Debates of Sept. 18th, 2009

Employment Insurance Act

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the likeable and talented member for Sherbrooke.

I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-50, because my riding has been hit hard, over the last six years, by the permanent or recurring closure of various manufacturing companies. I really wanted to say how deeply disappointed and even outraged I am when I look at this bill.

It is very disappointing for the unemployed workers who are struggling to find a job in these difficult times. I would even say that it is a shame. It looks to me like the government is using the misery of the unemployed to play political games. What it does not understand, as evidenced on several occasions, is that it underestimates the intelligence of Quebeckers.

How can we support a bill that contains elements that nobody in the government wants to explain? This bill is denounced in Quebec by major unions, by the Conseil National des Chômeurs et Chômeuses and by the Quebec Forest Industry Council.

We would have liked to have an opportunity to discuss the bill immediately in committee to have experts and other witnesses explain to us who are those 190,000 unemployed workers targeted by this narrow, rigid and discriminatory measure.

At the briefing session provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development this week, only 30 minutes were dedicated to presenting the bill. It was a well-structured 30 minutes, with the officials being very closely monitored by the government. They were unable to answer my colleagues' questions about how calculations were done, which method was used to arrive at the number of 190,000 unemployed, and how they came up with an amount of $935 million. No clear response was provided by the officials who gave the briefing.

When the meeting was opened for questions, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was questioned. She too dodged the issue, so to speak. She was unable to provide an appropriate or specific answer to this question, which is in and of itself pretty simple: Who are these 190,000 unemployed Canadians to whom this measure applies.

I also read in the paper that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is the Conservatives' political lieutenant in Quebec, commented that he could not provide any guarantees, and he too did not seem to know the answer to that important question.

In addition, I took part in a panel discussion on CPAC with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I am a persistent, hard-working and determined member of Parliament and, as such, I put the question to her as well. She too was unable to answer this deciding question. We would like to understand. What percentage of workers or unemployed in Quebec's forestry sector will be affected by this measure? Before voting on a bill, it is essential to know what its basis is and on what basis agreement was reached to put forward such a measure.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about a concrete example in my riding. I have spoken about it several times. There is a small town in my riding called Huntingdon that was a one-industry town supported by textile factories. Unfortunately, five or six years ago, all of the factories in this small town were forced to shut down, and hundreds of people who had built up quite a lot of seniority found themselves unemployed. These were good, loyal, competent employees with considerable expertise. This was a one-industry town, as I said. These long-tenured workers did not have access to a program for older worker adjustment because it had been cut by the Liberals a few years earlier, and that decision had been upheld by the Conservatives, despite calls from older workers who needed this bridge to help them get their dignity back and access their pension plans.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute these people, these workers who were ignored, but who remained courageous. They were incredibly strong, and I empathize with their situation. As of now, some of the older workers have participated in the retraining program; they did everything they could to try to find a new job. I know of actual cases where people have told me that despite all their efforts, they have not been able to find a job. Employers did not want them for all kinds of reasons, but for many of them, it was because of their age. I am saying it again, but I cannot say it enough. A real older worker adjustment program is still necessary, but it is still being denied by the Conservatives.

The town of Huntingdon has an extremely dynamic mayor, Stéphane Gendron, who has taken the bull by the horns and shown leadership and daring. He has stimulated the economy in his town by bringing in new businesses. A number of small and medium-sized plants have started up in his town in the past three years or so. A few plants are going concerns, but they are having problems now because of the economic crisis and the American protectionist measures. Much of what they produced was for export, and since Huntingdon is on the U.S. border, you will understand that the budget forecasts unfortunately have not materialized because of the economic crisis.

When I look at that, I tell myself that some workers, who formerly worked in the textile mills and have been unemployed several times in the past seven years—in some cases for more than 35 weeks—could not receive benefits under the bill before us today. This means that if workers were laid off at a new plant in Huntingdon, which is doing everything it can to keep all its workers, some would not be entitled to these benefits.

