Debates of June 2nd, 2005

Supply

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madame Speaker, people have witnessed an outburst of sincerity in the past few minutes. However, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst should have had this outburst in his party, when his leader announced that the 19 votes of the NDP were being sold to keep a government in office that is rotting in corruption. The NDP sold its 19 votes for $4.5 billion. Of that money, not a cent goes to the unemployed in Quebec or Canada.

Today we are treated to an outburst in the House to the effect that the Bloc Québécois has not done its work and that the NDP, on the other hand, defends the unemployed. The member for Acadie—Bathurst should have had his outburst in his caucus, when his leader announced that he had sold his own vote and that of the 18 other party members, to be bought by the government. The Liberals, more than any other party, have stolen from the unemployed.

Reference was made earlier to the Conservatives. No government in this country has robbed the unemployed more than the Liberals.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Have they forgotten? The figure of $47 billion is involved. The NDP members are blindly defending the Liberal Party. The unemployed realize the NDP is overcome by the smell of power.

The NDP members should listen to the Quebec president of the Liberal Party of Canada. He advised holding one's nose and voting for the Liberal Party. So, we should hold our noses and do like the NDP and betray the unemployed.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc seems to have picked up the Conservative rhetoric rather nicely in the sense of saying that somehow the New Democratic Party votes were bought because we negotiated a deal for a better budget for Canadians that saw more dollars for affordable housing and more dollars to go into a pension fund to assist workers. It is not the ultimate and best budget but it is better than what was there. More dollars will go into foreign aid, which the Bloc's critic greatly supported, but I guess it is a different tune now. More dollars will go into improving the environment and the sustainability of the environment. Somehow the Bloc has been caught up in the Conservative rhetoric that that is buying votes.

I say to the Bloc members that they should go to Quebecers and tell them that the NDP got more money for affordable housing, more money for a pension fund, more money for foreign aid and more money for Kyoto, instead of the garbage in here of trying to get rid of the government and to go back into an election for their own purely self-serving purpose.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I need to explain something very important to the hon. member once again.

I, too, did a tour of all the regions in Quebec before the budget. The Bloc Québécois said, “We will vote against this budget if the Liberal government does not give the unemployed their due”. During the budget debate, the Bloc Québécois said, “We will vote against this budget if the Government of Canada does not give the unemployed their due”. During the negotiations when the NDP sold its soul to the Liberal Party, we told the Prime Minister, “We will not support your budget if you do not give the unemployed their due”. The Bloc Québécois is saying today, “We cannot agree to support a government, a budget or any motion whatsoever that does not give the unemployed their due”.

We believe in the cause of the unemployed. We talk about it all the time and take advantage of every opportunity to help these people. The NDP says it got a good budget, but out of the $4.5 billion not one cent was allocated to the unemployed. In all fairness, can you explain to the unemployed why not a single penny of your $4.5 billion was allocated to them? That is what the Bloc wanted, that is what the Bloc wants, that is what the public wants and that is what we will get.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it disheartens me tremendously to hear the comments from the Bloc Québécois member of Parliament from Quebec.

What he probably does not tell his constituents and the people of Quebec is that right now in Canada we stand astride and on top of all the OECD countries in terms of economic performance. Right now we have the second lowest unemployment rate that we have had by point one-tenth of a per cent in 30 years. Our economy is humming and it is working very well. As a result of that, we were able to produce a tax base that, in conjunction with the NDP, has allowed us to invest money into many different things that Canadians care about, such as children, defence, housing, health care and other social programs that are critically important.

It is also very sad that the member probably does not mention to his constituents and to Quebecers that the best hope for the French language in Canada is for Quebec to remain in Canada, not as a separate country or a separate entity, but as part of the family of provinces that make up our beautiful country.

I find the member's rhetoric very rich because we know what they say about the Bloc Québécois members. They say, “Québec est ma passion, Canada est ma pension”.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean has less than 30 seconds to respond.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that you will afford me as much leeway as the members who questioned me.

