House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pandemic.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. The sitting will therefore be suspended until noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:02 a.m.)
(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-50. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-50, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 25 on page 1 with the following:
“(a) the number of weeks of benefits set out in the table in Schedule I that applies in respect of a claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), in which case
(i) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is increased by the number of weeks by which the number of weeks of benefits set out in the table in Schedule I that applies in respect of the claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), and
ii) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant during the period that begins on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force and ends on September 11, 2010, if the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid to the claimant under subsection 12(2) is equal to or greater than 51 weeks as a result of the application of any of subsections 12(2.1) to (2.4), the length of the claimant’s benefit period is that maximum number of weeks increased by two weeks; or
(b) the number of weeks of benefits set out in Schedule 10 to the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 that applies in respect of a claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of sections 3 to 6 of An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits, introduced in the second session of the fortieth Parliament as Bill C-50, in which case
(i) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is increased by the number of weeks by which the number of weeks of benefits set out in that Schedule 10 that applies in respect of the claimant is increased as a result of the application of any of those sections 3 to 6, and
(ii) in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant during the period that begins on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force and ends on September 11, 2010, if the maximum number of weeks during which benefits may be paid to the claimant under that Schedule 10 is equal to or greater than 51 weeks as a result of the application of any of those sections 3 to 6, the length of the claimant’s benefit period is that maximum number of weeks increased by two weeks.”
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 26 on page 2 with the following:
“during the period that begins on January 4, 2009”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-50, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 6 with the following:
“begins on January 4, 2009 and ends”
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-50 and the technical amendments that are being made to it.
Bill C-50 is our government's proposed legislation to temporarily extend employment insurance regular benefits for unemployed long-tenured workers. For the purpose of this legislation, long-tenured workers are defined as Canadians who have paid EI premiums for years but have made limited use of EI regular benefits.
Of the Canadians who have lost their jobs since the end of January 2009 and made an EI claim, about one-third are long-tenured workers. Many of these people have worked in the same industry and even at the same job for most of their adult lives. However, now, because of the recession, they find themselves unemployed. Bill C-50 would give these workers additional weeks of employment insurance while they look for new jobs.
Specifically, this measure would provide from five to twenty additional weeks of EI regular benefits depending on how long a long-tenured worker has been employed and paying EI premiums. We estimate about 190,000 workers would benefit from this.
These people have worked hard, have paid their taxes and, of course, have paid their EI premiums. It is only fair and right that we should help them during this temporary downturn.
Bill C-50 is a temporary measure. It is designed to give long-tenured workers the short-term support they need to rebuild their lives. Our hope is that their fortunes will improve as the economy rebounds. However, in the meantime, we want to make sure these extra weeks of benefits available to eligible workers are available as soon as possible.
That brings me back to the amendment. Originally, the start date for eligibility was linked to the coming into force of this bill. However, we want to allow time for a full debate. At the same time, we want to ensure that all eligible long-tenured workers have full access to the extended benefits, even if royal assent is delayed.
That is why we are proposing a technical amendment to establish a fixed date of January 4, 2009 for eligibility. This would ensure that all long-tenured workers who have lost their jobs in 2009 will be eligible for additional weeks of benefits regardless of how long it takes for the bill to be approved.
The establishment of a fixed date would not affect long-tenured workers' ability to claim extended benefits until September 11, 2010, nor would it affect the payment of these extended benefits into the fall of 2011.
As I have said, Bill C-50 is a temporary measure. Long-tenured workers receiving extended benefits can expect a gradual transition back to normal terms and conditions. To that end, beginning in June of 2011, the level of additional benefits would be reduced in five-week increments. We believe that Bill C-50 would come as great comfort to long-tenured workers who may be worried about exhausting their benefits before they can find a new job.
As we have been looking at this bill over the last couple of weeks in the HUMA committee, some concerns have been raised. People wondered why there is the cutoff, how we can protect the greatest number of jobs, et cetera. It is great that NDP members have been willing to support this part. They realize that there would be almost 190,000 people who would benefit from and have access to this.
People have asked us why this would be in effect for 2009. That is clearly when a lot of the unemployment occurred. We realize there was unemployment before then, and that is why we have extended benefits by up to five weeks, and over 300,000 people have benefited. We have expanded our work-sharing program and protected over 165,000 jobs. Work-sharing programs are something that probably a lot of Canadians are not familiar with, but I think they have been very practical and they make a lot of sense.
We have companies that may be struggling and do not need all of their workers at this point in time because of the economy. EI has been able to go in and work with these companies and have them work-share, so that employees may only work three or four days a week and are able to collect some EI. I think that is a very practical measure.
