House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was help.
Alice Wong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism
Madam Speaker, why did the Liberals walk away from the discussions in the summer if they care about those who are unemployed?
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Madam Speaker, has my colleague been following what has been happening in the House and the debate that has been going on? Everyone knows the Liberals did not walk away from the table. In fact, the two Liberals who sat at that table were left with no choice because there were absolutely no proposals from the Conservatives, not one thing, and finally, out of frustration, they had to say, “We cannot do this any longer”.
Alice Wong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism
Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in the debate today on our government's latest steps to help Canadians facing difficulties.
Our government has been working hard since we formed government to help Canadians. Over the past year, we have been working even harder.
The global economic recession hit Canada hard. Many tens of thousands of Canadians lost their jobs, many of them quite suddenly. This sort of thing is incredibly shocking and stressful on these workers and their families.
This Conservative government has taken strong action to help these Canadians. In January we introduced Canada's economic action plan, which was a plan for economic stimulus to maintain and create jobs, to help our economy recover and to help Canadians get the new skills they needed to succeed in the new jobs of the future as Canada's economy recovered and moved forward.
I would like to talk about these measures for a few moments. These measures include providing five extra weeks of EI regular benefits across the country, including increasing the maximum duration of benefits from 45 to 50 weeks in regions of high unemployment.
Under Canada's economic action plan, we have also made changes to the work-sharing program to help workers stay in the labour force, maintain their skills and protect their jobs. Work sharing allows employers to keep their skilled and experienced employees on, while their business endures a slowdown due to the recession. This program offers EI income support to workers who are willing to work a reduced work week while their employer pursues the company's economic recovery plan.
The changes we have made extend the work-sharing agreements by an additional 14 weeks to maximize the benefits for workers and employers during the recovery period. Work-sharing agreements are not available for 52 weeks. This is an enormous help to Canadian employers and employees alike. As of today, there are close 5,800 active work-sharing agreements across the country, protecting the jobs and skills of over 165,000 Canadians.
I also want to mention the additional $60 million over three years that Canada's economic action plan is investing in the targeted initiative for older workers. This initiative enables people 55 to 64 years of age to get the skills upgrading and work experience they need to make the transition to new jobs.
Let me add that we are expending this initiative's reach so that communities with populations of fewer than 250,000 are now eligible for funding. This will ensure that many more Canadians are able to benefit from this valuable initiative.
Under Canada's economic action plan, workers will also benefit through the increase of funding of $1 billion over two years for skills training under the existing labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories. This additional investment will help people receiving EI benefits to get the skills training they need in our changed economy.
The action plan also has an initiative in place to assist individuals who are ineligible for employment insurance so they too can benefit from training and other support measures.
Through our strategic training and transition fund, we are investing to assist these unemployed Canadians. Because we recognize that the provinces and territories know local needs best, the training programs part of this fund are being delivered at that level.
As well, to support young people entering the trades, the action plan introduced an additional $2,000 apprenticeship completion grant to apprentices who successfully completed an apprenticeship program in a Red Seal trade. This new measure builds on the existing apprenticeship incentive grant.
In addition, through a two year $1 billion community adjustment fund, our government is protecting jobs and supporting businesses in key sectors of our economy that are in difficulty, and this includes forestry, farming and mining.
The fund will support economic diversification in communities affected by the decline in their local industries.
Moreover, as a direct result of Canada's economic action plan, up to 1,000 young people can gain work experience through internships with not for profit and community service organizations under an agreement with the YMCA and YWCA and its new grants for the youth internship program.
As I said, our government recognizes the crucial role that the EI program plays in assisting unemployed Canadians while the economy recovers. This year alone, the government will spend $5.5 billion more on EI benefits for Canadians. I believe this amount speaks volumes about our government's commitment to helping Canadians through the difficulties and the difficult period of this economic recession.
Since coming to office, we have worked diligently to make fair and timely changes to the EI program in keeping with the real needs of Canadians. This is why we have expanded the eligibility for EI compassionate care benefits by enlarging the definition of family members to include a wider range of individuals and it is why we are improving the management and governance of the EI account by establishing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.