What puzzles us in Quebec, whether in the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean or in other ridings, is that the government boasts about promoting economic development by cutting benefits to the unemployed. What a fine response to give the victims of the softwood lumber crisis, the trade disputes with the U.S. or the mad cow crisis, in the riding of Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean among others, who lose their jobs.

I would like someone to come and explain to the unemployed in my region, who have lost their jobs and are denied benefits, that this government is good to them because it is creating jobs and the economy is doing well. The fact is the economy never fed anyone. One does not buy economy to feed his family; bread and butter is what they need to put on the table. They need money for that. It is not by cutting the benefits of unemployed people with no money, in challenged areas like mine, that the government will convince us of how good it is.

That is what I had to say about sovereignty. Once Quebec has achieved sovereignty, we will stop bothering the others. We will develop our own employment insurance plan. And in this plan there will be a place for those who need help from the government.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the House how proud I am to stand to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. This is an issue of vital importance, not only to the residents of his riding of Acadie--Bathurst, but across the country. The issue is unemployment insurance, now called employment insurance, and the historic cash grab of this Liberal government from that social program.

Believe me, I have some strongly held views on the subject of EI. I can say without any hesitation that this is one thing I hear about more than anything else in my riding.

I have some statistics. Let me begin my presentation with some figures. When the Liberal Government of Canada chose to use EI as a cash cow, rather than an insurance fund for the unemployed, it had a profound effect on ridings in the country, such as my own riding. I have examples from across the country. I will start with my own riding of Winnipeg Centre.

When the government changed the rules so that no one qualified any more, obviously the fund would go into a surplus position. That surplus the Liberals used for everything they chose such as paying down the deficit, giving tax breaks to Bay Street.

Members will be surprised to hear that the impact in my riding alone was that $20.8 million a year, every year since the government made those changes. My riding already is a low income riding, the third poorest riding in Canada by any statistical measurement used.

Imagine the effect of sucking $20.8 million worth of revenue out of my riding every year. The impact was felt immediately. To get our minds around the effect of that, try to consider what could be done to attract a company to a riding that has a payroll of $20.8 million per year. We would pave the streets with gold to attract new businesses. I know the riding the Speaker represents would welcome the influx of jobs like that.

We were powerless to stop the flight of capital, the exodus of that money from our riding. It was a policy decision made by the Government of Canada.

I cannot imagine anyone from Quebec voting against the simple resolution my colleague has put forward today to try to reverse this trend. I have the figures here for Quebec. I will quote a couple of them.

In the riding of Champlain the effect of the cuts to EI was $59.5 million per year, every year. In the riding of Charlevoix the cuts to EI were $50.1 million per year. In the riding of Bourassa it was $42.9 million per year. That is the effect of the cuts to EI when the Liberal government changed EI so that nobody qualified any more and started to use it as a cash cow. It makes me angry just thinking about it.

This was a deliberate policy when the Liberals found themselves in a deficit situation when they took over. They realized they had a deficit of which they had to take care. Where did the government look for revenue? It was not to some kind of a growth scheme that might increase the GDP in order to increase government revenue. They took at least one-third off the backs of the unemployed.

The total cumulative surplus, from what we call this wholesale theft of our EI money, was over $50 billion. The government took in $50 billion more than it paid out.

Keep in mind that we should begin from the fact that this is not their money. Back in the 1980s, under the Brian Mulroney government, the federal government stopped paying into EI all together. All that money is contributions of the employer and the employee. Its designated use was to provide income maintenance for unemployed people should they happen to lose their jobs. That was the whole purpose of the unemployment insurance scheme.

Two changes took place. First, under Mulroney the government chose to put that money into general revenue, under the guise that if the fund ever fell into deficit, it would be the government's responsibility to make up that deficit, and that is true.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

And Lucien Bouchard.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

And Lucien Bouchard was the architect of that particular scheme, something we are still paying the price for today.