As we heard from some of our witnesses last week, people are concerned about who would have a chance to claim these benefits. I think 190,000 people speaks volumes in terms of who can receive this benefit at this particular time.
The other thing I want to make note of, and we have talked about it before in previous debates, is the fact that this government has frozen EI premiums. This is a particularly difficult time right now for business. I know that freezing EI premiums has been a good thing, not only for business people and businesses but also for those Canadians who would have to pay those EI premiums.
I know there are a number of things we have been looking at, what we have been delivering and what we have been able to deliver on. We believe that some of the money that has been set aside, over $0.5 billion, for training for long-tenured workers could help up to 40,000 Canadians. We realize we have an additional $1.5 billion for training for those who are on EI and who do not necessarily qualify. We are helping about 150,000 people on top of the $2.5 billion that we already spend annually on training. I think these are important things.
We realize that as the economy shifts sometimes we lose some of these industries in towns that have been dependent on some of these jobs, certain companies and industries over time. One of the ways we believe we can help these workers is by training them for the jobs of the future. That is why this government has been very committed to continually spending money on training.
We have also looked at $60 million for helping older workers. We realize the kind of invaluable knowledge and experience they have. We realize the kind of potential they have. I think this is something that is so important, that we continue to deal with these challenging times.
I just want to talk about some of the comments that we have heard from individuals.
This is from Mr. Lazar, president of the Forest Products Association of Canada:
The investments in worker training through EI, the extension of the EI work-sharing program...are welcome initiatives that will help more Canadians keep their jobs and employers hold onto talented workers.
We have the Michelin company where 500 employees are benefiting from work-sharing. The company spokesperson, Karen Gordon, said:
The work-share program has allowed us to avoid lay-offs and maintain our workforce...The program is a win-win-win for the company, our employees and the government and positions us well to rebound quickly when market demand returns.
I want to say that obviously if some of these employees had to go and find other work in these situations, that when the economy does turn around and I do believe the economy will turn around, we would end up with companies that are not ready to hit the ground running. They would have lost valuable talent and valuable employees who were trained specifically in their jobs for these companies. It would make it difficult for some of these companies to rebound and be able to move quickly when the economy turns around.
I have some other quotes that I think are worth talking about, as well. I know that as we look at some of the challenges we have had to deal with, some of these initiatives have made a whole lot of sense in terms of being able to keep the continuity going for these companies.
I know that the NDP leader from Toronto—Danforth has said:
--without extended benefits, tens of thousands of Canadians will slide off EI and onto welfare...My party cannot, in good conscience, vote down legislation that is a step in the right direction.
I want to finish by asking the members of this House to back this amendment here and now because it is the fair and right thing to do, so that unemployed long-tenured workers can get the benefits they deserve as soon as possible and with no penalty for the time it takes this place to pass the bill.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, as chair of our committee, my colleague has heard testimony from people about Bill C-50.
I want to ask him a question about one of the real concerns that has been raised about this bill, which is its clearly discriminatory nature in terms of picking winners and losers, indicating that some people should be entitled to extended benefits and some should not. I am quoting now from the 2009-10 estimates where the minister herself, in touting the extra five weeks that was provided to all EI beneficiaries, says:
--including extending five extra weeks of benefits, which is now only available in some regions, to all Canadians.
She is saying this is a good thing because it goes to all Canadians regardless of their circumstances and what industry they come from. That is a good point. There is some sense to everybody getting benefits equally.
However, this bill goes in the other direction. This is now saying that some people should be entitled to benefits and some should not.
I wonder if my colleague could address the discrepancy between those two positions taken by the same minister.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of different options on the table and obviously one was to eliminate the waiting period. We have tried to affect the most amount of people as possible.
We heard that a number of people have been working in these industries for many years and have always paid into the system but never collected. Now that the economy has turned around on them they have not been able to collect some of these benefits for the length of time that they feel might be helpful.
We are hopeful that the economy will turn around. If we could add extra weeks for the people who have been paying into EI for many years, then they would have the opportunity to find work or hope for the economy to turn around so they could go back to the places they had been working before.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague mentioned the fact that this bill is basically aimed at so-called long-tenured workers. What he did not say is that these workers have all been working for more than seven years. Other conditions also apply. They must have paid at least 30% of the annual maximum EI premiums for a number of years and they must not have received regular EI benefits for more than 35 weeks.
