House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Madam Speaker, as we talked to people across the country, trying to come up with what was needed, extending benefits was one of the things. However, by no means is that the only measure the government is looking at.

We have committed billions of dollars for training and retraining. We realize that not only is it important to have economic benefits through EI, but we also believe that people should be retrained so that as jobs change in this economy they will have the skills they need as we move forward into the new millennium.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

Let me thank the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for his comments earlier. My party on this side of the House and I agree with one of the comments he made during his speech. We want to see those folks who are unemployed today back at work. I think we are unequivocal about that as New Democrats. We are interested in making sure that people who are unemployed are able to return to work at the earliest opportunity to support their families. That is what we ultimately want to see. So I join with my colleague for Niagara West—Glanbrook when I say, yes, indeed, we want to see them go back to work.

However, let me make comments around this about his colleague who had made suggestions about the variability of the employment insurance program in the sense that, as unemployment goes up, the benefits go up, and one gets a longer period of benefits but not actually more money. One would hope that would be the truth. One would hate to think one gets less benefits in an area of extremely high unemployment.

That is not how the system used to work. Years ago, the system was level across the country, for all intents and purposes. When a worker got laid off and had paid into the insurance program, that worker was entitled to collect from that insurance program, because it was an insurance program.

To extrapolate to the end of the logic of that hon. member's suggestion, it would seem that if someone paid his or her car insurance at one end of the country where there were fewer traffic accidents, that person would get less money for the car in the case of a car crash than someone at the other end of the country where there were more accidents, who would get more money. That is not why we pay insurance.

I think the government has lost track of what this program truly is. It is an employment insurance program. It is not a tax paid to the government through income taxes. It is a tax, or at least an insurance premium, paid by employers and employees to insure employees against being unemployed. So one would suggest that the nature of the name is to say employees should get their benefits when indeed they become unemployed.

This is not new. The changes to employment insurance have been happening for over 10 years. In fact, they go back about 15 years. With those changes we saw an absolute treasure trove of money accumulated under both governments to the tune of almost $54 billion. Some would say $57 billion, but when we start talking about billions of dollars, whether it is $54 billion or $57 billion, it is a lot of money.

The people who did not see that money were the unemployed. There was no increase in benefits until the year before last. There was no increase in the number of weeks. In fact, we saw a decrease in the number of weeks over those years. Very few programs were introduced during that period as pilot programs.

One of the few introduced was in regard to maternity benefits, when we finally extended those to 50 weeks. It is a good program indeed, but far short of what it should be and what it is around this world in developed countries.

What we saw was the hoarding of money, taken by the Liberal and Conservative governments and put into general revenue, and then spent. The whole idea of collecting that money was to wait for the time it was needed, which is now. Of course, now that it is needed, the cupboard is bare and we cannot do things such as make sure that there are more people qualifying for employment insurance at this moment in time when they are in desperate need of it.

Those are the forgotten ones in the unemployment rate because they do not come up as a statistic. However, as my hon. colleague said earlier, if one goes to the social assistance offices in the major cities and small towns throughout this country, they can tell you the statistics, because when people fails to qualify for employment insurance benefits, they end up on social assistance somewhere in this country.

According to all experts, when one ends up in that system, it is the hardest place to remove oneself from. Why would we not have developed a system? Indeed, we have a system. Why not apply the system to ensure that those folks do not end up in that trap from which they may never return? It seems to me that since we collected their money to make sure they were being protected, the least we should have done for them was to protect them. However, that seems not to have been the case over the last number of years.

Let me draw some attention to a few things that I do not think I have heard here today, and perhaps not even earlier in some of the debates on employment insurance.

There is another group of workers who do not receive the same type of protection as the others. They are called “new entrants” under the regulations. A new entrant is a worker who went to work, albeit maybe a young person, or it may not be a person who is so young, because it may have been someone who entered the workforce for the first time after a long period of doing something else, whatever that happened to be in that person's life. They have to serve almost twice the number of hours as anyone else in the same region—not across the country—to collect employment insurance.

In my case, my wife and I have three lovely children who are young adults today. We have twins. Just imagine if one twin had been working for the last five years and the other twin had not, and they both worked at the same place but one was a new entrant and one was not. If both were to get laid off on the same day, one would get employment insurance and one would not.