However, in actual fact the fund has only been in deficit a few times. The total accumulated deficit, if we add up all the periods that it has dipped into deficit, is $11 billion to $13 billion. The total accumulated surplus right now is $50 billion. When is an insurance fund not an insurance fund? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Imagine if we had to buy house insurance and it was mandatory that we participate in a house insurance scheme. Our premiums are deducted from our paycheque every week, above and beyond our control. That is a mandatory contribution. However, if our house burns down, we have less than a 40% chance of ever collecting anything, not one penny. We are told by the government that it has used that money for tax cuts for its friends on Bay Street, or to build roads or to offset our other cutbacks in social spending and that it does not have a penny for us to provide income maintenance in our so-called insurance fund.

That is not an insurance fund any more. That is another payroll tax. It ceased to be an insurance fund years ago.

I know from personal experience because I am a carpenter by trade. I am not ashamed to say that I have collected EI probably 10 to 15 times in my career. It was designed exactly for that, to provide bridge income to people like me who work either seasonally or sectorally, like in the building trades. Every day we worked, we worked toward getting laid off because were completing the job. That is the nature of a carpenter. We start a job and every day we work, we work toward a layoff. EI was there for me in the old days. It is not there any more for those who need it under the current hour bank system. It certainly is not there for the seasonal workers to whom our motion today is dedicated.

I am particularly proud of my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst because of the passionate representation he has brought to this issue and for the people affected by this policy over the years, with specific reference to people who have fallen between the cracks. Even when the Liberals have been forced to try to fix EI a bit, even when EI was exposed for the fraud that it was, the changes they made failed to thoroughly look after many of the people it should have covered. No group of people has been negatively impacted by the bill more than the fish plant workers in eastern Canada, who by design are excluded from participation in the EI fund as it stands.

The change that my colleague and the NDP are asking for today is paltry compared to the total size of the fund. It is almost insignificant when we look at the annual operating surplus of the fund. I am told that $20 million to $30 million per year could satisfy the change for which we are asking, which is to reduce the qualifying weeks from 14 to 12 for areas where unemployment is higher than 10%.

My colleague tells me the impact is under $20 million a year. In its current operational mode, the fund is showing a surplus of more than $200 million a month. At its peak it was showing a surplus of $750 million per month. Talk about a licence to print money for the government. Even with the amendments and the changes it has made, it is roughly half of that. Doing the math, it is roughly $375 million per month in surplus. We are talking about $20 million per year to include this group of workers in eastern Canada who are shut out of the program.

This group of workers in New Brunswick have a champion in the member for Acadie--Bathurst. I would point out that there is not another party here that has lifted a finger to represent its interests. The NDP is using its opposition status in this minority Parliament more effectively than any other party because we are actually extracting some measure of benefit out of this Parliament.

I hear the Bloc Québécois making noises, asking how the NDP could align itself with the crooked Liberal Party. The NDP is doing its job as an opposition party in a minority government to move our agenda forward. That is what we are supposed to do. That is what we were sent here to do.

I see other parties, with more members, that are getting exactly nothing, a big goose egg out, of this Parliament. We are getting social spending on the areas that we care about and they will be auxiliary beneficiaries of the work we are doing. I hope they enjoy the benefits that they will reap by our efforts.

Instead of using our opposition day to tear the government down, or to move a motion of non-confidence or to force an election, we are using our opposition day to help some unemployed workers in a corner of the country that has been forgotten by the Liberal Party. That is a good thing. Is there anyone here who does not think that is an appropriate thing for members of Parliament to do? This is called the House of Commons. This is where ordinary people are supposed to have a voice, where they can appeal for some relief if they suffer an injustice.

Here is a classic example of injustice. The fish plant workers in eastern Canada, who slipped between the cracks of the EI program, are a forgotten people. The government has turned its back on them. No other opposition party is advocating on their behalf. It falls to the NDP to be the spokesperson for this group of disadvantaged employees, and I am proud of that.

I heard the rant of my colleague from the Bloc a moment ago, that the NDP was in bed with a corrupt Liberal government. Our point is that before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we are going to extract some level of benefit from this Parliament before it collapses.

That is our job. It is what we were sent here to do and we are doing it more effectively than even the official opposition which has 99 members. Conservatives do not seem to bring home the bacon to their constituencies. They have not managed to negotiate a single benefit. As we speak, they are putting the Atlantic accord in jeopardy at the finance committee. The benefits that we managed to get into these budget bills is standing at jeopardy because of the collaboration between the Bloc and the Conservatives whose only interest is to tear down Parliament and go to the polls.