Consequently, this bill is discriminatory and does not really help the long-term unemployed. The real problem, and what the Conservatives are not saying, is that we need an employment insurance system that not only is widely accessible, but also enables all unemployed workers who are having a tough time to be eligible for and receive EI benefits so that they can support their families, pay their bills and keep going while looking for another job.

This is a partisan measure that was introduced for political reasons at the expense of the unemployed. As a member of Parliament, as a citizen of my riding and as a Bloc member, I cannot support such a discriminatory bill, and the Bloc will not support it.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. The government had said 190,000 unemployed workers would benefit from the bill, at a cost of around $935 million, or almost $1 billion. The member is disputing this based on a half-hour presentation by the government.

I recommend we get the bill to the committee. We should listen to the expert witnesses and, hopefully, she can get answers to her questions and then make a judgment at that time as to whether the bill does what she wants it to or not.

We know this is not all we want to help improve our EI system, but we recognize we have a bill in front of us and we do not want to turn our backs on helping 190,000 workers, at $1 billion. We are prepared to keep working on some of our other legislation before the House, legislation dealing with other aspects of EI, which we think are important as well, but we should not throw out a measure like this just because we cannot have everything at one time.

This is a complicated series that we have to work with and we have to get improvements one at a time.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if this interpretation is correct, but I never said I disputed the figures, that is, 190,000 unemployed workers at a cost of $938 million. I said there were some questions about where those figures came from. Whoever provides figures like that must be able to justify them.

I was told that the figures were not explained at the briefing session. How were these numbers reached, when the calculation appears so complicated that not one minister can explain it? Before we support a bill that claims to benefit 190,000 unemployed workers, it would have been nice—in fact crucial—to have these very important, specific answers. The Bloc Québécois is not known for being satisfied with easy explanations.

The government could have introduced quick measures to really help the unemployed, but it did not do so. The legislative process was not needed to bring in such a measure. A simple pilot project could have been introduced, as the Conservative government has done in the past. As the member said, that could have helped those unemployed workers immediately. But that was not what they did. I think we are seeing political games being played on the backs of unemployed workers.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her remarks. I would like her to answer the following question.

This measure for long-tenured workers, along with others already introduced in our economic action plan, will no doubt benefit men and women in her riding, people who truly need it.

If my colleague votes against this bill, does she realize she will be voting against the workers in her own riding who really need this extra money?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the parliamentary secretary. The people I represent are asking me today to ask questions of the government. Considering what is happening in my riding with the numerous permanent or recurring closures of manufacturing companies, I am unable to say at this time if this measure will help my constituents. There is no need to worry about my ability to explain the situation to my constituents and to justify my position. I have always done so, and I probably do it well since they elected me twice.

I would like to tell my colleague that people often come to see me, every week, to tell me that they qualify for employment insurance but do no receive their benefits within a reasonable length of time. We often see people who have filed their application in June and are still waiting for their first cheque in September. It would be very easy to change that—it is a question of bureaucracy—so that people who qualify for benefits receive their cheque in a timely manner.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her intervention.

When I spoke at the beginning of the week, I forgot to mention something. September 14 marked my 11th anniversary as an MP and I wanted to say that I am proud to represent the people of my riding. I am ready to represent them for as long as necessary and I am ready to fight in this House for justice, particularly with respect to employment insurance.

Before being elected, I was an accountant. I was self-employed for more than 20 years. I had people working for me and my clients were employers and employees. Over the years, I saw the deterioration of the unemployment insurance system, as it was then called. I was upset by that. I thought that we should establish an employment insurance system—that was the term I used—to help the unemployed return to the job market quickly and regain their dignity.

Over the years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, I watched the employment insurance program deteriorate. I also saw some people take advantage of the program. They were employees who sometimes even conspired with their employers. I saw this going on.

Observing all this, I said to myself that there was a big problem with the government. These things are easy to spot. Rather than dealing with those who defraud the employment insurance system, be they employers or employees, it was attacking the system.