One wonders why that sort of system exists today. We cannot imagine doing that in other forms of discrimination against folks, whether it be gender specific, whether it be age specific, yet we do it to those who faithfully paid their premium, but because they are new entrants we disqualify them. That is patently unfair.

When we look at stimulus in the economy, we talk about “shovel ready”. Shovel ready takes a bit of time. Don Drummond, a renowned economist in this country, says, pure and simple, that if we waive the two-week waiting period and pay immediately, that is one of the fastest ways to stimulate this economy.

It seems to me we ought to have done that. It seems to me that is a way to get money into people's pockets who paid for the insurance in the first place and who ultimately say it is their money and deserves to come back to them in a time of need. We ought to carry on with that.

It seems to me that the opportunity was here and was lost in the budget. Now the opportunity has come back to this place, where all of us can say we can correct it. We can take this opportunity to make sure that those who are suffering get the protection they are entitled to, make sure they indeed get the rights and benefits they are entitled to and paid for.

That is all they are asking. They are not asking for anything extra. They are simply saying, “I paid for this. It is my insurance plan. I paid the premium, and now I am laid off. All I am asking from government is, just simply give me my money back. That seems fair, at least until I get back on my feet and get back to work.”

As I said at the beginning, that is really what those who are unemployed want to do. Quite often I have heard the comments from across the way and I read the article that suggested the government does not want to be too lucrative with the system because people will stay on it for a long period of time.

The only reason they are on that system is because they had a job. They may have had many jobs, because lots of hours are needed to actually get on the system in the first place. People have to be working. These are not folks who were not working; they were. Clearly they want to get back to that place, to make sure they are working again. That is what they really need.

Let me talk a little bit about the wait times to get a claim approved. The previous Liberal government introduced, and this government has continued, this whole sense of computerizing the system and making it better. The reverse has happened. It is not just a question of more people applying. It is taking longer to apply for a claim, going back a number of years to when going to a computer was introduced.

What we have seen across this country, and I know in my riding and from my personal experience of being an unemployment insurance representative for many years, is that they have depopulated the offices of HRSDC. What has ultimately happened is that the service that folks really need today is not available to them because there are not enough people. The minister, by her own admission today, is saying her department is going out to bring back the folks who retired.

From my own experience in working with those folks in those offices in the Niagara region, the majority of them retired early because of the workload they had in the first place. So just to get them back to where they were has them overloaded, never mind the number of people who have gone on employment insurance in the last little while or who are applying currently. They do not have anywhere near enough people, even if they brought everyone back who had retired. They will not have enough people in the office.

What they have done is basically put people in front a kiosk and said to them, “Do it yourself with a computer”. If the claimant does not have a computer, the patent answer from the ministry as direction to the front-line workers is to say, “Go to your library, because it is free; you can do it there online”. That is how it works.

I would urge all hon. members' to think long and to look into their hearts, because as the hon. member said, everyone has unemployed people in their ridings. I would urge members to look long and hard at this bill, and hopefully they can support it.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes a number of very good points about employment insurance. I want to talk to him a little bit about employment insurance as a stimulus. A number of studies have indicated that investing in social infrastructure is a good stimulus, but particularly investing in EI is a very good stimulus. A study shows that for every dollar put into EI, we get more than $1.60 back in spinoffs. It is very important.

I want to ask the member about a claim that the Conservative government is making. They are suggesting that by not raising premiums, that is actually a $4.5 billion stimulus.

I recommend that all Canadians go to the Caledon Institute's website, because it is wonderful. Particularly members of the government should go there, because they would learn an awful lot. The institute is suggesting that the Conservatives saying it is a stimulus not to raise the rates is similar to announcing a $236 billion stimulus by announcing an increase in taxes and then deciding not to implement it.

EI is a good stimulus. One does not have to make up stimulative effects of EI. So I wonder if my colleague would comment on how the government comes up with that figure.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree in the sense that, to reduce the EI premium and suggest it is a stimulus, tell that to the unemployed. Of course, I forgot; they do not pay employment insurance premiums.

We cannot stimulate an economy on the backs of the unemployed by suggesting they get a break on premiums when in fact they are no longer paying them. They have actually lost those.