They should reconsider for a number of reasons. First, if they went to the polls tomorrow, they would lose seats, both parties, because they have lost credibility. No one believes they can deliver any more. All they have is the empirical evidence and that evidence is a big fat goose egg. They do nothing. They just occupy space and disrupt those of us who are trying to accomplish something with the opportunity we have been given by the people of Canada.

When an opposition day does come along, we meet as a caucus and we put forward ideas of what we might do and how we might use our political leverage to our best advantage. In this case I am proud to say we chose on the side of ordinary working people whose voices are rarely heard.

How often do we hear of people who are willing to dedicate a whole day to the interests of the fish plant workers who are disadvantaged and left out of the employment insurance program? It is a rare thing. We would think that members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada would vote in favour of this opposition day motion which would benefit them. What I cannot understand is why is this not coming from them? They have more opportunities than we do.

We have 19 members of Parliament and we have an opposition day once in a blue moon. We use ours for something constructive. All we hear from them is destroy, tear it down, burn baby burn. That seems to be the motto of the Bloc of the Tories, burn baby burn. Why do they not build something for a change? Maybe the reason no one wants to vote for the Conservatives is they have never seen any evidence that they can do anything constructive. All they can do is destructive measures.

We expect that from members of the Bloc. With all due respect, it is their raison d'être to tear the government down and prove that Parliament does not work so that something, in their mind, can be built out of the ashes. I can deal with that. What I cannot understand is the party which tries to sell itself as the government in waiting using its political leverage and political capital, which is five times ours, for nothing but destructive measures. That is what is frustrating to me.

We find ourselves in a unique situation with an opportunity in the twilight dying days of this parliamentary session to do something positive for a significant group of Canadians. I am proud it is our party that is advancing it. I am proud to be here with my colleagues, the member for Churchill, the member for Windsor West and the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the sponsor of the motion and perhaps the leading champion on EI reform in the country.

The member for Acadie--Bathurst took it on himself, at his own expense, out of his own parliamentary budget, to travel the country to try to determine what was wrong with EI. We knew something had to be done and we wanted to make sure that our recommendations were grounded in fact and not in some kind of emotion, even though the frustration is palpable.

He came back with a report. What he learned is that this is not exclusive to Atlantic Canada. This is epidemic in northern Canada and in the Churchill riding. Unemployment dips below 10% in pockets throughout northern Canada. One of the most cynical things in Canadian public policy is the fact that we do not count first nations in our unemployment statistics. The unemployment rate in some of the 35 first nations communities that my colleague from Churchill represents is 95%. Those numbers are not factored into the national unemployment rate.

The measure my colleague is putting forward today is that, in areas of 10% unemployment or greater, the weeks for qualifying for unemployment benefits should be calculated on a person's best 12 weeks instead of 14. That would apply in Churchill. That would apply in Windsor West. There are pockets in all our ridings that have unemployment rates of higher than 10% and where people are disadvantaged.

I do not even have time to go into the gender inequities of the EI act as it currently stands. I hope that becomes a subject of debate. Perhaps one of the other opposition parties that has more opposition days will see fit to bring forward the gender imbalance of our current EI act, because it disproportionately discriminates against women. That is a fact. That is not some mode of spiel members are hearing from me. A gender analysis has been done. In fact, women are disproportionately impacted by the changes that the government made when it went to the hourly system instead of the weeks system. It is a proven fact.

Let us talk about an unemployed, middle-aged male. If I were still on the tools as a carpenter, I would have a less than 40% chance of collecting any EI benefits at all under the current rules. An unemployed woman would have a less than 25% chance of collecting any EI benefits. An unemployed youth would have a less than 15% chance of collecting any benefits. This is nothing but a cash cow. It is a mandatory contribution fund and an optional benefit-paying fund. That is completely contrary to the spirit and intent of the concept of unemployment insurance. As I have said, it ceased to become an insurance fund long ago.