Some of my colleagues have mentioned this change and I want to mention it as well. It is important for Canadians. The Employment Insurance Financing Board will ensure that EI premiums paid by hard-working Canadians do not go into general revenues and are not available for future governments to use on their pet political projects or to fudge deficit numbers.
Previous Liberal governments did just that and the money they used to shine their own image is no longer there to help Canadians who need it, the very same Canadians who paid those premiums and expected their money to be there for them. Our Conservative government is ensuring that will not happen again.
As for this bill, Bill C-50 is an important and timely initiative that builds on measures our Conservative government has introduced through Canada's economic action plan to assist Canadians who find themselves unemployed in these difficult times. The changes proposed by Bill C-50 are in keeping with our commitment to have an EI program that Canadians can rely on as their first line of defence when they lose their jobs.
When long-tenured workers lose their jobs, we want measures in place that are as fair and responsive as they possibly can be, measures that reflect and respect their own long contributions to the health of their industries or sectors, their communities and our nation.
As I explained, this legislation proposes a temporary measure that will provide some much needed assistance to long-tenured workers throughout the country. The passage of Bill C-50 will make a difference in their lives and the lives of their families. It will also be proof positive that we support and stand behind them in their efforts to seek and find new jobs. They have striven long and hard to support their industry. Now let us assist them in their time of need.
I call especially on members from the Liberal Party and the Bloc. Whatever their other desires or their other goals, they should see just as clearly as members on this side of the House and other members of the House who are supporting this bill that these measures are important to tens of thousands of Canadians.
The Liberal leader's wish to drive Canadians into an unnecessary election to fulfill his personal goals or to feed his personal vanity should not stand in the way of tens of thousands of unemployed Canadians getting the help they need and deserve.
I, therefore, ask all members of the House to join in supporting Bill C-50.
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Madam Speaker, I first would like to point out that it is unfortunate in a debate like this that members resort to personal attacks. This is such an important issue that we really need to focus on Canadians and the situation in which they find themselves.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell me what the status is of the financing board.
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Madam Speaker, the financing board will be fully responsible for handling EI premiums and how they will be used. Money collected from people who pay their premiums will be kept by the board in a separate pot and be managed by the board independently.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about EI and I would like some clarification from her.
For many years, we have been denouncing the pillaging of the employment insurance fund, which has continued under the Conservatives. There is currently a bill before the House, Bill C-50, which will allow a few unemployed to receive extended benefits, while none of the forestry workers and seasonal workers, who have experienced problems with EI in recent years, will be able to benefit from any of these measures. And the pillaging of the EI fund is continuing.
Should steps not be taken to stop the pillaging of the EI fund and to provide assistance not only to those workers who have done without EI these past few years, but all those who are losing their jobs because of the recession that is still ongoing, especially since the OECD predicts that it will last for another few years?
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Madam Speaker, I might suggest that the opposition do some research and some calculations. We have already given out an additional $5.5 billion for EI, which is exactly what people need.
I am asking the opposition to support Bill C-50 in order to help those who have paid premiums their whole life. This is the right time for them to get what they deserve, the extension of five to twenty weeks to those people who really deserve it. That is why we are asking opposition parties to support unemployed Canadians and not block them.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the Conservative government who just spoke how her party came up with the figure of 190,000 regarding the number of workers who will see their EI benefits extended under this bill.
We know that, if there are 190,000, the assumption is likely that 85% receive regular benefits up until the end of their qualifying period, when in fact 25% receive the full benefits they are entitled to. Therefore, this is not—at least we do not think so—a meaningful figure. We should be talking instead of $300 million benefiting approximately 60,000 people.
I would like her to explain how that number was calculated. We have asked questions of some members of the Conservative Party, but have been unable to get an answer, either orally or in writing.
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
Madam Speaker, we have stated clearly that the five week extension would apply to all Canadians who are unemployed and qualify. This extension of five weeks to twenty weeks would actually apply to long-tenured workers who have paid premiums their whole life. They deserve these five to twenty weeks of benefits, and the Bloc is blocking them.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, we can clearly see the Conservative Party's bad faith with regard to Bill C-50, which is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Upon further study of this bill, we see that because of the eligibility criteria involved it will not help all workers in the construction industry, for instance, seasonal workers or people working in tourism who receive employment insurance benefits intermittently.