As to the statistics the member quotes, I believe it is a $1.64 stimulus when it comes to EI. So my colleague is correct that it is above $1.60.

Every major economist in this country has said paying employment insurance benefits to those who are laid off is the quickest stimulus package we can get out the door, because we do not have to create another system. We do not have to have another layer built up. We actually have the program in place today, the rules in place today, and folks understand what those are and they can apply. That unto itself makes it so simplistic. All we have to do is change the regulations in the sense that, if we simply said in this House we would change the regulations and did it quickly, the two weeks would be gone and folks would be benefiting immediately. They would get paid and we would not have folks facing foreclosure and losing their homes. We would not have folks lined up at food banks. We would not have folks worried about being on social assistance.

In my region, we would not be worried about 70% of young people under the age of 25 leaving the region because they have lost hope of getting employment in the region in which they live.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a good answer from my colleague. He mentioned briefly in his speech the comments that the minister had made, that she did not want to make EI too lucrative or too easy to get. That is a very offensive comment to make to people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own. I have heard from people across the country, particularly in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, that it indicates a Reform Party view from years ago that does not reflect in any way the employment situation of today or the attitudes of most Canadians.

I wonder if the member shares my umbrage at those comments.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Madam Speaker, I would concur with that and use the word “umbrage”, because I think that is absolutely true. As I said earlier, the reason that people collect employment insurance is because they were working. They were not lying around somewhere looking for someone to send a cheque. That is not how they qualify. They have a long history of work and show that initiative, that energy, that sense of wanting to support their families and build their communities and this country.

For the minister to suggest that EI is lucrative, let me remind hon. members that claimants get 55¢ on the dollar. Imagine tomorrow if we had to take 55¢ on the dollar of our wage and live on it. I would suggest that members should go to see their banker if they have a mortgage. They had better see the credit union if they have a car loan, because they will need to renegotiate it. They will not be able to survive on 55¢ on the dollar, never mind getting food on the table, never mind making sure their children could play sports or participate in artistic or cultural endeavours.

We would not have that money any more. That discretionary income would dry up immediately if we were making 55¢ on the dollar. That 55¢ on the dollar is the basic minimum to get by. That is why the bill talks about at least a minimum of 60% and bringing a lot more folks onto the system to ensure they actually can survive through what looks like a terrible, terrible time in their lives.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, it is with some pleasure and some sadness that I rise to speak to this motion today.

The pleasure is because of the pride I feel in my party for putting forward what I think is a measure that will be of immense assistance to hundreds of thousands of Canadians and it is something that I know is desperately needed in these tough economic times.

The sadness is because this is one of those measures that we as parliamentarians are forced to consider taking. Many Canadians are facing an economic disaster and a terrible fear for the future of parents and their children and the seniors whom they often support.

This issue is somewhat personal to me for a few reasons.

This is not just an issue of numbers or an issue of theory. I worked for 16 years for a trade union. I sat in my office every day, Monday to Friday, week after week, month after month. In just about every period of time that I was in my office, people who were laid off from their jobs or fired from their positions come to talk to me about their employment prospects and the fact that they were unable to get acceptable amounts of protection from government.

I also wonder how many members of the House have been in that position. I wonder how many members have actually looked across a desk at the eyes of unemployed men or women who wonder how they will make their rent payments, or how they will buy groceries for their children or pay for their children's athletic programs or school supplies when they were faced with a two week waiting period.

I have heard many members in the House speak of the two week waiting period, calling it a deductible. What are we deducting from? We are deducting from the incomes of people. This is not a car we are talking about. This is not replacing items of property taken in a theft from one's garage. This is telling Canadians that they have no money for the next two weeks, and we do not care.

The Conservatives want to put five weeks on the end of a claim. What does that tell the people sitting across the desk from them, when they are wondering how they are going to buy groceries for the next two weeks.

I have had to explain to people why they do not qualify for benefits whatsoever. This is not a two week problem for them. Over 60% of Canadians, and almost 70% of women, seven out of ten unemployed women, will not get any benefits because of the measures the current government and previous Liberal governments put into place.

What do we say to them? Do we tell them they have to face the next six months without any income? Do we call that a deductible?