As a tradesman and as the former head of the carpenters' union, I had over 1,100 apprentices signatory to my local when I was in charge of it. Even apprentices are discriminated against in that they have a two week waiting period now when they leave their job to go to their school component.

I am running out of time, but I wish I had more time to share with the House some of the shortcomings of the EI act. I wish there were more time to share with my colleagues the benefits and the merits of the motion put forward by my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst. We are going to be watching very carefully who votes against this motion, because it will speak volumes about the government's priorities.

I am astounded that we do not hear more practical opposition day motions put forward by the parties that have opposition days coming out of their ears. They are always engaged with self-interest or negative things that do not make any contribution to the elevation of the living standards of Canadians.

We have chosen something that is real, tangible and has a material benefit to those on whose behalf we are advocating today. I have never been more proud to be a New Democrat. It has never been more fun to be a New Democrat than it is today. I welcome the opportunity to vote in favour of my colleague's opposition day motion.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP bringing up the issues of EI and indeed unemployment. As I mentioned in previous comments, our country now has the lowest unemployment rate that it has had in some 30 years and the highest economic performance of all the OECD countries.

The member brings up a vexing problem. All of us want to ensure that unemployed people get jobs, for a job is the best social program of all. We also want to make sure the program is sufficiently attractive, so that when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own they will be taken care of but can also go back to work as soon as they are able. Next, we also want to make sure they have the skills and training to do that.

On the other side of this equation, as the member knows very well if he looks at the performance and experience of a lot of the socialist countries in northern Europe, if we make social programs such as EI too attractive, what we can unfortunately do is encourage unemployment and inefficiencies within economies.

There is a balance that we are trying to strike. On the one hand, we are trying to make sure that people are treated fairly and are taken care of when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. On the other hand, we do not want to engender a systemic problem within employment insurance that actually causes the exact problem we want to avoid, that is, unemployment.

Indeed, when the Liberal Party came into government in 1993 there was a $5.884 billion deficit in the EI account. Over the last few years there have been surpluses and there has been some criticism about that. There are events taking place right now in the world, particularly south of the border with U.S. deficit spending, that are going to have dramatic impacts upon our country. We have to deal with that.

Does my colleague not think the changes the government has put in place, including a reduction in the minimum hours and in the amount of moneys that have been paid by employees and employers, are a fair balance? Does he not think they ensure that we have a viable EI system, that it is there for the public and the investments we have made in skills training are useful, but on the other hand we are not making a system that is going to encourage or engender inefficiencies within our economy and encourage unemployment?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca might be interested to know that the changes to EI, when the government cut, hacked and slashed the provisions of EI to the point where virtually nobody qualifies anymore, cost his riding of Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca $28.3 million per year. Every year the poorest people in his riding are denied unemployment insurance to the tune of $28.3 million a year. Let us imagine the effect that has. That has the effect of pushing the working poor into the ranks of poverty.

That was the impact in my riding. This takes people who do work, although be it intermittently or when they can, and denies them the money that used to bridge periods of employment, thus pushing them onto the welfare rolls. It has a double negative effect in my riding. Not only does it cut off the flow of federal dollars to provide income maintenance in the riding, but people then have to go on the rolls of provincial social assistance. It pushes them onto welfare, so it has a double whammy negative effect.

My colleague is parroting the old yarn about how the best social program is a job. There are two designated uses for the EI fund. One is income maintenance and the other is training. The best bridge to re-entering the workforce is training. Those guys over there used the surplus to give their corporate buddies tax breaks instead of providing training to unemployed workers.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the Conservative member, who said he was once a trade union leader.

[An hon. member]

The NDP member.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I am sorry. I am referring to the speech made by the NDP member.

I would like to ask him a few questions. Being a union representative is interesting. If we applied the union process to the House, the demands of the union would relate to the 28 recommendations made by union members. We already know that the employer had $47 billion. Therefore, we were in a position to negotiate.

