Debates of Feb. 24th, 2009

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on February 2. The response, frankly, was not an answer and I thought I would take this opportunity to chat about it again.

My question was about comments the minister had made in referring to the EI system. When asked why she had not opened up the EI program more and made it more available across the country, and perhaps made the benefits a little more accessible for people who are now not working, she made the comment that she did not want to make EI too lucrative, that she did not want to pay people not to work. That statement is offensive to Canadians. Let us take a look at the situation.

There were signals before the stimulus package came down that EI would be radically overhauled. It was already clear that EI was going to be a very important part of the social infrastructure for Canadians who were losing their jobs. In the budget, the minister added five weeks, included some money for retraining and a few other things, but did nothing about the two week waiting period, did nothing about the critical issue of evening out access across the country so that all Canadians could have access to EI.

People who pay into EI should have access to EI. It does not seem all that complicated a formula. As a stimulus, EI is particularly useful.

Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business referred to a survey which indicated that when different types of spending measures were ranked in terms of stimulus, spending on employment insurance actually came out at 1.61. This means that every dollar disbursed to someone who is unemployed generates $1.61 of economic growth. It is more significant than infrastructure. It is certainly more significant than tax cuts. It is certainly far more significant than the tax cuts that were in the budget which disproportionately favour those who need help the least.

Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said that six out of ten Canadians do not get EI. Everybody agrees that is a problem, but the government inexplicably decided to ignore the problem. That will lead to disaster.

Even Finn Poschman of the C.D. Howe Institute said, “It is surprising, given how much money is being spent on initiatives of one kind or another that the government couldn't find ways to ease access for laid-off workers”.

If we want to help people on EI, there is a myriad of ways we can do it. We could eliminate the two week waiting period, which in many ways is an affront to Canadians. It is similar to saying that they should not have EI and they should sit for two weeks in the penalty box before they can get it.

We could extend the length of the benefit period. We could increase the rate of benefits and base benefits on the best 12 weeks. We could standardize benefits nationally, which is very important. We could eliminate distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants. We could increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings.

EI's most important role is to provide for those who need help the most, those who make the least amount of money. However, we can imagine people in the auto industry who make a pretty good wage, who are not rich by any standard but they make a pretty good wage, and all of a sudden when they are laid off they are told that EI only covers 55% of part of their earnings. It is not even 55% of their total earnings.

We see in today's news that the year over year hike in EI take-up has gone up 16.6%, 33% in B.C. and 30% in Alberta and Ontario. In London, there is a 75% increase in EI take-up.

Canadians are being forced out of work. The very least the government could do is support them through the employment insurance system. It is good social infrastructure. It is also good stimulus. It makes for a better Canada. It is the type of system that Canadians believe in.

I ask my colleague, is it reasonable to suggest that EI might become too lucrative when the average EI earnings are $333 a week?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour wonders what the changes are to the EI system. I will outline some of the steps we have taken under our economic action plan to improve it.

There is no doubt we understand the uncertainty that many Canadian workers and their families face. Our plan will assist these workers and their families. It will help those who are being hit hardest during this economic downturn, those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The member has suggested that we are spending some money for retraining. As part of our economic action plan, we are investing an unprecedented $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and training strategy.

Canadians who have lost their jobs or are at risk of losing them need to know their government is working hard for them, and that is what we are doing.

Through our economic action plan, we are increasing funding for training delivered through the employment insurance program by $1 billion over two years, and that is on top of the existing $1.95 billion. We will do this through our existing labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories. This government recognizes that the provinces and territories are best placed to design and deliver training programs to address the needs of their labour markets.

This large cash infusion will help respond to the higher demand for labour market programs and training owing to increased unemployment. As a result, thousands more EI eligible clients will receive training.

We know this is a difficult time for many Canadians, and never before has there been such a concerted effort to reach out and help them.

We know that those who have worked in the same or similar jobs for a long time and are permanently laid off often have a more difficult time adjusting to the changing labour market, especially during tough times. That is why our economic action plan is working for them.

To help these workers change occupations, we are introducing a pilot project, working with the provinces and territories, that would extend EI benefits for long tenured workers pursing longer term training.

In addition, through our economic action plan, workers with severance or other separation payments will be eligible for earlier access to EI benefits if they use some or all of these payments to purchase skills upgrading or training. We will be working with the provinces and territories to implement this measure. This support will not only help Canadians who are facing job loss and uncertainty, but will also help them get back into the workforce.

We appreciate, too, that when the labour market takes a downturn, Canadians need support. That is why we are providing assistance through an expanded work sharing program so people can retrain and preserve their jobs.

For the next two years, we will make available nationally the five weeks of extended EI benefits that have previously been available through a pilot project only in regions with the highest unemployment. The government will also increase the maximum duration of benefits to 50 weeks. Some 400,000 claimants could benefit from these changes.

Clearly, we understand the challenges facing many Canadians. These measures show that our government is quick to take action to adjust employment insurance to meet the needs of today's workers and prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow. These are accumulate incentive steps, a number of steps taken specifically and directed to those who are unemployed. We understand the circumstances they are going through and we are taking action.

I ask the member, along with other members of the House, to get behind the budget implementation plan to ensure it gets into force as soon as possible.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking time out of his busy schedule to come here and read the departmental briefing notes.

I sincerely want to ask him a question because I know him to be a man with a big heart.

His government denied that the economic situation was bad and all of a sudden it agreed that it was bad and getting worse all the time. In light of what is facing Canadian workers, does he not think it is time to rethink the measures in the budget and do more to help Canada's unemployed?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my learned friend has not been listening to me.

We know Canadians want to get back to work and we are helping them do just that. I outlined a number of initiatives that we would be taking.

That is why we are extending EI benefits in our economic action plan by five weeks. That is why we are putting more resources toward EI processing. That is why we are providing more in terms of expanded work sharing so workers can continue working to support their families during this uncertain time. That is why we are investing billions of dollars in retraining initiatives to help those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. We are helping them get the training and the skills they need so they can get back to work with the jobs not only of today but also of tomorrow.

We are doing a series of things to deal with an unpleasant situation. We have to deal with them in a practical way.

I ask the member to look at all these initiatives and get behind us and support them.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

(The House adjourned at 7:05 p.m.)