First of all, my colleague should recognize that, as it stands now, this bill targets only 6% of unemployed workers and that the amendment proposed today will make these new measures even less accessible. I want my colleague to consider this. He may refer to Motion No. 1 that proposes new subparagraph 1(a)(i), which reads as follows:
in respect of a benefit period established for the claimant on or after January 4, 2009 that has not ended on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force—
This means that, right now, two large regions of Quebec are already totally excluded, namely Quebec City and Hull, and that as early as next week, four more regions will be excluded.
Is my colleague willing to admit this?
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way works hard and works well on our committee.
One of the things that was of a concern when we looked at the economic action plan was the fact that maybe more EI benefits needed to be added. That is why we looked at an additional five weeks for everyone.
This government has taken a number of initiatives. Work-sharing was one of those, as was freezing EI premiums. There are a bunch of other issues and things that we have done.
People have worked 7, 10, 15, 20 years in some of these industries and these industries have been strong. They have done great things for their communities. Here they are in this position, through no fault of their own, because of what has happened in the economy.
It was decided that because some of these industries are the staple of their communities, they needed extra help. That is why we looked at extending from 5 to 20 extra weeks for some of these long-tenured workers.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, we are here today discussing Bill C-50, which has now come back from committee.
The position of the Liberal Party has not changed on the bill. We think that there are numerous problems with this bill in terms of what it does to impact people who were the victims of a very difficult recession in this country.
It was a very interesting process at committee. Normally, at a committee, when somebody comes with a bill, particularly a government bill, we have a number of witnesses who say, “I like it. Go ahead”, and others who say, “I do not like it. Stop it”. What we had this time, and I am sure the member for Chambly—Borduas would concur with this as well as other members of the HR committee, were largely two groups of people who came to the committee.
We had people who came and said, “This is not a good bill. This is a discriminatory bill. It does not help enough people. It does not go back far enough. It does not do enough to cushion the blow of this recession. You should vote it down”.
We had others who came to the committee and said, “We do not like it. It is not our priority for employment insurance. We know that there are further changes that are necessary, but with these guys, we better take what we can get. In light of that, perhaps you should support it and try to get something else”.
We have been talking about employment insurance in this House, as Canadians have in the country, for the better part of the last year. Before that, it was an issue, but particularly in the last year with this recession, people have been very concerned. What have people been asking about? What have people called for in terms of EI?
For a number of years, we have had public sector unions, policy think tanks and a host of people who have looked at this issue. They have said that there are ways in which we can adjust EI. I think we can all understand that. They have said, “There were changes made in the 1990s as a result of the economic circumstance that this country was in. Maybe we should look at what we did then. Maybe it is time to have some new reforms. What would you do?”
There are people who have been talking for a long time about changes: a national standard of 360 hours or some such variation on that national standard; eliminating the two week waiting period, as our colleague from Brome—Missisquoi has in a private member's bill that will be coming back to this House; increasing the rate of benefits from 55% to 60%; looking at the divisor rule; and looking at how we calculate benefits and perhaps going to the best 12 weeks.
There are all kinds of ways that we can change employment insurance. I would not say that we should do all of those things. I am an advocate for employment insurance reform. I do not know exactly what I would do, but I know I would not let it go the way it is now. I know that I would invest in employment insurance so that people who need the benefit can get it.
I do not think people are fully aware in Canada that our EI system is not as robust as most nations to which we want to compare ourselves. We think we are very generous in terms of employment insurance. We should keep in mind that this is the money that employers and employees have put aside for difficult times, but our system does not fare well compared to some others.
In the 1990s, when the economy was good and it was strong and we had surpluses, we reduced EI premiums for both the employers and employees for 12 years in a row. That was one period of time. We could argue about what should have been done then, but in a recession, in a difficult time, this is when we should invest in EI.
We have had the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Caledon Institute, the CLC and the CAW telling us what things they would like to see, but it is not just them. TD Economics is urging the government to immediately ease the VER and extend EI. VER is the variable entrance requirements. We need to ensure that people get access to EI across the board.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce gave advice to the government last year, when it suggested that the federal government could consider temporary measures to ease access to EI during the recession, reducing the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits and suspending the two week waiting period.
That was the Chamber of Commerce in December saying we should look at the two week waiting period. The CSN referred to the waiting period, the universal entitlement of 360 hours, and increasing the benefit level.
The wife of the Minister of Finance gave him very good advice earlier this year when she suggested, in her complaints:
--many people who lose a job cannot qualify for EI under current rules. Ideally, the federal government will quickly reform EI to better meet Ontario's needs.
She was talking about a standard for employment insurance that would better meet the needs of Canadians, and in her case, of Ontarians.
We had all the premiers, it seems, in the country, all the western premiers, suggesting that we needed to do something about a national standard. We had the premier of B.C. saying that if people fell off EI, then they were going to go onto the provincial welfare rolls.