Today, it is still not uncommon for those who have lost their jobs, who find themselves unemployed and in a really difficult situation, to almost be perceived as crooks trying to defraud the system. But there is no need to defraud the system today because, quite often, it is the system that prevents the unemployed from collecting employment insurance benefits. Based on all the changes that have taken place over the years—it has not been all that long—and the different regions with varying rates of unemployment, people do not receive the same benefits or have the same period of coverage.

I remember something that happened in my riding a few months or perhaps a year ago. People living in Sherbrooke and working in Magog, some 30 kilometres away, commuted morning and evening, racking up extra transportation costs. When the Magog company closed its doors, the people who lived in Magog, which was in a different administrative region, received additional benefits for a longer benefit period. Some of the Sherbrooke workers had a hard time even qualifying, and those who did qualify received lower benefits. But they had all worked at the same place. Some had even spent more of their own money just to get to work.

It looks like the system needs a complete overhaul, particularly given the current economic situation, the unemployment rate and, above all, data from the OECD suggesting that the unemployment rate will probably reach 10%. But the government has chosen temporary fixes and is trying to look good by making a lot of noise about how it is going to give unemployed workers additional weeks, when some have not even collected one red cent yet.

Basically, I cannot be against the fact that people will be able to receive additional weeks of benefits. But I seriously wonder why the government has introduced this measure. It is likely just a bit of political window dressing, to tell unemployed workers that they can receive five to 20 additional weeks of benefits if they have worked for a very long time, they have not received benefits and they have paid premiums without getting anything in return. Yet there are people who have paid into EI who are not receiving anything today. We have seen this in the forestry industry. We are also seeing it among seasonal workers.

When I look at that, I seriously wonder and I feel that something is not right. The first thought that comes to mind is that the government's inability to pinpoint the real problems, the real needs, the most urgent needs, is equalled only by its failure to address those problems and those urgent needs.

Earlier I mentioned that the system has steadily deteriorated. Take the POWA, for example. At one time there was a mechanism that allowed older workers to transition to a dignified, honourable retirement if, after working for a company their entire lives—35 or 40 years—they were laid off and offered the option to retrain. Some workers can be retrained, but not others. The government has not yet addressed this problem. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have done anything.

Now we have new measures that have nothing to do with what workers really need. Sure, the Conservatives added five weeks of benefits at the end of the regular benefit period, clearly in the hope that the economic situation would improve. But people need those benefits now. When you lose your job, you need help right away, not necessarily at the end of your benefit period. If only there was at least a longer benefit period. But even then, there would have been no need for the extra five weeks.

I do not know what these government representatives must feel when they see the unemployed workers. But I do not think this government is doing everything it can to make the EI system fairer and more accessible to everyone. I do not think there are people who wake up in the morning and say they cannot wait to be laid off so they can take advantage of the employment insurance system. First of all, no one wants to be laid off to go onto EI. Everyone knows the state it is in and who has access to it.

I am being told that my time is almost up, but I would like to add two things, in particular about the sharing of information among different departments. Again, we can see how the government has been acting. When the Bloc Québécois initiated sessions to identify individuals who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement and who were not receiving it, we would have liked information from the Canada Revenue Agency to be accessible by the old age pension system. Thus, after filing their income tax return, someone who is eligible for the guaranteed income supplement could easily receive it. The government made billions of dollars off this. In fact, for several years, it did not give information to people and it made billions of dollars by taking money from the employment insurance fund.

Now, it is a matter of sharing information. The government did not want to integrate the systems at the time, and today, it is prepared to get information from each of them. You know very well that public servants are overwhelmed on employment insurance issues. It takes more and more time for people to get their benefits, and now we want to overload the system for a short period of time to go way back to collect information. This would be yet another temporary measure that does not solve the problems with EI and would cause more work for public servants.

The Conservatives should have listened to the Bloc's recommendations. Then they would have been better prepared to meet the urgent needs of unemployed workers.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc has worked very hard on the whole issue of EI. In fact, it has a bill before the House which would attempt to remove the two-week waiting period, which, by the way, the NDP certainly supports.