I wonder how many members in the House were ever on employment insurance. I would venture to guess that on the government's side of the benches, not many. I think if they had been on employment insurance, they might have a different perspective on this matter.

I have been on unemployment insurance, which is what it was called back in 1991. I received $409 a week. The maximum amount a person can get now is about $458 a week. We are talking an extra $30 or $40 after 18 years.

When workers come and tell us that they do not have any money for two weeks and six out of ten tell us they will not get any money at all, for the lucky 40% of workers, or 30% in the case of women, who do get benefits, they get an average of a little over $300 a week.

Many members from British Columbia in the House have spoken to this issue. In Vancouver $1,400 a month will barely pay the rent or the mortgage, yet that is the average amount we expect workers to raise their families on during this economic recession and downturn when they may be unemployed for many months. This is the reality of the issue. It is not just theory to these people.

I want to talk a bit about the motion before us. I hope all members of the House could find it in their conscience to support the motion. It takes positive measures that would help the Canadians I spoke of and it would provide effective stimulus to our economy, far beyond many of the measures currently in the budget.

New Democrats propose to eliminate the two week waiting period. We propose to reduce the reference period to a minimum of 360 hours worked, regardless of the regional unemployment rate. Our motion would allow self-employed workers to participate in the system. It would increase benefits to at least 60% of income based on the best 12 weeks in the reference period. Our motion would encourage training and retraining.

It is not that the budget does nothing in the area of employment insurance. It does some things, but the steps it takes are insufficient.

I have heard members opposite speak about consultation with Canadians. They use glowing and exaggerated claims that the consultations on the budget were the biggest consultations in Canadian history. Really?

Who did the government consult? Did the government consult one representative of employee organizations? Did it consult one trade union? Did it consult one group that represents and works with unemployed workers? I do not think so.

I saw the blue ribbon panel with which the government consulted, and it was made up exclusively of people from the business sector. Not one person of that 10 or 12 member panel represented unemployed workers or understood their realities.

If the government did consult with unemployed workers or their representatives, it would not be able to stand in the House and say that those unemployed workers wanted five weeks tacked on at the end of an unemployment claim that hardly anybody gets, that condemns them to poverty and that does not address their needs.

I want to talk a bit about the stimulus effect of our measure.

Ian Lee, the MBA director at Carleton University's Sprott School of Business, argues that employment insurance is the single best tool for the government to use as a means of providing economic stimulus. Why? Putting money into the hands of middle and working class Canadians immediately is sound economics in a time of recession because those people will spend that money. They will put it in their communities. They will patronize their local businesses. They will purchase clothing and items for their children. That money will be circulated.

Using the multiplier formula, every dollar spent on employment insurance results in $1.64 being injected into the economy. That number is just ahead of the multiplier for infrastructure dollars spent, but is a much quicker response for the economy.

I also want to talk a bit about proportionality. The government has claimed that it is putting $1 billion into training and approximately $2 billion in the budget is allocated toward employment insurance. I want to contrast that. That sounds like a lot of money and it is nothing to snivel at.

The government is proceeding with $55 billion of corporate tax cuts and has guaranteed $75 billion of bad debts and mortgage-backed securities held by banks in our country. It has allocated $125 billion to profitable corporations and has allocated $2 billion to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. That is less than 2% for workers.

That tells a lot about the priorities of the government. It answers the questions that I hear repeatedly about why New Democrats do not support the budget. We do not support the budget because it is imbalanced, unwise and it will not help Canadians.

New Democrats want to help unemployed workers and their families. We urge all members of the House to support the motion as I am sure they want to do the same.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Vancouver Kingsway's remarks. As he indicated, he has had a lot of experience in dealing with people who are unemployed. In fact, it is one of the most difficult issues we deal with in our office as well. They are heart-rending stories, and the callous attitude of the minister and the government is unacceptable.

I agree with the member's remarks that the most crucial period is the first two weeks. I think Canadians need to understand that it is not just two weeks, it is actually four weeks. Could the member d explain that? Yes, there is the two week waiting period, but it is another two weeks before people get their cheques.

How can we expect people who have suddenly lost their jobs, and many people now are suddenly losing their jobs, to survive for a month? They are operating on credit cards. The government has failed to take the opportunity to address that end of unemployment insurance. Maybe the member could go further to explain.