We had premier after premier saying that something needed to be done to reform EI but Bill C-50 does not do that. It is clearly not enough.
Members of the House have put forward private member's bills. In March, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day that called for the elimination of the two week waiting period, a national standard of 360 hours going to 60% of insurable earnings, going to a best 12 weeks divisor and referring to some kind of a self-employment piece. Those are the priorities of the New Democrats, which I think reflect the priorities of many Canadians. Bill C-50 is woefully short on that measure.
The head of the CAW, in referring to Bill C-50, said that Canadians “need a full loaf of bread”. He suggested that it was just crumbs.
Armine Yalnizyan of CCPA indicated that the program's restrictions act against the nature of much of Canada's industry.
Laurell Ritchie of the CAW said that it was only handfuls.
The bill has not received any kind of universal enthusiastic support. Some people have said that perhaps we need to take what we can get and move on, but we need to look at this seriously and ask whether this is good legislation and whether we can seriously adopt a piece of social infrastructure that discriminates against so many Canadians.
The government's own estimates are that 190,000 people will benefit. I do not know if that is true. I asked people at committee if it was true but they could not tell me because they did not have access to the kind of information that HRSDC does. What does the government do with that information?
In the summer, I remember the Conservatives suggesting that a 360 hour national standard would cost $4.4 billion. The next week they apologized and said that it would be $2.5 billion. It turns out that it would be less than $1.3 billion. Therefore, we do not have a lot to work with on this.
Pierre Céré came to committee on Bill C-50 and said:
First, we disagree with the approach taken. The government has chosen to use legislation to play a political trick...when [on September 14] it could simply have announced a pilot project....
He suggested that it did not even have to be in legislation. He also said “the problems with the employment insurance system have not been addressed at all, including the pressing problem of eligibility”.
At the end of July this past summer, the 10 premiers of the 10 provinces called on the Prime Minister to resolve this problem. Most Quebec municipalities signed a declaration demanding that the eligibility question be solved at the federal level. The FCM, as well as many economists, observers, associations, unions and even the churches called on the government to resolve the eligibility problem.
We have a bill that is a discriminatory. As I referenced earlier in a question for my colleague, the chair of our committee, the minister herself, in touting the five week extension, said that extending five extra weeks of benefits which was then only available in some regions to all Canadians. So she is saying that what we are doing is giving a benefit that some Canadians have to pilot projects and we are giving it to all Canadians. What could be more fair?
Now we have a circumstance where the government has introduced a bill that picks winners and losers. It does not cushion the blow of what is called the early shock troops of the recession, those who lost their jobs a year ago now and are not eligible for any of the benefit no matter how long they have been on EI. We do not think that is fair.
The conundrum that we have as a party is what to do in this circumstance. We do not want to see people further disenfranchised. For example, when the bill came to committee it would have come into force in a way that meant if we gave it suitable study it would mean people who were laid off after January 4 might not get benefits. We indicated at committee that while we did not support the bill, one of the reasons we did not support it was that it did not affect enough workers. We certainly did not want to disenfranchise any more.
In our view, Bill C-50 is not a suitable response to the recession. It decides that some people are worthy of employment insurance and some are not. We do not think that is the way Canadians look at our social infrastructure system. We do not think that would be done with medicare or with any other social infrastructure. We think it is the wrong way to go about it. It is not a suitable response and we will be voting against the bill when it comes back.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, for shedding some light on this debate.
This bill is not worthy of being passed. I think that the member was absolutely right. It is a Conservative bill or, more accurately, an NDP bill. The NDP leader said that he asked for it himself. He gave himself a pat on the back. I do not know if he will be doing the same today.
The member also spoke about the fact that this is a discriminatory bill. It also appears as though he had some doubts about the number of unemployed workers who would be affected by this bill. He is not the first to question that. The government is claiming that it will cost $1 billion, and we have asked senior departmental and NDP officials how they reached this figure. We never got an answer.
Did the Liberals get one? If so, can they tell us how this figure was arrived at, and whether it is correct?
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point. He expressed his view at committee in terms of the affront that this was to Parliament and particularly to our committee.
On October 6, the minister came to talk to us about this bill. One question raised was how she came up with 190,000 people affected and $935 million total benefit. She said that she would get back to us. In fact, we did not get an answer until we went into clause by clause. It was either my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst or my colleague from Chambly—Borduas who actually asked for those answers to the questions we asked at the first meeting, and then we got an answer. That is totally unacceptable.