However, this is a bill that is aimed at 190,000 workers, a billion dollars, and is intended to help in another way to solve the EI problem. There is nothing stopping the Bloc members from supporting this bill in principle, getting it to committee, trying to make the amendments they want at committee, supporting the bill and getting it through, and at the same time working on getting their existing legislation through the House.

We too have bills on EI before the House. We are not going to give up on those bills just because the government wants to pass this one. If this bill passes, we are going to keep working on these bills that are parallel to this one. Why would the Bloc not do the same thing?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, recently, the Bloc Québécois offered to put this bill on the fast track, but the government did not want that.

Personally, I remain convinced that the employment insurance system can be improved in a much more efficient manner. The debate and the work in committee will allow us to do that. I am confident that someone across the floor, on the government side, will finally understand. Common sense is important. The Conservatives will have to start using their common sense. Hopefully, they will seize the opportunity with this bill and start showing that they do have some common sense.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and for his clarity. I would like to ask him a specific question.

This morning, I saw the headlines in the newspapers saying that the Liberals wanted to speed up the adoption of the bill in order to annoy the NDP. The Liberals hold a grudge against the NDP. I was surprised to read that. In fact, the Liberals oppose the bill for partisan reasons, not because of their convictions. I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of the Liberal position on employment insurance. I think he has much to say about that.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to say everything I would have to say about the Liberals' position, and what they have done or not done while in government. I came to this place 11 years ago, in 1998. At the time, the hot topic, the most popular one, was employment insurance. It was a topic of discussion 11 years ago. I once told colleagues who had been here for a while that, while EI was admittedly an important issue, it was raised rather often. In light of the answers provided by the Liberal Party at the time, I came to realize that questions had to be put repeatedly.

I will never forget the time when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, answered a question about employment insurance. He said he was eligible for benefits. A minister gestured to him that he did not. Then, he indicated that perhaps he did not need any. In itself, this goes to show that, from the Prime Minister to the then human resources minister, the Liberals were completely out of touch with what a good employment insurance scheme for the people should be. The economy was doing well then, so much so that the government could afford to pay down the debt on the backs of the unemployed, even though the unemployment rate was not very high at the time. The fact remains that the money used to pay down the debt belonged to the unemployed. The Conservative government will run up a $57 billion debt. I am afraid to think about what the next—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of this bill, which will extend regular benefits for long-tenured workers who are unemployed. Many such workers have a hard time finding a new job after working for the same employer for most of their working lives.

I am particularly pleased to take part in today's debate because it allows me to speak on behalf of people who have worked hard their entire lives, who have paid their taxes and their EI premiums, and who have never or rarely had to rely on support from the government.

For the purposes of this new measure, long-tenured workers are defined as those who have paid into the EI system for years, who have rarely had to rely on it, and who come from all sectors of the economy. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of those who pay into the EI system across Canada correspond to this definition of long-tenured workers. A little more than one-third of those who have lost their jobs across Canada since the end of January and have filed a claim for EI benefits are long-tenured workers. Thanks to their hard work and commitment to their employers, these workers have contributed to the success and prosperity of Canada and Quebec.

In a time of greater economic prosperity, these workers could have finished up their career with the same employer, eventually enjoyed a well deserved retirement and benefited from the corporate pension plan they have contributed to for decades. However, as we all know, the current economic situation is a problem. The current global downturn has devastated economies all over the world, and Canada is no exception.

We only have to look at the morning papers or watch the evening news to see that another company is cutting jobs, laying off employees or closing its doors. Although such events are sad for our country and the communities where they occur, they are a tragedy for those who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. These are very serious circumstances for long-tenured workers who must now face a job market that has changed dramatically and often requires completely different skill sets than they possess.

Although long-tenured workers are being laid off throughout the country, certain Quebec communities have been particularly affected because they are dependent on manufacturing and forestry, two industrial sectors that have been hit hard. For that reason, as a Quebecker, I am proud to see the government taking decisive action to ensure that long-tenured workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada will obtain the additional assistance needed to face the challenges.

