seems to be suggesting that the EI program discriminates against youth and this could not be farther from the truth, the fact is the overwhelming majority of new entrants to the labour market are looking for work, not employment insurance.

That said, the member should also recognize that young people today have better opportunities to find and keep work than a generation ago. In fact the unemployment rate for youth between 15 and 24 is 4% lower today than it was 30 years ago.

This reflects a few changes that have taken place in our economy and our labour market.

First, is the increased participation of young people between 15 and 24 in post-secondary education. We need look no further than the CEGEP system in Quebec for this. Since the beginning of the 1980s CEGEP enrolment in Quebec has been going steadily up.

Second, this decrease in youth unemployment also recognizes that we truly live in a learning culture. Canadians participate in post-secondary education activities more than any other citizenry in the world.

Notwithstanding this, I know the minister is interested in addressing any issues that the member has raised and indeed any Canadian with regard to the EI program. As all members know, the EI commission is mandated by the EI act to monitor and assess the EI program every year. Its report is tabled here in the House annually by the minister.

This government will continue to ensure that the employment insurance program remains responsive to the needs of all Canadians, particularly young Canadians.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's answer is extremely shocking to the unemployed who genuinely need EI benefits. I take offence at the suggestion that it is somehow through their own fault that they find themselves out of work.

We are not talking about those who are not eligible, but rather those who are. The parliamentary secretary himself recognized that, under the EI rules, 88% of all those who contribute to the EI fund in order to have access to it should normally be eligible. But as we speak, only 38% are eligible. That is what the parliamentary secretary is overlooking. That is the problem we need to deal with.

I repeat, less than 40% of unemployed workers have access to benefits. Between accessibility and actual access, there is a gap, a gap in which the government meddled by restricting the rules. And significant portions of the population are much poorer because of these rules.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that the 910 hour entry requirement was introduced to reduce early dependence on employment insurance benefits. In a time when most jobs require a high level of education, too many young people were leaving school to take short term jobs. The new entrance requirement for employment insurance sought to break the cycle and encourage stronger labour force attachment.

The facts bear it out. Youth employment rose by 26,000 in September, mostly among older youth aged 20 to 24. The gain among youth was mainly in full time employment, over 40,000 of the places.

I know all members would agree that the youth of the country are best served by good educational opportunities that will build strong, satisfying careers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:46 p.m.)