A member of the Conservatives said that we did not keep asking. When we ask for information at a parliamentary committee and we are told that we will receive the information from the minister and her officials and we do not get it, that is indicative of how the government goes about its business, particularly on EI. I think it is shameful.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
He said that workers need help. We are experiencing an economic crisis and more. My Liberal colleague was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, like the other witnesses, said that he was not enthusiastic about the bill. He thought it did not go far enough, and that more changes needed to be made to EI. The Liberals' cuts in 1996 took a toll on workers. However, at the end, he asked the committee and all the parties to vote in favour of the bill, because he did not want workers to be denied what little they have been offered.
How can the official opposition vote against something, when it is clear that the organization representing the largest number of workers in Canada is asking them to support it? One women said that her EI was running out, and she asked members to pass the bill. How can the Liberals vote against this bill, when they were the ones who made the cuts to EI in 1996?
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a number of people said that they did not like it, that they did not think it was a priority but that it was all they would get from the government. That is hardly a ringing endorsement.
However, in terms of supporting this, in January, the government's inadequate response was an extra five weeks for everybody and more money for employment and training. That was much more than Bill C-50 but members of the NDP voted against it. In their defence, they had indicated that before they saw it, so they have a certain defence in that case, but that was for everybody. They voted against it and they condemn us because we stand up against a discriminatory bill that hurts some people. I do not think that is consistent.
Bill C-50 is not the right response to the current economic conditions and we are opposed to it.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House on my party's behalf about this important bill, Bill C-50.
I think it is important because it shows the Conservative government and the NDP's true colours when it comes to employment insurance. It is quite disturbing. This is a bad bill, and we do not support it.
We are not the only ones in Quebec who do not support this bill. People are pretty much unanimous. Unions are unanimous, and they represent 1.2 million workers. If we consider the families of those workers as well, over 2.5 million of the 8 million people in our province are against it. So are all unemployed workers' organizations.
The people most affected by this bill will be unemployed workers, and their organizations do not like it. I will go on to explain why they do not like it. The forestry industry is unanimous in its opposition as well.
The Canadian Federation of Woodlot Owners has spoken out in favour of this bill, but when asked if people in Quebec felt the same way, they said no. We came to the same conclusion. The reason such unanimity exists in Quebec is that the Conservatives are turning their backs on Quebec, and so is the NDP.
Why does everyone agree on this? My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour explained why earlier: this bill is discriminatory because it introduces the utterly distasteful and unjustified principle that unemployed workers fall into two camps: good ones and bad ones. This bill is also mean because it is designed to exclude as many people as possible.
Earlier, my Conservative colleague said that this bill targets long-tenured workers. It is arbitrary because it excludes workers who have worked fewer than seven years. Nobody who has worker fewer than seven years will be affected by this measure or benefit from it.
In addition, all workers who have worked for more than seven years but who did not contribute 30% of the employee's premium for 10, 12 or 15 years, for example, depending on their situation, will also be excluded.
And individuals who have been unfortunate enough to receive employment insurance for more than 35 weeks will be excluded, even if they have worked for more than seven years. Who is left? Not very many people, considering that everyone with a precarious job is also excluded. When we do the math based on the government's approach, we reach the conclusion that only 6% of EI recipients can hope to benefit from this bill. That is a far cry from 190,000 unemployed. We are talking about roughly 47,900 people.
When officials come to talk to us about 190,000 unemployed, they say that this will extend over three years and so we have to multiply by the number of generations of unemployed. At that rate, we could say that instead of spending $21 billion a year on national defence, our government will spend $420 billion because the spending is spread over 20 years. You can take that sort of logic to extremes. But, in a budget debate, the government is used to quoting figures based on a snapshot of the economy at a given point.
How many workers are unemployed at present? Between 1.7 million and 1.8 million. How many people are receiving benefits? There are 765,000. If we take that figure and multiply it by 6%, we get 45,900.
Why is the government misleading the House and the public? By inflating the figures, it is trying to make people accept the unacceptable, namely principles that are completely disgraceful and totally discriminatory. That is what the NDP is doing. The government is making entitlement contingent on hours of employment, how much the claimant has paid in premiums and how many weeks of benefits he or she has already received.
The Conservative member said that long-tenured workers are people who have worked hard, as if everyone else had not worked hard. He said that they are people who have paid taxes, as if everyone else had not paid taxes.
We do not buy that. We cannot support that. Parliament is going to support discriminatory rules, but we are totally opposed to that. This bill is a symbolic political gesture that the government is trying to justify by dressing it up in lace and frills. It is also an insult to people's intelligence. It is important to say here that the government is not going to address the need for comprehensive EI reform with piecemeal measures like these, which create good and bad classes of unemployed workers.