This bill introduces another set of criteria that make it more difficult to access employment insurance benefits. It creates another category of workers who will not qualify as EI claimants. Consider young people and seasonal workers in the construction industry or the forestry sector, for example.
The Conservatives need to wake up. Maybe they want to help them, but they are not going about it the right way. The forestry industry has been facing a crisis for five years and nothing has been done. The Conservatives have shown us again that they do not want to help the forestry sector. They set up phoney committees that might produce a little tidbit in two or three months, but right now, many people are asking for help and may well fall into poverty because they do not have access to employment insurance.
The Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill because it ignores everyone's needs, especially the needs of Quebeckers. The government helped the auto industry by investing $10 billion and now they have introduced Bill C-50. If they really wanted, in good faith, to help unemployed workers, they would not have introduced this bill, which will take some time to be adopted, and they would have accelerated the process by accepting the Bloc's proposal. If they had accepted it, we would already be doing the clause by clause examination of the bill in committee. We would have heard from many groups from Quebec and perhaps elsewhere, who would have come to tell us that this bill does not correspond to their situation. Once again we can see the Conservatives' bad faith when it comes to improving the employment insurance system.
In 1993 I sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and people will remember how the Liberals gutted eligibility for employment insurance. This time, the Conservatives could put things right, because there is a surplus in the EI fund. It is workers and employers who pay for this insurance against job loss, not the government. The government's action is very restrictive. Instead of introducing a bill, the Conservatives could have put in place a pilot project, which would already be up and running.
Plants close and people are laid off temporarily. There have been quite a few temporary layoffs in Quebec in the past five years. I said that another category of people would be excluded from EI benefits. They are workers who do not qualify because they received more than seven weeks of EI a year in recent years, when the average in Quebec is 10 weeks. This bill allows that sort of exclusion. It excludes a portion of the population.
We know that this bill will help sectors where employability has been much more stable over the years and where workers have not taken advantage of employment insurance. This measure is designed to help people who lose their jobs regularly. There are fairly specific employment situations. Young people do not have seven years' experience, which is what is required. The bill applies to long-tenured workers. That is another irritant. The bill does not take into account women who work part-time and receive EI intermittently because they do not have long-term jobs.
It is clear that the Conservative government does not want to help workers who lose their jobs. It does not respect them, and it is not in tune with what they need.
That is clear in this bill. When we look at how we ended up with this bill, it was in very bad faith. From the time it was introduced, the Bloc Québécois asked that the bill be referred to committee before second reading in order to let the government know that some changes were necessary. We were prepared to look at this bill and make some changes to open it up a bit.
In the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a report was presented which recommended improving accessibility and reviewing the number of hours. The Conservatives wanted nothing to do with it. To be entitled to up to 20 additional weeks, an individual has to run out of regular benefits. Only 25% of people run out of regular benefits and that is why the number is misleading. Again, it is smoke and mirrors. We are told this represents 190,000 workers, but that is not possible because 85% of those workers would have to run out of benefits and that is not the case.
I would like the Conservatives to look at what is happening in Quebec. We have some very serious problems in the forestry and the forestry industry. Some tens of millions of dollars in assistance have been paid out, but keeping jobs in the forestry industry is an even bigger challenge than it is in the automobile industry. The automobile industry received help and I am not criticizing that. I am criticizing the fact that not all industries in Quebec and Canada are being given enough assistance. I do not understand why the NDP, who made employment insurance their pet issue, is now burying its head in the sand to maybe save its own skin. It is agreeing with the government in order to keep it afloat. If it is not the NDP, then it is the Liberals, who voted in favour of the last budget and abandoned workers.
The Bloc Québécois introduced several economic proposals precisely to help the workers, as many as possible, to get through this crisis. EI reform was among the Bloc Québécois' goals. Not only did the Bloc want to better assist industries and all workers with specific measures to get through this crisis, but so did the OECD. We might see unemployment rates approaching 10%. That represents many unemployed people. This will make the number of EI claimants skyrocket. We will recall that, during the campaign, as far as the government was concerned, there was no economic crisis, there was no problem, and all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Now we can see the government running up a huge deficit. Who will pay for that? Members will recall who footed the deficit under the Liberals, a deficit that the Conservatives may have also created. It was the people who lost their jobs. The restrictions on EI hit those who lost their jobs very hard.