I believe that is where the stimulus would be. If we covered those first two weeks, then that would be putting money back into the economy, stimulating it, putting it where it is needed most, rather than, as the government has tended to do, giving the money to people who probably are saving it rather than spending it and using it as a stimulus package.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his astute and sensitive observations on behalf of working Canadians.

He is absolutely right about the amount of time. However, I would respectfully suggest that it is even longer than four weeks. The employment insurance administrators have a guideline, a benchmark, of trying to get cheques processed within 28 days of a claim being filed. However, I think it is well known among most Canadians and members of the House that they are having an extremely difficult time meeting that and, in fact, are not getting cheques to Canadians for even weeks after that. Therefore, my hon. colleague is absolutely right that Canadians are facing periods of five, six or seven weeks before they get cheques. Once again, that is if they get them at all because the majority of Canadians will not see any cheque at all.

I also want to talk a bit about what those people face in that five or six week period. My hon. colleague mentioned them having to live on credit cards, and that is exactly true.

I am familiar with many local organizations. The union I worked for, the Teamsters Union, Local 31, 213, 155, 464, the operating engineers, the specialized construction workers, the CAW, CUPE, HEW, all of those unions face members, and even workers who are not members of those unions, coming to them for assistance. They ask if they can have a loan or if there is a benevolent fund. Many times unions will go into their treasuries to help those workers get through the five or six weeks, without pay, to subsidize what should be a sacred right in our country, what should be a safety net that these workers have paid for and have come to expect.

I will conclude my answer to the question by saying this is an insurance program. This is not charity. Workers pay into this program. It comes off their cheque every two weeks. They have a right to receive this money. It is not a privilege.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Madam Speaker, the member comes from B.C. British Columbia, which has been hit harder than any other province because we have an appalling incompetent government under Gordon Campbell and complete negligence from the Conservative government that takes B.C. for granted.

How would the changes that the NDP proposes support the 68,000 British Columbians who have lost their jobs in the last two months?

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, Canada lost 129,000 jobs in January alone. British Columbia lost 18,000 manufacturing jobs alone. B.C. has lost 35,000 jobs in January in total. I want to mention that many of those workers are from the immigrant communities, where recessions tend to hit those communities hardest and first.

A New Democratic government in British Columbia would put the interests of those workers and those families first, which would be a refreshing change from the current government in British Columbia.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laval.

It is a great pleasure for me to take the floor today in this House because I am particularly concerned by the issue raised by my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I believe it is absolutely crucial for those who will be hardest hit by the economic crisis we are currently experiencing, namely the unemployed.

To begin, I want to say that I am completely in favour of this motion, which covers a number of the main themes that the Bloc Québécois has been defending for many years in connection with employment insurance, as well as Bill C-308 which was recently introduced by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas on February 10.

We know that the measures proposed in this motion are not new. Four years ago, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities adopted a report recommending these same measures: elimination of the waiting period; introduction of a qualifying period of 360 hours regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; increase of the salary covered from 55% to 60% based on the best 12 weeks; and introduction of a provision allowing self-employed workers to contribute voluntarily to the employment insurance plan.

We in the Bloc Québécois also believe that these measures would substantially improve the employment insurance system, which for about 15 years now has been but a shadow of what it used to be. This is to be vigorously condemned for as long as this injustice persists.

In the last 20 years, the coverage rate of the employment insurance system has been cut by half. The ratio of recipients to unemployed has fallen from 84% to 46% because the qualifying criteria were substantially and unfairly tightened in the 1990s.

We all know what followed: the government misappropriated staggering surpluses from the employment insurance fund, surpluses whose size was due solely to the tightening of the qualifying criteria. It is high time that the government finally recognized this injustice and did everything in its power to remedy it. This injustice is denounced not only by the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, but also by all the unions and all the groups advocating for workers’ rights. This injustice has resulted in the aberration of an employment insurance plan that does not even cover half of the persons unemployed.

The statements made this afternoon in oral question period by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development are totally incorrect. It is not true that 82% of contributors to the plan can receive employment insurance. In the last report on employment insurance coverage, the department’s figures were much gloomier. In fact, barely 64% of contributors had access to EI benefits. That is nothing less than unacceptable.