Therefore, what proposals does this bill contain and why are they so important to workers who find themselves in this situation? In a nutshell, with this bill the government will provide additional assistance to people who have paid employment insurance premiums for a long time and who, up to now, have not often collected benefits. To be eligible, a claimant must have paid into the system at least 30% of maximum annual premiums in at least 7 of 10 calendar years. They must not have collected regular employment insurance benefits for more than 35 weeks during the past 5 years.

The definition allows up to 35 weeks of regular benefits during the past five years because, in recent years, workers from some industries, including manufacturing and forestry, have received employment insurance benefits during temporary work stoppages.

It is estimated that approximately 190,000 workers, one-quarter of whom live in Quebec, would benefit from this temporary measure.

Once promulgated, this legislation would extend by 5 to 20 weeks the benefits for long-tenured workers, depending on the number of years they have worked and paid EI premiums.

For workers to benefit from this measure as soon as possible, it would be accessible to claimants who are long-tenured workers and whose benefit period was established on January 4, 2009, or nine months before this bill comes into force, whichever is later. The measure would apply to all claims from long-tenured workers established before September 11, 2010, which means that the extended benefits could be paid until the fall of 2011.

This is good news for people who have spent most of their lives working for the same employer in Quebec or in the rest of Canada.

As useful as this new initiative is, it is just one element in a much wider effort to improve the fairness of the employment insurance system and its ability to help workers and their families deal with the present economic downturn.

Canada's economic action plan contains several measures to provide employment insurance benefits to individuals for a longer period of time, together with more efficient service.

The career transition assistance initiative may be very valuable for long-tenured workers.

It extends the benefit period for up to two years while long-tenured workers participate in long-term training. In other words, it enables eligible long-tenured workers to access employment insurance more quickly if they use some or all of their severance pay to cover the cost of training.

The work-sharing program also helps people remain in the active population by providing employment insurance income support to workers who agree to work fewer hours per week while their employer recovers from the economic crisis.

In Canada's economic action plan, we have changed the program to give employers more flexible options to help plan their recovery.

In addition, the agreements can be extended by up to 14 more weeks to optimize the benefits during the economic slowdown.

With this program, employers will be able to avoid hiring new employees and retraining laid-off workers once the company recovers, and employees will be able to continue working, thereby keeping their skills up to date.

As of September 6, 2009, some 165,000 Canadians were benefiting from more than 5,800 work-sharing agreements across Canada.

In addition, as part of the economic action plan, we are investing $60 million more over three years in the targeted initiative for older workers to help workers between 55 and 64 years of age update their skills and gain the work experience they need to get new jobs.

To broaden the scope of the initiative, communities with fewer than 250,000 inhabitants are now eligible for funding.

Under the economic action plan, the government is also providing an additional $1 billion over two years under existing labour market development agreements with provinces and territories to help employment insurance clients acquire the skills they need to get and keep new jobs.

Also, under the strategic training and transition fund, we are investing $500 million over two years to help individuals benefit from training and other support measures, whether or not they qualify for employment insurance.

Since the provinces and territories are in a better position to meet the needs of their own labour markets, this money was delivered through the existing labour market agreements.

Furthermore, the action plan offers an apprenticeship completion grant of $2,000 to apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeship training in a red seal trade. That is in addition to the existing apprenticeship incentive grant.

Through these two grants, an apprentice could receive $4,000. Up to 20,000 Canadians could benefit from this brand new grant.

The Government of Canada also protects jobs and supports struggling companies in key sectors of our economy. This applies to sectors such as forestry, agriculture and mining, sectors that are particularly vital to Quebec, given their large share of the Quebec economy.

We are helping them through the community adjustment fund, which will provide $1 billion over two years to help promote the economic diversification of communities affected by struggling local industries.

The government is also supporting aboriginal people in Canada with a $100 million investment over three years in the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program. This program offers job training in sectors such as tourism, construction and natural resources, through partnerships between employers and aboriginal organizations.

In addition, the aboriginal skills and training strategic investment fund gives aboriginal people access to important skills training so that they can fully participate in the economic recovery.