The parties, including the Conservatives, have agreed on some measures in the past, measures that we in the opposition unanimously agree on here today, including for example, improving accessibility to employment insurance, since the majority of workers have been deliberately excluded from EI benefits. The previous government wanted to accumulate a surplus and use that money for other things. So unemployed workers and employers were relieved, not to say robbed, of $57 billion. The government used that $57 billion for other things.
These measures include the 360-hour eligibility criterion with, of course, the possibility of a 70-hour reduction, based on the number of unemployed workers per region. Instead of 45 weeks, 50 weeks of benefits are needed, as well as 60% of earnings. At present, people received 55% of their income. These are some of the measures on which we agreed. Our NDP friends have been fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and have forgotten these crucial measures, along with the notion of being entitled to benefits based on good faith. Furthermore, the two week waiting period must be eliminated.
Instead, we have a government that has locked up the employment insurance fund. It is making sure that premiums remain at their minimum, so there are not enough resources to improve the system, even though everyone agrees that the current problem is not related to premiums. People are willing to accept higher premiums in order to benefit from social measures that will allow people who unfortunately lose their jobs to continue to feed their families.
We are seeing the old Conservative theory of taking away every possible means, so they can later justify the fact that they do not want to improve conditions for our citizens. The Conservatives did this with the GST. They are doing it again with employment insurance premiums.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, in a way, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas is accusing the NDP of wanting to pass Bill C-50 with the Conservatives. I am in favour of this bill. We have said that we will vote in favour of this bill. However, it is as though the hon. member from the Bloc is trying to tell us that no one in Quebec would benefit from this. As though no one has worked 12 months a year in the last seven to ten years and no one is affected by this economic crisis.
I agree with the hon. member from the Bloc when he says that we need more than this and that everyone should benefit from it. He is very familiar with our bills. We are familiar with theirs. We have worked together. It is true that we want better than this, but there is a bill currently on the table.
My question for him is the following: is he prepared to say that in Quebec no worker will benefit from this bill and that the workers he is saying no to will be pleased? People who have worked for 10 or 15 years and who are going through this economic crisis would lose the little bit that the House of Commons is giving them. We are not voting on a budget, but on a specific bill that could help certain workers. I am proud of that and I will say so in my speech. At least we will be helping, even if we are not in the government. A government is in place and it is offering something for workers. This is not the first discriminatory bill. I have seen the Bloc vote in favour of similar bills that were not good for all Canadians. I will talk about that later in my speech.
I would like to know whether the hon. member is prepared to say no to certain long-tenured workers who have lost their jobs in Quebec during the economic crisis.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the problem is to find them and then, when we do, they are represented by unions and associations representing the unemployed, which say that rather than putting in place a measure that discriminates against their colleagues, they prefer to continue fighting for a more equitable measure. That is why Quebec is unanimous.
I see that the NDP, like the Conservatives, has turned its back on Quebec. That is their decision, that is their right. However, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He is one of the members who told the minister that he would vote for the bill because the cut-off date had to be eliminated, meaning that we must quickly adopt the bill to ensure that people can benefit from it nevertheless. I do not know if he realizes it, but the amendment allows the government to do indirectly what it said it would not do directly. I refer him to clause 1(a)(i), which indicates that those who obtain benefits at a later date are not included.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who is passionate about this subject.
Would it make sense if we had a health care system and the government would decide that those who had not used this system should have more access to it because they were more deserving of health care than those who consistently used the system? There is a parallel between seasonal workers who need to use the system, who then get penalized under this bill and are told they are not as deserving as others. Does he see any parallels along that line?
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has given a very good example. It can be applied to health care. Say that you have already used the health care system. According to this principle, you would no longer be entitled to use it. You would have to come back in seven, ten or fifteen years. That is the yardstick. The same thing would apply, unfortunately, if you had a piece of furniture in your living room that burnt and you called your insurance agent. Six or seven years later, when something else burns, you want to file a claim with your insurance company. However, you are told that you will have to wait another year. It is the same principle, except more serious because we are not talking about goods but about real life and the quality of peoples' lives.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50 and, at the same time, to see the Bloc Québécois, which accuses us of siding with the Conservatives, siding so strongly with the Liberals, the grandmasters of EI cuts. I was listening to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talk about how discriminatory this bill was, how it does not help all people, all workers. He was wondering how the government could be doing so little in a piece of legislation put forward during times of economic crisis.