The minister compared the employment insurance system to a private system, which is rather cynical because she reduced the state's role to that of a corporation motivated solely by financial gain. Following that logic, she is saying that the insurer could decide not to compensate 36% of its clients. Nobody would stand for that kind of attitude. Such a company would be accused of scandal, fraud, theft and mean-spiritedness. And rightly so, I might add.

So why does the government think that it has the right to just ignore the dire straits in which 36% of the people who contribute to the fund and then lose their jobs find themselves? Why? What for? Nothing justifies that kind of attitude, which demonstrates the government's alarming indifference to its social responsibilities.

The Minister of Human Resources' new title is very telling. By replacing “social development” with “skills development”, the Conservatives have made their position clear: no more compassion, no more social safety net. The Conservatives have found the fastest, easiest way to eliminate “social” anything from their list of responsibilities: just take it out of the title. The Bloc Québécois will continue to remind them of their responsibilities in that respect, and they will not soon forget.

And now, back to the motion before us. Exactly five weeks ago, I had an opportunity to talk about a bill introduced by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi, who proposed eliminating the waiting period. As I said then, the waiting period is, quite simply, a way to punish the unemployed for losing their jobs. This is a completely unjustifiable policy that merely exacerbates the already unbearable situation in which the unemployed find themselves.

People are waiting longer and longer to receive their employment insurance benefits, often longer than four weeks, and the waiting period adds two long weeks to that time. This is not about extending the employment insurance benefit period by two weeks. This is just about changing the time when benefits start flowing so that people who have lost their jobs are not placed in an unendurable situation for those first two weeks.

According to numbers from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, this measure would cost some $900 million.

Well, $900 million is a far cry from the $57 billion denied workers over the past 20 years. This $900 million would be injected in its entirety into the Canadian economy, as the government itself admits in its evaluation of the economic impact of the measures relating to employment insurance in the recent budget.

In this recession, it is $900 million that would benefit both the unemployed and the businesses where the unemployed would be spending the sums they received.

The other measure in this motion I would like to discuss today is the reduction of the number of hours needed to qualify for employment insurance benefits. At the moment, the number of hours varies between 420 and 910. That is far too much. This is the main reason so many unemployed people do not benefit from coverage under the plan. According to the CSN, some 39% of the workforce works fewer than 35 hours a week. This 39% then is not eligible under the 12 week minimum. With the number of hours set at 360, which the Bloc has long called for, an estimated 70% to 80% of those unemployed could collect benefits, and the level of coverage would be returned to what it was 20 years ago.

Once again, this is a measure that has the support of all the unions and all the groups defending the rights of the unemployed and it was given support on a number of occasions by the committee on human resources and—social or skills—development, according to whether the social mission of the government is to be kept or dropped.

It is perhaps not supported by the former director of the Bank of Canada, whom the member for Huron—Bruce quoted, but I prefer to stick with the opinion expressed by people close to the concerns of the unemployed, who work not only with figures but with people in difficulty.

In conclusion, I would like to express a reservation about this motion, one that the NDP knows well, where Quebec is involved, but does not always include. It concerns respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces established under the constitution. If we in the Bloc support the government's investing in the training and re-training of the workforce, it must be done by transferring the amounts involved unconditionally to the Government of Quebec.

These are provincial jurisdictions, as everyone knows, and there is no question of our backing off on this matter or of supporting a measure that would force the Government of Quebec to report to the federal government. I also take this opportunity to strongly criticize the federal government's attempts in this regard in its current negotiations with the Government of Quebec on the transfer of $700 million over six years for workforce training.

Apart from this reservation, I am delighted to support the NDP motion.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest because when it comes to employment insurance, it seems that we are all in the same situation with respect to our constituents who find themselves in many cases in very heartbreaking situations when they are forced to go on EI.

I say “forced to” because no one really wants to have to avail themselves of employment insurance. They would much rather work. Unfortunately, with what is happening in our country more and more companies are either cutting their workforce or closing their doors entirely and there are fewer and fewer jobs for which people can avail themselves. They are finding that they are not able to put food on the table and not able to pay their bills.