Why did the NDP choose to negotiate one recommendation out of 28? I do not understand that. The NDP should know what this process is about, when it comes down to negotiating and begging the employer. When a union negotiator knows the employer has money, he does not go down on his knees at the first meeting and say he will lower his expectations and settle for a single demand. Personally, I would feel uncomfortable telling union members that, after negotiating, I kept only one recommendation out of the 28, and, moreover, that I diluted it. I would have a problem with that. In my opinion, these union leaders would be fired at the first meeting with their members.

We are also told that the Bloc Québécois is only interested in going into an election, and does not want to protect anyone's interests. I cannot understand how these people think. They already know that the government is struggling with the sponsorship scandal. But they want to keep it in office, even though there is corruption everywhere.

We have had at least 20 majority votes in the House. For example, 187 members voted in favour of the motion on the RCMP, while 103 opposed it. Did the government respect the decision made by the members of this House? Not at all. How can we trust a minority government that does not respect the will of the members of this House, a government that is corrupted by the sponsorship scandal? Will we support it? No way. The Bloc Québécois will not support people who do not respect the word and the will of the members of this House.

Why did the NDP choose that recommendation for its motion, instead of a recommendation relating to POWA? Yet, that is one of the 28 recommendations. Does the NDP not care about seniors? Did it think about them? Perhaps it has already negotiated this. Perhaps the NDP will be seen as a saviour—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I am a trade unionist. I was a trade union leader in my former life. I know negotiations. I know enough to say that it is far better to be effective on one point than ineffective on all of one's positions, as we are seeing in the opposition parties.

I have a challenge for my colleague. There were 28 recommendations to improve EI. We are taking care of one today. My colleague's party has an opposition day tomorrow. Perhaps he would like to do something effective for a change and make a contribution around here. Perhaps he would like to bring forward an EI amendment for his party's opposition day tomorrow. We will support that one. That would leave only 26 improvements yet to make.

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca told me to say that unemployment in his riding is now at an historic low, to the point where they had to close the EI office and he hopes that they never open it again.

I also noticed that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned the carpenters' union. In my capacity as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, I had the opportunity to visit the carpenters' union apprentice training facility, which is close to highway 407, north of Toronto.

I congratulate my colleague and the union for the work they are doing in training apprentices there, apprentice carpenters and apprentice welders and a variety of others. I am really pleased that the federal government is able to work so closely with them and to support the work of the carpenters' union in developing really effective tradespeople and, in particular in the case of Toronto, in re-qualifying tradespeople from overseas.

My colleague knows there have been great improvements to EI. What does he think of the extension of maternity and parental benefits to one full year?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing the contribution that the carpenters' union makes to the well-being of the construction industry. I do not think there is a union in the country that is more engaged in apprenticeship training. They have a wonderful location in Toronto of which we are all proud. I send some of my own apprentices there for their training.

Having said that, I will note that the EI changes the government put in place began to penalize apprentices. We had apprentices dropping out because they could not afford to go through the two week penalty period when they left their jobs to go to their annual six weeks of schooling. When I was an apprentice, it was seamless. We finished on Friday, the last day of work, and on Monday the six week trade school component began. We began collecting EI right away, because we were not unemployed but in the trade school component.

These changes by the Liberal government were thoughtless in that they drove people out of apprenticeships by penalizing them as if they were unemployed and had to serve a waiting period.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been afforded the opportunity to respond to the motion by the hon. member for Acadie-Bathurst, who would like to see those workers who find themselves in areas of high unemployment—10% or more—receive EI benefits based on the best 12 weeks of their income from the previous year, instead of the best 14 weeks, as announced in February.

I salute the member. I know that he works very hard and is very passionate about this issue.

As my colleagues have said, over the next three years, we want to test whether this redesigned method of benefit rate calculation will encourage workers to accept available work that could otherwise lower their weekly EI benefit and they may otherwise refuse.

The concept of EI is simple. It is an insurance program that Canadians can rely on in times of temporary unemployment that provides benefits to eligible workers who, through no fault of their own, are without work but who are available for work. The underlying objective is to help unemployed Canadians prepare for, find and keep employment.