Personally, I would like any member of that government who puts a question to me to try and explain how they came up with a figure of 190,000 workers. There are even political analysts who say that this bill was designed for Ontario, where employment tends to be long term, and not for businesses that have had to lay people off over the years, particularly in the forestry industry.
The government is crowing over this bill today. It should really make it better. Then, the Bloc Québécois will be able to tell the unemployed that it kept its word and tell the forestry industry that it stood up for them in this House. That is why I am actively advocating for this issue today.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened with fascination to my colleague's dissertation, and many of her complaints are absolutely fair. Our role as opposition is to show when there are problems with bills. That is what we are here to do.
Clearly, this bill does not go far enough in addressing the outstanding crisis that we are seeing across this country. However, the question is what we do with the bill before us. I see what the Bloc is doing. It is attempting to divert attention by saying that this is an attempt to treat Quebec unfairly.
We know the mendacity of that argument. I am not even going to respond to it. Does it address all the workers? No, it does not, but does it address some workers? Yes, it does. What should the opposition do at that point? We must continue to fight for fair EI.
I will put this question to the member. Is the Bloc Quebecois the trained poodle of the Liberal Party? When the Liberal Party says that it wants an election and that it does not matter that there is $1 billion on the table, does the Bloc run behind it and say, “Me too, me too”?
That is not opposition. Under the Liberals for the last two years, nothing was being put on the table for EI. Now, we have $1 billion. It is certainly not enough. There are other bills that have to be addressed. We have to continue to fight for that.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a valid question here. Is she running after the Liberal Party leader, or is she going to stay here in the House and make sure that this money gets out to people?
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to respond to the NDP member's question.
I am not the only one who thinks this way. I never claimed that. Unions, business leaders in the forestry industry, workers, unemployed workers and associations see things the same way I do. They feel that this bill does not address what is really going on in Quebec.
I am sorry, but it is not petty politics to say that the NDP is burying its head in the sand once again and that it is making a mistake. I have heard some noises outside Quebec from associations of unemployed workers who are also calling on an NDP colleague to step up and respond to the government. All the opposition parties could have pressured the government to amend this bill. But the opposition was divided. That works well for the Conservatives.
But we know that the Conservatives will end up without any respect.
Alice Wong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism
Madam Speaker, it is ridiculous to hear the word “united”. The Bloc and opposition are suggesting that they need to reunite again to take the government down in an unnecessary election, which is exactly what a lot of Canadians are thinking. I am glad the NDP is looking very seriously at this real problem of helping unemployed Canadians.
I do not know why the Bloc would say this. One hundred and ninety thousand EI premium payers have worked very hard for their whole lives, and now they are in difficult times. We are extending their benefits by between five weeks and 20 weeks. At the same time, we are also providing them with training opportunities. All those initiatives include the whole nation, all the provinces including Quebec, unless the Bloc wants its province to be exempt from that.
That is not what the people of Quebec want. They want a government that is responsible and that will help in times of need. They want us to let them know that the government does care. These 190,000 unemployed people will now get extra help because of that.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Madam Speaker, once again, a Conservative member is talking about the 190,000 workers who have lost their jobs and will have access to the measures in Bill C-50. We must also see when this bill will be passed. They are buying time. But they have not been able to show us how they got to that figure of 190,000. In fact, according to our calculations and the calculations of a number of analysts who have examined the situation, that number would be closer to 60,000.
Long-tenured workers are a different category of unemployed workers. There are long-tenured workers, young workers, female workers, seasonal workers, those who work in construction, those who have paid into EI but unfortunately, during an economic crisis, are left without a job. What is being done? We are making more demands, but in order to make a difference, we need employment insurance.
What is this government doing? It does not care about the unemployed.
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Bill C-50, our government's latest step to help Canada's unemployed.
Our government has taken action throughout the past year to help Canadians. As part of Canada's economic action plan, we have made changes and improvements to the EI system to help those Canadians who have become unemployed through no fault of their own.