What we need is a government that is aware of how difficult the situation is and will put some measures in place to speed up the process. I have constituents who wait for six weeks in order to get money from the EI system which is simply not fair. I am wondering if my colleague could suggest ways other than what the government is proposing in terms of speeding up the process.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. We absolutely must eliminate the waiting period for workers who are losing their jobs. I would like to add that, often, these workers have not had a chance to set aside a lot of money. They wake up one morning and find themselves without the means to keep up with their daily expenses.

Eliminating the waiting period would allow them, after having lost their jobs, to have access to some money and avoid going further into debt by using a high interest rate credit card to pay for family's and children's daily necessities. Eliminating the waiting period would give these workers quick access to some money.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Speaker, you were not here, but I think that the chair occupant before you appreciated the quality of the speech given by this new member who has recently joined us. It was one of her first speeches. She spoke seriously and it is obvious that she has studied the issue extensively.

She eloquently and precisely condemned a number of unfair aspects in the administration of the employment insurance system. He is one I found particularly spectacular. How can anyone sell insurance by telling people that they have to pay the premiums, but cannot receive any benefits?

This is a broad subject and the workforce is diverse. There are more and more self-employed workers in our society. It is probable that these people will be affected the most by the current crisis. Could she talk about them?

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is an excellent one.

I think offering self-employed workers the opportunity to contribute to employment insurance on a voluntary basis is long overdue. They account for about 17% of workers in Canada. I think that is enough to allow them the opportunity to contribute to the EI system on a voluntary basis. I would add that many of these self-employed workers are women, and many of them are single parents. Thus, I think it is high time we offered them the opportunity to contribute to the system.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who gave a wonderful speech on the relevance of the motion moved here today by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I am pleased to rise to also respond to it.

The biggest problem with employment insurance is that people look only at the numbers and forget about the faces of the people who are unemployed in Quebec and in Canada. This morning at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women meeting, we heard witnesses from the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses who explained the problems they are facing in relation to employment insurance. They came to convey the message that, first and foremost, unemployment affects human beings. They came to convey the message that, when we talk about people who lose their jobs, contrary to what our Conservative colleagues would have us believe, we are not talking about people who want to stay home doing nothing and therefore claim EI benefits.

There was even a lady 50 years of age who lost her job. She was terribly traumatized as a result. At 50 years old, when you lose your job, it’s like losing your life. So this lady lost her job at age 50. She found herself dealing with post-traumatic shock: diabetes and fibromyalgia. She cannot work regularly any more and is having difficulty finding another job. She found something at 15 hours a week. At first it was 25 hours a week, but it is in a school in the Saint-Hyacinthe region, and unfortunately she is unable to work more hours because when the students are not there, the hours are cut. She has had to leave her home and go to live with her mother. At 50, she leaves her home, says her goodbyes, sells her furniture and has to go live with her mother. It is not normal, when you have worked all your life, when you have done your part as a citizen up to age 50 and paid your contributions, to find yourself in a situation where you are forced to give up your home and your things, and go off like an beggar back to mother, at age 50.

I know that numbers are important because of course, numbers talk. Last week, we learned from Statistics Canada that about 47% or 48% of women were eligible to receive employment insurance benefits when they lost their jobs. However, this depends on the way the numbers are calculated, they way they are devised, and where and how they are collected.

Never mind what they tell us on the other side. When they tell us that most people who have paid into employment insurance are entitled to money when they lose their jobs, it is not true: it is a shameful lie. As a parliamentarian, it makes me very angry to hear things like that. That is just telling stories about the victims and pulling the wool over our eyes, when they know full well that when people lose their jobs, they have no other option than to go to the office of the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, because they have no other means of defence.

When one hears such things, one wonders what can be done to fix the system, to heal it. Is there not enough money in the system? Did people not pay enough in years past? Is that it? I believe there is a $55 billion surplus now, and that is quite a sum. It seems to me there is no lack of money to give back to the people who lose their jobs.

Is it because of opposition members who are opposed to changing the employment insurance system because they have no vision, because they do not realize that losing your job is something terrible?

Is it because the Bloc Québécois has never tabled a bill to reform the employment insurance system? I can say that the answer to all these questions is no. The answer I can give is that the only obstacles we have are the ones the government has created. And that is not normal. The government is supposed to look after its citizens. It has the duty to look after its citizens, the duty to ensure that every citizen is properly represented and has what he or she needs.