I do not want to speak only of the Liberals in my speech, but I recall that, in 1996, there was a crisis in the fisheries industry in the Gaspé, in New Brunswick and throughout Atlantic Canada. This industry was going through a crisis, and that was when we experienced the worse cuts to employment insurance. Strangely enough, at the time, the Liberals were not concerned about discrimination. In some places, 700 hours of work were required, and in others, 420 hours. Claimants were all workers, good hard-working people. Yet, there were different classes of workers. In some regions, in spite of having worked more hours, workers did not qualify for EI. It is funny how we did not hear anything about discrimination at that time. This morning, however, all we are hearing about is discrimination.
Ask me the following questions and ask them of the NDP. Does the bill go far enough? Absolutely not, not at all. This is not an NDP bill. It is a government bill. We have looked at the bill. Are we happy with it? Absolutely not. We are not happy with it. Is the employment insurance system the same for everyone? Did the Liberals vote with us on the 360 hour standard of eligibility? They never did when in power. Did the Liberals approve the 12 best weeks formula when in power? Of course not. We have seen people suffer in our region because of the cuts to EI. Who has made EI what it is today? They should not come and suggest today that the current economic crisis is to blame. We had an economic crisis in our region at those days, and the human resources minister was from Atlantic Canada. It was one of our own who, as a minister, made cuts to EI. If we want to talk about discrimination, there has been discrimination in the past and there is still discrimination today.
But can we say no to a particular group? I know the Bloc Québécois is pressing the question of whether it is $1 billion and 190,000 people. I hope we will never reach that number. I hope that people will not lose their jobs. I hope they will not need to claim employment insurance benefits. But what am I going to tell people back home, when last week, Aliant said it was closing its doors in Bathurst and Shippagan? What am I going to tell people back home, when TNS Canadian Facts, another call centre company, has announced this morning that it is closing down in Bathurst? These are people who have worked there a long time and are not eligible for employment insurance. If we do this, at least, people will be entitled to benefits. Their benefits will be extended.
I am certain that Quebec is not exempt from this. There is an economic crisis in Quebec as much as anywhere else. When the Bloc Québécois member says that Quebec and Quebeckers are being ignored, that is not true. This is not a bill put forward by the NDP. We are not ignoring them. There is a bill and there are people in Quebec who are going to have the chance to receive benefits. The fewer unemployed, the better it will be, just as it is where I come from.
How can we say no to these people? Some will say that we have opposed certain employment insurance measures at certain times. Yes, we said no to certain changes to employment insurance when they were part of budgets, when the government wanted to freeze public service salaries, freeze RCMP salaries, when they told women they would not be able to go to court if they wanted pay equity. When we looked at the budget, yes, we voted against it because it was a bad budget that was going to harm other people. In this case, yes, there are people who are not receiving benefits and we would like them to receive benefits. Yes, I would like the people back home, the seasonal workers, to be able to receive employment insurance. Yes, they have been working for years.
Last week I spoke with a woman from Prince Rupert who is a union representative. She explained that the same thing is happening where she comes from as where I come from. There are closings in the fish plants and closings in the fishery. It is the same problem.
How many times have we voted on bills in this House when they were not for the benefit of all Canadians? For the five additional weeks we voted on three or four years ago, that was only because the unemployment rate was at a certain level. Not everyone was entitled to the five additional weeks. When we went for the 14 best weeks, not all Canadians, and not all Quebeckers, received that. At that time, the Bloc Québécois voted for the measure. It was discriminatory, everyone should have known that.
Today, we have a bill that can help a group of people. This is what we must vote on, and the decision we must make is whether or not we will grant that help. The Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against the bill. That is their right, and I respect that. The Liberals have decided not to help long-tenured workers, people who have worked for whatever number of years is required in the bill. They will not support it. That is right. The NDP has decided that even if there is not much money, we can still take it out of the EI fund to give to these workers. I would prefer to give the workers this money than to leave it in the consolidated revenue fund, where the EI fund's $57 billion surplus is found. That is what the vote will be on. Do we want this money to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund, where it went in the big Ottawa theft from the EI fund, and given to certain workers?
The Canadian Labour Congress appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and made it very clear. The president, Ken Georgetti, very clearly said that he was not happy, but that he still wanted us to vote in favour of the bill. He said that his members across the country are in need, and that is why he does not want us to vote against the bill.