Lastly, we recognize the importance of temporary income support for people who are experiencing difficulties, and we are extending regular employment insurance benefits by five weeks—the maximum length of benefits in regions with high unemployment has been extended from 45 to 50 weeks.

All of this means that the Government of Canada will spend some $5.8 billion more than it did last year on employment insurance benefits for Canadians.

It gives me great satisfaction to note that recent statistics have confirmed the effectiveness of the EI system in reacting to Quebec's changing economy. This is proven by the fact that more than 70% of Quebec workers can access the EI system more easily now than one year ago. This is due to the variable entrance requirement, which gives the EI system the flexibility needed to automatically react to changes in local labour markets. When unemployment rates increase, eligibility criteria are relaxed and the duration of benefits is extended.

These standards are adjusted every month, to take into account the latest local unemployment rates. So, the amount of assistance provided increases as the unemployment rate rises, which means that funds are directed to those regions and communities that need it most.

These are just some of the measures introduced by this government to help Canadians and Quebeckers cope with the current global recession. However, despite everything we have done, there is much more to do, such as ensuring that long-tenured workers obtain the additional weeks of support they deserve, and need, to find another job during this difficult time. That is the goal of Bill C-50 before us here today.

Recognizing the importance of this matter, I will vote in favour of this bill, so that long-tenured workers can obtain the assistance and support they need. I strongly encourage all members of the other parties to do the same.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that it is very important for Quebec, but it is also very important for Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because we are talking about forestry.

The member talks about long-tenured forestry workers. I want to clarify something with this bill when he talks about long-tenured workers because that seems to be the message we are getting from the government.

There is one classification of forestry workers who are considered long-tenured and they are the loggers. On average, they claim two or three months of EI benefits per year. They have been loggers for a good deal of time, in some cases up to 30 years, on average 10 to 15 years. Certainly, for this particular legislation, over the past five years, they have accumulated more than the required 36 hours.

Here is the problem. I would consider loggers to be long-tenured, but they do not qualify under this particular legislation. What am I supposed to say to these individuals who say, “The Conservatives told us it was fair”? It is, however, not fair to these people. Perhaps specifically, the member from Quebec would like to tell me how I am supposed to deal with that situation?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, forestry is a very sensitive sector and one that was deeply affected by the global economic crisis. As we know, it is all about markets. Demand for wood products is down and so are prices. This has created tremendous difficulties for many firms, both upstream and downstream from the industry. This has seriously affected those who cut and transport logs, the suppliers and others.

Some mills in the forestry sector have had to close and may one day reopen. Those who have worked there all their lives—for 10, 15, 20 or even 30 years—and who are just about to leave the job market because they are at the end of their working lives—not their actual lives—know that their benefits are about to run out.

Long-tenured workers will receive an additional 5 to 20 weeks and benefit from other measures, such as workforce training, to help them find a new job or wait for the mill to reopen. Those 20 weeks are of vital importance to these workers.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise that he is first and foremost a Quebecker and proud to stand for that within the Conservative Party. Personally, I cannot accept that because, in my riding of Manicouagan, we have workers who become unemployed from time to time due to the fact that industries in our region rely heavily on natural resources. There is the forestry industry, the fishing industry and the tourism industry. Legislation cannot divide unemployed workers into the good and the bad. That cannot be done.

The bill states that claimants are not eligible for benefits if they have not contributed at least 30% of the maximum annual premium in 7 of the past 10 years, or in 12 of the past 15 years. The same bill also states that claimants who were paid more than 35 weeks of benefits over the past 5 years, or an average of 7 weeks of benefits per year, are not eligible either.

Who is this bill meant to help, then? It is directly geared toward Ontario's automotive industry, an industry that has seldom had to make massive layoffs, although it is having to do so during this economic crisis. It is tailored to fit the automotive industry in Ontario and does nothing for the workers in the riding of Manicouagan and many other parts of Quebec.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that I am proud to be a Quebecker and to sit on this side of the House to be able to really help Quebeckers.