But while the basic concept is simple, the means of implementing it through the EI program are a little more complicated. The government must take into consideration many diverse interests and needs—sometimes conflicting—and find a balanced way to meet them. At the heart of the program is the need to make sure EI provides the support that unemployed Canadians need, while at the same time ensuring that the program's integrity and long-term viability are maintained.

Fortunately, the government has been consistently able to do that. Most objective observers would agree that EI is a Canadian success story.

Over the years, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers have been able to access the program in times of need and today the program remains stable.

A prudent approach to managing the EI program means the government has been able to consistently balance the program's objectives—that is, to provide temporary income support as well as assist people to find and keep work.

As outlined in the government response, the responsible course is to continue to pursue the balanced approach to the EI program, so it will continue to be there for Canadians when they need it. That does not mean the government should not make any changes to the program. On the contrary, it means the government must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and make adjustments to the program from time to time.

As a matter of fact, a look at the record will show that the government has clearly been willing to do just that. For example, in February of this year, in conjunction with budget 2005, the government announced approximately $300 million in new measures to enhance the EI program. These changes are expected to benefit more than 220,000 Canadian workers annually.

These new measures include three new pilot projects that take into account issues raised in the standing committee's report. These pilots will test the labour market impact of enhanced support in regions of “high” unemployment.

More specifically, the pilot projects will test the impact of the following three adjustments.

First, we want to enable individuals new to the labour market or returning after an extended absence to access EI benefits after 840 hours of work (rather than 910) when linked with EI employment programs.

Second, we suggest calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks of earnings over the 52 weeks preceding a claim for benefits to better reflect the full-time weeks of work for individuals with sporadic work patterns.

In addition, we want to increase the working-while-on-claim threshold to allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of benefits. This is designed to encourage people to take work without a reduction in their benefits.

These are important changes. They are in line with the recommendations of the standing committee. Now we have to study and evaluate their impact to see how they are working, before making any further changes.

Over the years, the government has demonstrated its willingness to make changes to the EI program to deal with specific issues that arise in the Canadian labour market.

Last year, for example, the government introduced a pilot project to test the impact of five additional weeks of benefits in regions of high unemployment. The government also modified, for EI purposes, the transitional boundaries in the economic regions of Madawaska—Charlotte, New Brunswick, and Lower St. Lawrence—North Shore, Quebec.

These measures had been introduced to meet special needs, and the government has decided they will be extended for another year.

In 1996, the government began monitoring and assessing the program on a continuing basis to make sure it would continue to meet the needs of Canadian workers.

As a result, each year the EI Commission produces its monitoring and assessment report on the program. Successive reports show that the program is working well for the majority of Canadians. They also show that the Canadian labour market is strong.

From time to time, however, a case is made for a change—either to respond to an unanticipated outcome of a particular measure or to strengthen the program in one way or another.

The elimination of the intensity rule is a good example. In 1996, the intensity rule was introduced to reduce reliance on EI and encourage work effort. When evidence indicated that the measure was not achieving its intended objective, the government intervened and eliminated it.

Similarly, when analysis showed that the clawback measure was having a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income claimants, the government moved to adjust it.

When the Government of Canada doubled the overall duration of maternity and parental benefits from six months to one full year beginning December 31, 2000, it carefully monitored the results. We were gratified to learn that, indeed, there had been a sharp increase in the following year of parents accessing parental benefits—up to 24.3%.

The government has a solid track record of adjusting and enhancing the EI program by following a prudent, balanced approach to change.

In making changes to EI, the government bases its decisions on a number of considerations: an ever-changing labour market; the program's annual monitoring and assessment report; and the recommendations initiated by stakeholders and bodies like the standing committee.

In the case of the standing committee's recommendations, as outlined earlier, the government has already acted in a number of positive ways. The government recognizes that certain EI clients continue to face challenges and it continues to work on examining the substance of issues raised by the standing committee.

I am confident that, if we continue to follow the kind of prudent, balanced approach to change that has served us so well in the past, the EI program will continue to be there for Canadians when they need it.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to express my thoughts on the matter and provide supporting arguments.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, but I wonder if she really believes in what she is saying. I will tell you why.