The Quebec labour unions also appeared. The FTQ representative said that instead of a bill, it could have been a pilot project. He was not very happy it was a bill and was not in favour of it. A pilot project would have been just as discriminatory as a bill. I fail to see the difference. People can go and read the blues, the record of the discussions. He said it very clearly. He said it should have been a pilot project. I asked him what that would change. He told me he would not have had to come here and argue about something that was not going to happen anyway. He was not really opposed to working people getting it. When he said it could have been a pilot project, I inferred that would have been acceptable. The government certainly could have decided to have a pilot project. That would have been faster. It would have been done and finished, as they have with other bills. But we do not have a pilot project today, we have a bill. We are stuck with saying yes or no. The Liberals took a $57 billion surplus from the employment insurance fund in 1996. They are the ones who made this change during an economic crisis in the Atlantic region. There was then and still is an economic crisis there. When someone asks whether we have been affected by the economic crisis, we say we have been in it for 100 years. We know all about it. This is not the first time we have been mistreated by the Liberals or the Conservatives.
The biggest mistake in the employment insurance system was back in 1986 when the government decided to take the EI money and put it into the consolidated revenue fund. Employment insurance has been the government’s cash cow ever since. Who is dependent on employment insurance? It is not working people any more, it is the government, because there are big surpluses in it.
Is the NDP ashamed to vote in favour of this bill? Not at all. It will not do anyone any harm and will help some people in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. The NDP has bills calling for 360 hours, the best 12 weeks, getting rid of the two week waiting period, and giving employees 60% of their salaries. These are bills that have been tabled by the NDP and we have more of them. We have 12 of them, while the Bloc Québécois has only 6. Does Bill C-50 go far enough? No. Will it help working people? Yes, and the NDP is proud to vote in favour of this bill.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right to say that they are stuck with this bill.
However, his leader did not say he was stuck with this bill. On the contrary, as soon as the bill was introduced, he rushed to the lobby to tell people that he had called for these measures and that this was a victory for the NDP. It is $1 billion. We are therefore stuck with this bill today.
I do not doubt my colleague's passion, and I greatly admire the way he defends the unemployed. But I find it incredible that he is defending the indefensible measures the Conservatives have put forward. He is doing the work of the Conservatives. It is unimaginable. The CLC told us half-heartedly that it was in favour of this bill, but it has also abandoned Quebec. The FTQ is fundamentally opposed to the bill.
There is one question my colleague did not answer, so I will ask it again. I know that he feels very strongly about this amendment, because he said that there should be no deadline that would delay its adoption. But paragraph (a)(i) of Motion No. 1 reads as follows:
in respect of a benefit period established...on the day on which this subsection is deemed to have come into force—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, order.
Order, please. The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my leader pointed out that we called for changes to employment insurance and that now we are seeing changes.
The Bloc Québécois leader is not in a position to stand up and say that he called for changes to employment insurance and got them. I do not think that the Bloc has anything to boast about. Maybe the Bloc feels sad that it did not get anything for Quebec workers. Maybe it feels jealous that the NDP did. Maybe that is what they find so disheartening. Maybe that is why my Bloc colleague is feeling so discouraged.
But maybe he doesn't feel that way because he is glad that the NDP will be voting for this bill. Maybe he would be upset if the NDP voted against it. He would be terribly upset if the NDP said no to all those Quebec workers. That is why he is glad that he can hide behind the NDP and not vote for the bill because the NDP will vote for it. That way, his party can keep up its NDP-bashing.
Maybe it would be better if, instead of talking to unions, the Bloc talked to workers who have no money and whose benefits are about to run out. We want to give these people up to 20 extra weeks of employment insurance benefits. Maybe the Bloc should talk to workers. Maybe it should talk to a single mother who has lost her job and has no money for her kids. Maybe it should ask her if she thinks that Bill C-50 is a good idea. I am sure that she would tell my colleague that he is making a terrible mistake.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, you do such a wonderful job in this House cooling the passions.
I had a phone call last week from a worker who is going to lose his house this winter. He exists. He is not a phantom. He is not against Quebec as the Bloc members try to say. That worker called me and asked how quickly this was going to come through because he is in the January cutoff. He asked why this is being debated and I told him that I did not know. This is an issue about one piece of EI legislation that needs to get out.
I long ago realized with the Bloc members that I do not know how they rattle the I Ching bones in their tent on how they vote on an issue, but the Liberals voted to kill pay equity for women and did not lose an ounce of sleep. They voted to get rid of environmental protection on our riverways and did not lose an ounce of sleep. They voted to deep-six Kyoto and did not lose an ounce of sleep.
Now the Liberals come into the House and say that they cannot support any change to EI unless it is a change of everything. I am amazed at the cynicism of the Liberal Party. I gave up on the Bloc ages ago.
There is $1 billion on the table that is going to help workers. It is helping workers in my riding and ridings across Canada.
Why does my colleague think that the Liberals are putting the political aspirations of their leader who could be on EI at any time ahead of average working Canadians?