We have made timely improvements, providing five extra weeks of EI benefits; making the EI application process easier, faster and better for businesses and workers; and increasing opportunities for unemployed Canadians to upgrade their skills and get back to work.
Canada's economic action plan also announced the freezing of the EI premium rate for this year, 2009, and for next year as well, 2010. I would point out that the EI premiums are at their lowest levels in a quarter century. Keeping the EI premium rate at the same level in 2009 and 2010 is achieving additional stimulus, as this measure therefore keeps premium rates lower than they would otherwise be. This helps leave more money for employers to hire and retain workers and more money in the pockets of those working Canadians.
We are assisting businesses and their workers through improved and more accessible work-sharing agreements. More than 165,000 Canadian jobs are being protected with work-sharing agreements that are in place with more than 5,800 employers across Canada.
These improvements are helping these Canadians stay at work and maintain their skills so that these companies can come out of this recession even stronger, with their skills and employee base maintained.
Career transition assistance is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-term workers who need additional support for retraining to find a new job. Through this initiative, we have extended the duration of EI regular income benefits to up to two years for eligible workers who choose to participate in longer-term training. We are also allowing earlier access to EI for eligible workers who invest all or part of their severance in training that takes longer than 20 weeks.
By working with the provinces and the territories through this and other programs, we are providing Canadians easier access to training that is tailored to the workers in our country's different regions. This new legislation we are introducing is part of those efforts.
Bill C-50 is about extending EI regular benefits to workers who have lost their jobs after working a long time and who have never or have rarely collected employment insurance or EI regular benefits. These Canadians have paid their taxes for many years, and of course they have paid EI premiums. It is only fair and right that we support them and their families in their time of need.
For the purpose of this new measure, the definition of long-tenured workers applies to workers from all sectors of the economy. It is estimated that about two-thirds of EI contributors meet this definition of long-tenured workers.
More than one-third of those who have lost their jobs across Canada since the end of January and who have established an EI claim are long-tenured workers. Many of these workers have worked at the same job or in the same industry all of their lives. They may have poor prospects for finding the same kind of job when the recession is over, and many face the prospect of starting all over again. We can either see that as a defeat or see that as an opportunity.
Canadians are resilient people. We have shown over and over again that we can cope with adversity and come out stronger. While losing a job is difficult on workers and their families, we can still see these difficulties as opportunities for the future.
We are constantly reinventing ourselves. I see it happening in communities, and I see it happening among individuals, but it takes effort and it takes time, and that is why this government wants to give long-tenured workers who lose their jobs the time they need. That is why we propose to make temporary changes to the EI program.
Bill C-50 would extend, on a national basis, EI regular benefits for long-tenured workers by between five and twenty weeks, depending upon the number of years they have worked and paid EI premiums. They are eligible if they have paid at least a minimum amount of EI premiums for at least seven out of ten calendar years and have received EI regular benefits for no more than 35 weeks in the last five years.
This new measure would apply equally to long-tenured workers everywhere in the country. This new measure has a measure of retroactivity, so that we can reach back and cover workers who lost their jobs during the ramp-up and peak of the recession.
Benefits would continue until the fall of 2011 for those who needed them. This temporary measure supplements other measures that we are taking under the economic action plan to help workers.
We are helping Canadian workers in all different walks of life and in various circumstances, including those at risk of being laid off, those who have been laid off, younger people trying to get into the job market, older workers, newcomers to Canada and Aboriginal Canadians.
I want to get back to the long-tenured workers. We already have a special program to assist them called the career transition assistance initiative. Its aim is to help those workers retrain for new jobs even if they need to move to an entirely different industry.
The career transition assistance initiative is based on two important measures. The first extends EI regular benefits for long-tenured workers up to a maximum of two years while they participate in longer term training. The other measure gives long-tenured workers earlier access to EI if they invest in their training using all or part of their severance package. I mentioned this earlier in my remarks.
Thousands of long-tenured workers will benefit from career transition assistance. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of training in both our short-term and long-term plans.
As I have said, we want to help Canadian workers adjust to the changes brought by the recession. We also want to prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow. To this end, we are giving Canadians all over the country opportunities to upgrade their skills or retrain for a new career.