I am anxious to see how the Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces vote on Tuesday. Will they be in favour of the 12 best weeks in order to help the people in the Atlantic area, the people of Gaspé, of the Magdalen Islands, of Newfoundland and Labrador, of Cape Breton? What will the eastern MPs' position be?

I have seen a lot of this sort of thing before. The Liberals are good at it. A motion is presented in order to solve a problem, then they tell their members to vote in favour of it because otherwise they might pay for it at the next election. However, they are going to vote against it as a government. I can hardly wait to see what the eastern MPs will do on Tuesday. Will they support them again, even after having been taken in like that?

The member for Acadie—Bathurst is not the only one saying the best 12 weeks are needed. The Liberal MPs from the Atlantic ridings are saying so too.

What will the position of the Conservative members be on Tuesday, when the Atlantic members vote in favour of the best 12 weeks? If the system was working that well, why would the government have accepted 14 weeks when they knew that there are 1,500 people in Beauséjour and Petitcodiac who work 17 or 18 weeks out of the year and who broke the law by stockpiling time. I feel this is just one more scandal, if the problem of all workers is not settled.

With all due respect to my colleague, what explanation can she give me for playing along with the Liberals? When there are problems, they let their caucus members vote in favour of the solution. Then the others, as a government, are going to vote against it. Yet we are not asking for such a lot, just that the people with seasonal jobs get help.

I would like to know whether my colleague is going to support the best 12 weeks. The fish plant workers are the ones being punished here. The people who get minimum wage and then get only 55% of their earnings as EI. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said it at the beginning of my speech and I say it again directly to my friend from Acadie—Bathurst. I admire his passion in this matter. He never stops talking about his cause to anyone who will listen and anyone who will support him in this.

Of course, I understand the position of my colleagues from the Atlantic region. Everyone votes his or her own conscience. As a Liberal MP, I am very happy to say that I have been able to vote my conscience on several issues on which I had very firm views. I am thinking, among other things, of the anti-scab legislation. I had already said, even during the election campaign, that I would be in favour of such legislation. I was not afraid to say so and I was not afraid to emphasize it in regard to the motion on gasoline, and so forth.

Insofar as employment insurance is concerned—my friend is very aware of this—it is certainly a very touchy matter in Quebec. During my election campaign, under my beautiful signs—I thought they were very beautiful—there was always another little sign asking, “Who stole the employment insurance fund?” It came from a certain labour confederation that was—how might I phrase this—very “pro-my-friends-across-the-way”, the Bloc Québécois.

That being said, I am very aware that this is an extremely sensitive issue. However, in the context of this motion and the entire employment insurance issue, beyond the cheap rhetoric that you sometimes hear from certain quarters—I do not mean the member for Acadie—Bathurst at all—we must remember that the employment insurance fund has not always run surpluses. There are some important choices to make. People sometimes forget to mention that employers and employees have contributed to the employment insurance fund. The cost of contributions has gone down considerably. That is very good for the economy.

That being said, how can the right balance be found between 12 weeks and 14 weeks? It is not always easy. What I like about the measure proposed by a previous minister, as I mentioned in my speech, is the fact that things can be monitored and adjusted. What we should do in this connection is try to find answers to the irritants. That is certainly what we all try to do. I can never say enough how much I admire the passion that my friend brings to this. But are 12 weeks the solution—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Peterborough.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows and we know that improvements have been made in recent years to EI. For example, the extension of maternity and parental benefits to a full year, the elimination of the intensity rule, the elimination of the multiple waiting period for apprenticeship training programs to help apprentices, and the introduction of the new compassionate care benefit which allows workers to take time off to look after loved ones who are terminally ill.

In particular, in the current budget the three new pilot projects which affect 220,000 people a year will run for three years in regions of 10% or more of unemployment. This would allow the calculation of the best 14 weeks which would come in this fall thereby increasing the working while on claim benefits. This would also continue for a second year the pilot project providing an additional five weeks of EI benefits in these regions of high unemployment. And by the way, it would extend the transitional boundary measures in Quebec and New Brunswick. I wonder what the member thought of those.