That is covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. How can we allow a government that represents the people to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It makes no sense. I am convinced that if all members in this House were to take five minutes and think about their duty as parliamentarians, they would realize fully what needs to be done to represent those who elected us and who make it possible for us to be here.

When my colleague introduced this motion, she demonstrated a passion that we, in the Bloc Québécois, have felt for a long time. We want justice for the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable; we want justice for all those who are struggling without adequate representation because they are represented by Conservatives. We will definitely be supporting this motion.

However, I have the same reservations as my colleague. That is normal. We need only look at what is currently happening in Canada. Women are being denied pay equity. Their rights are being taken away. In terms of what Quebec is doing, we hope that it will continue to make decisions for the people it represents. I guarantee that Quebec is different. We do not have the same values or the same ideas and when we talk about social values, we mean protecting the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged.

We are in the midst of an economic crisis. If we had no money, I might be able to understand that the government would considering trimming the fat. But it is not trimming the fat in Afghanistan. We have seen all the money it has invested in deadly weapons and the tools of war. We have seen all the money invested in tax havens that has not been recovered. With this money alone we could have helped thousands of unemployed people who need help, not help to sit around and do nothing at home, but support to help them pay their rent, buy food for their children, live decently and so on. With only 55% of what they once earned, they would not live like kings.

I think that my colleague was absolutely correct when she spoke about the way we should be reviewing the employment insurance system. The bills that the Bloc Québécois has introduced are entirely relevant and take into account the reality and needs of the people. Contrary to our Conservative colleagues, when we say we have visited and consulted the people, we really did consult them. These were not phony consultations. We did not meet with a few people one night, and then turn around and say that we had met with everyone concerned about that issue.

We are meeting people out in the field, and the groups and people that represent them, and we have a much better idea of what these people need, what they want and what they are asking us to demand on their behalf.

We will definitely be supporting this motion, but we will definitely also be making sure that the motion respects Quebec's jurisdiction.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues from Laval and Saint-Lambert for their fine presentations. Their testimonies were very touching and of course I support them. I have never had to turn to employment insurance, but I am nevertheless aware that people are losing their jobs, especially in this time of economic crisis.

My colleague from Laval was talking about the money the government has at its disposal. There are many economic stimulus programs. Some $4 billion is being invested to help Ontario's economy, while almost no money is being invested in employment insurance. Does she think this stems from the current government's ideology, in that it does not really want to help people who lose their jobs?

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would have a hard time answering that question without mentioning what is happening today at the United Nations. Women's groups from across Canada and throughout Quebec have come together to denounce the Conservative government and its attitude towards women, as well as the cuts it has made in connection with pay equity and in other areas. If there is one area in which women suffer the most, it is employment insurance. Thus, I truly believe that these cuts and measures are based on ideology. Those decisions were not made out of concern for the people, but rather with their own ideology in mind.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous member from the Bloc who shared time with the member for Saint-Lambert. The member for Laval, as she went into her speech, agreed with everything that her colleague from the Bloc said.

Therefore I want to ask this question. I quote what the member for Saint-Lambert said: “The transfer of the sums of money to Quebec should be unconditional”.

The member for Laval agreed with the member for Saint-Lambert. What did she mean by “unconditional”? To my understanding, it is a program that is a national program for Canadians from one end of the country to the other. What does that mean, so that I can have a better idea?

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, despite his good faith, the hon. member confused the employment insurance program and the training programs. Of course, employment insurance programs are managed by the federal government, but training programs are managed by the Government of Quebec.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for my colleague, the member for Laval, whom I congratulate on an excellent speech. I would like to know how she reacted when she heard the Conservative minister responsible for employment insurance say that enhanced benefits would be too generous. What she said was that it was “lucrative” to get employment insurance, as if it were something people did by choice, not because they were victims of a situation.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC

Mr. Speaker, the woman who appeared before our committee this morning told us that she made $4.38 an hour on employment insurance. I do not know whether this is lucrative or too generous. This may be too generous for some, but I am sure it is not generous enough for others. You cannot pay all your bills on $4.38 an hour when you work 15 hours a week.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at the expiry of the time for government orders.

Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek the consent of the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.