Through our economic action plan, we are investing an additional $1.5 billion in provincial and territorial training programs. Close to 150,000 workers across the country will benefit from these initiatives and they will have access to them whether they are eligible for EI or not.
Furthermore, the targeted initiative for older workers will receive an additional $60 million over three years to enable more older workers aged 55 to 64 to get skills upgrading and work experience to help them make the transition to new jobs.
The program's reach has been expanded so that communities with a population fewer than 250,000 are now eligible for funding. With this change, an additional 250 communities could be included in the program, depending on provincial and territorial participation.
This government does not want to see any category of workers shut out of the labour market indefinitely or consigned to obsolescence. That is why we are making huge investments in training and retraining workers of all ages, because we cannot spare any of them. We will need them all in the years to come. We will need their skills, experience, energy and creativity to meet the challenges to come.
Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, finding solutions to help long-tenured workers who have worked hard and paid into the system for years but are having trouble finding employment through no fault of their own, extending benefits to self-employed Canadians and getting Canadians back to work through historic investments in infrastructure and skills training.
It is clear from these and other measures introduced in Canada's economic action plan that our government is stepping up to the plate to provide real results for all Canadians. That is why I would like members of this House to support a bill that would say to proven workers that we stand behind them, that we will help them get through this recession, that there are better times ahead and that we want them to be part of that.
I ask members to support Bill C-50 and to support Canadians who want to get back to work.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill C-50. The Conservatives devised this bill to save face or to give people the impression that it is working for the most vulnerable members of society, but that is all the bill does: give an impression. I think that Canadians, the people in every one of our ridings, need to have a clear understanding of what is in this bill and what it gives to workers and their families.
The government is trying to predict how many workers will lose their jobs. Worse yet, it is trying to predict exactly when they are going to lose their jobs. Bill C-50 imposes so many restrictions and criteria, restrictions and criteria—I could say it over and over—that it is very hard to tell who the Conservatives and the NDP will choose to be eligible for extra weeks of employment insurance benefits. I wonder if the government, that is, the Conservatives, are playing a kind of “Where's Waldo” game because we are trying to unearth people in our ridings who would be entitled to one red cent, let alone an extra week of benefits, under Bill C-50.
None of our seasonal workers in construction, highways, tourism, fisheries and forestry will be entitled to an extra week or even a single red cent under this bill. It leaves all of these workers out. The Conservatives have just dropped these workers, forgotten them. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that they simply dropped them because they cannot possibly have forgotten comments the Prime Minister made in the past about how people in the region I represent—the Atlantic—are defeatist. I do not think that he has forgotten us. Once again, he is looking for a way to make sure that people in rural communities do not get their hands on one red cent under this bill.
How can the Conservatives and the NDP look those workers in the eye, just as I am looking at the members of the Conservative government right now, and be able to tell them that they are about to lose their jobs, that they know people will lose their jobs, and guarantee them one thing, that is, that they will not give them another red cent. Indeed, the criteria for access to increased benefits simply do not apply to people from rural areas, to seasonal workers, or to workers in the construction, forestry, fishery or tourism sectors, or people working on our roads. I must stop the list there. A few days ago, I was giving a comprehensive list of the businesses in my riding, of the people who work in my riding, to try to determine who will have access to this program. I soon realized that the Conservatives were playing “Where's Waldo?”. That must be what they are doing if they can identify 190,000 people, as they are claiming. First of all, we cannot predict who will lose their jobs. It is impossible to know who will lose their jobs. It is even more difficult to know who will qualify for increased benefits once the additional rules and criteria, which the Conservatives included in their bill, are applied, or to predict who will not be eligible to receive assistance.
It is not only the workers we must think about, but also their families, those who need our help most every day. Winter is coming. People will need to top up their home heating oil to stay warm. They will need to pay their electricity bill to keep the heat on. They will need to continuing buying food to feed their children.
Instead, the Conservatives are telling seasonal workers that, in their opinion, even if they have worked for 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years, not just for the same industry but for the same company, they are not long-tenured workers.