As far as seasonal workers, like those in the tourism and fishing industries who work during the summer, let me tell my colleague that they are still eligible for every other EI measure. There is no problem in that regard. The bill is aimed at long-tenured workers whose EI benefits are running out. They will get 5 to 20 more weeks. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about. That is what serving Quebeckers means.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by the approach that my friends in the Liberal Party are taking on this issue. While they were the government for 13 years, they pretty much rammed the EI system and restricted the number of people who could collect. They built up a big surplus in the EI system and then used that $57 billion surplus to pay down the debt. Now they have decided that they want to make improvements in the EI system and have been trying to introduce legislation in the last little while.

Finally, the government has come up with an approach that would deal with 190,000 workers at a cost of $1 billion. We have a choice between supporting that or causing a $300 million election and the Liberal Party has chosen the $300 million election. That to me does not make sense if the Liberals really want to improve the EI system.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

My answer it that this measure for long-tenured workers will cost in excess of $900 million, close to $1 billion, but all the initiatives for EI included in our economic action plan amount to $5.8 billion more for Canadians, for mothers and fathers who need this money this year.

That is what we call taking the initiative on this side of the House. That is what being a proud Quebecker is all about.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the answers the parliamentary secretary gave to the member for Manicouagan, and I was completely dumbfounded.

What I understood is that he was saying that a worker who is unfortunate enough to be a seasonal worker, to work in the tourism or forestry industry, will have access to regular EI benefits, but not to the extended benefit period. The government is telling them, “too bad“. They are not fortunate enough to work in a factory that has never shut down.

It is inconceivable that a member from Quebec is in such denial about the job situation in the regions of Quebec. There are many seasonal workers there. Furthermore, this year, there was probably less work in some regions because tourism was affected by the economic crisis.

How can the parliamentary secretary be so stubborn about his position when he knows very well that many unemployed workers in the regions of Quebec will not be eligible for this measure?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that workers in the tourism and fishing sectors and other seasonal industries have surely been working this summer and are thus eligible for EI.

Our bill is aimed at long-tenured workers, people who lost their jobs after working for 10, 15 or 20 years for the same employer. Because of the economic crisis, their jobs are no longer available or their plant is closed indefinitely. Accordingly, these workers will receive between 5 and 20 more weeks of EI benefits.

These people are men and women, fathers and mothers who really need the benefits. We are pleased to put forward this bill for them.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during this global recession Canadians are looking for a couple of things. First of all, they are looking for a government that responds in times of need, and Bill C-50 shows that this government is very responsive. We also want an insurance program that is going to work. There is no use putting something together that is not going to work.

I wonder if small businesses in the member's constituency are speaking the same language as they are in mine. The CFIB and others have told us not to fall for the 360-hour work year, 45-day work year, because it would be too costly to employers, to the economy, to productivity and everything else. Is my colleague hearing that message?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer my colleague's question.

In my riding, business people are very dynamic. Despite the present economic crisis, the unemployment rate is approximately 5%. Employers keep their employees as long as possible in spite of the economic crisis because they have a hard time finding new employees. When employees leave a job, they find another job in another company. In my region, things are going well in the private sector because the job market is very strong.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want the opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-50 because it has such a profound effect on the working people in my riding.

I want to start with a bit of history. When the Liberals gutted the EI system, and I mean gutted--they cut and hacked and slashed the EI system to the point where it was a shadow of its former self and completely ineffective as an income security machine--it took $20 million a year out of my riding in income maintenance that used to flow from the EI system.

In that one riding of downtown Winnipeg, $20 million a year of federal money that used to flow into my riding no longer did because they changed the rules so that no one qualified anymore. Then they started milking it like a cash cow, spending the money that was obviously going to accumulate. Workers had no choice but to pay into the program, but nothing was getting paid out. They spent that money that was supposed to be for income maintenance of unemployed workers on the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. On a point of order, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, bilingualism no longer exists at the Olympic Games, and it seems to have temporarily disappeared from the House of Commons, as well. I would ask the interpreters to push the right button so we can hear the translation.