Have they forgotten that loggers make it possible for houses to be built? Have they forgotten that farmers who harvest potatoes, fruits, vegetables and all other agricultural products stock Canada's cupboards? Have they forgotten our fishers and our tourism workers? Have they forgotten the people who cut trees and thin our forests to ensure an adequate supply of wood? They simply tell all these people that they are not eligible but that it does not matter because they are of no importance to us. That is exactly what the Conservatives are saying. And what is shameful is that the NDP is supporting a bill that is so disrespectful of the people we represent.
I would like to repeat what I said earlier. Why are seasonal workers who have worked in the same industry and for the same employer not considered long-tenured workers? Just now, the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism made some comments. She seemed to say that some people deserve to qualify while others do not. I am sorry, but if the Conservatives believe that some Canadian workers deserve employment insurance and others do not, they are going to be taught a lesson rather quickly. They say that an election costs $300 million and that it is a bad thing for Canadians, but they have just racked up a $56 million deficit. I am not talking about the Liberals but about the Conservatives. However, when they are told we must help the workers that need it, the most vulnerable and their families, they pick and choose who will have access to their help.
This exceeds my wildest expectations of a government. A good parent is supposed to be there for the children. The same goes for a government. Like a good parent, it has to help its citizens when they need it. All we see today is that the government has abandoned seasonal workers and workers in rural areas. It has simply abandoned workers living in rural areas.
What the Conservatives do not realize, and the NDP has followed suit, is how many people and how much territory rural Canada represents. It represents a very large proportion of the population and a very large portion of Canadian territory.
I dare hope that the Conservatives will listen to reason, but they are not exactly in the habit of helping the most vulnerable. I am sure they will continue down their own road.
I hope the NDP will wake up and realize that those who need employment insurance need to have access to it. We are talking about long tenured workers, but let us not forget seasonal workers, certain types of industry and all the types of workers I mentioned earlier. Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism said, they too deserve to collect EI. These people work and they help other Canadians put food on the table, build houses and create some wealth in this country.
I hope that what I am saying will resonate with the NDP and that it will finally understand that the only solution is to change the government to give Canadians a reason to be proud again.
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Madam Speaker is halfway there. If you travel 250 kilometres to the north and west, you reach the Gaspé. The fact of the matter is that I represent the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I would like to address two issues. I fully agree with part of what the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche said in his speech. There was another part, however, where I had a hard time following him. He seems to be very sensitive to the NDP, and what it does or does not do in any given circumstances, but how quickly he forgets the Liberal involvement in the employment insurance issue. If there is more than $50 billion in the EI fund today, it is due in large part to the Liberals. When in government, the Liberals made regions like the member's and mine suffer. Instead of being sensitive to what is happening on the NDP side, he should pay closer attention to his own party's record.
I do agree that Bill C-50 tends to divide the unemployed into two categories: the good and the bad. The good have never, or hardly ever, for 35 weeks over 5 years, had dealings with EI or received EI benefits. Otherwise, one falls into the other category. The reality of seasonal work is such that workers find themselves, sadly, with no choice but to collect benefits. EI is a social and economic safety net for regions like ours.
Therefore, I would like the member of the Liberal Party to be careful when throwing stones at others because they could be thrown right back at him. There is some kind of boomerang effect. I think he better not forget the involvement of his own party in the employment insurance issue. At the same time, I support his statement to the effect that Bill C-50 is disrespectful and, I might add, creates two categories of unemployed people.
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that my colleague and riding neighbour agrees with my comments about what Bill C-50 will not do for the people we represent.
We represent people who work for industries that are relatively similar, although different in some respects. Still, these people are going through the same things. The Conservatives have always had contempt for people in rural areas. Living in a rural area does not make someone a second-class citizen. Living in a rural area or in Atlantic Canada does not mean that one deserves to be insulted by the former opposition leader, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada. Living in a rural area does not mean that one should not be entitled to the same thing as others.
For many years and still today, Atlantic Canada and rural regions have provided Canadians with the natural resources and the goods they need to live. The Conservatives, with the NDP's support, are telling these people that rural dwellers, seasonal workers and people who work in a seasonal industry will not have access to employment insurance.
This bears repeating, not only so that parliamentarians understand, but also so that the people watching today understand that all these people will be left out. The government is simply ignoring these people and saying that they will not get any additional help.
People in rural areas are facing the same problems. Times are just as tough for seasonal workers. People are losing their jobs, many of them permanently. Forestry and factory workers in our ridings did not ask to lose their jobs, even though many of them work in seasonal industries. What is happening today is not their fault. The country is going through a crisis under the Conservatives.
Meanwhile, people in rural areas and seasonal workers are being told that it is not important, because they are not going through the same thing as people elsewhere. But that is not true. They are going through the same thing. The time has come for people to understand that everyone must be treated equally. Dividing people, something the Conservatives and their Prime Minister are good at doing, is not an option.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Health; the hon. member for Québec, Agri-food Industry.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Edmonton East.
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-50, and I encourage all hon. members to support the bill. The bill is about helping Canadian workers and their families. We are extending the duration of EI benefits to these workers who have worked a long time and have never or rarely collected EI benefits. Many of these workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own because of the global economic downturn. These Canadians have paid their dues. They have worked hard, paid their taxes for many years and have paid their EI premiums. It is fair and responsible that we support them and their families in their time of need.
Many of these workers have worked at the same job or the same industry all their lives and face the prospect of having to start all over again. In most cases, they simply need some more time. The economy is on the cusp of recovery and our Conservative government is working to help Canada begin a strong recovery. New job creation will probably lag behind the main economic indicators, so our government is taking this action to ensure that these long time workers have the bridge they need so they can get back into the workforce.
These measures will help to ensure that long-tenured workers who have paid into the EI system for years are provided the help they need while they search for new employment. These are temporary changes to the EI program to help workers when they need it most. The bill would extend national regular EI benefits for long-tenured workers by between five and twenty weeks, depending on the number of years workers have worked and paid EI premiums.
As proposed, the new temporary measure would cover all new claims established from early 2009 through to those established until early September 2010. Payments would then gradually phase out by fall of 2011. This temporary measure is designed to help long-tenured workers find work as our economy recovers. The additional weeks of EI regular benefits would help those workers by providing support for a longer period while they look for work during the economic downturn.
The bill is part and parcel of our government's economic action plan and works together with another initiative in that action plan, namely, career transition assistance. This measure extends EI benefits for up to two years for workers who are in longer term training. This initiative is also available to long-tenured workers and the eligibility criteria for this initiative and for Bill C-50 are the same. Through the bill, in concert with our economic action plan, we are taking action to help hard-working Canadians.
Our government is concerned about fighting this recession. This is in contrast to the official opposition, which is more intent on fighting the recovery. The government believes it is important to fight for working Canadians than fighting an unnecessary election.
Very notable organizations that support this bill and encourage party support to help workers through these tough economic times include Bill Ferguson, president of United Steel Workers Local 8782, “It's going to be quite good and give workers a little more time...This is a good thing to extend benefits to people like that”.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty called this measure “a step in the right direction”.
Ken Lewenza, president Canadian Auto Workers said, “In the months ahead tens of thousands of unemployed workers are going to join the growing ranks of Canadians who have exhausted their EI benefits. They need action, not political posturing”.
Ken Georgetti, president, Canadian Labour Congress said, “The government's proposed changes...we're pleased about that”.
Don Drummond, TD Bank Chief Economist said, “I think time is going to prove that the debate we're having on the employment insurance system is focusing on the wrong thing. I think this recession will prove it has been less about an access problem than a duration problem”.
These and many more people from the great leaders of industry across the country have stepped forward to give their support for this. It certainly encourages all members in the House to join together to the benefit of these unemployed workers and to give them temporary benefits they so dearly need. They have worked for so many years to pay for EI benefits.
I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support the bill because it is the right thing to do and it is the fair thing to do.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my hon. colleague had to say. I was particularly interested that he referred to some of the Canadian labour leaders who had spoken about the bill.
Many of the people whom I have spoken with in labour have been very clear. They say that what has been proposed goes a certain amount of the way, but it does not obviously address the overarching problems of EI. They understand it and we understand it. I would like to think the government understands it. I guess what does not seem to be understood is the position of the Liberal Party at this point.
We are in an economic crisis and we now have $1 billion on the table that will help some workers but not every worker. However, the role of the opposition is to continue to push the government to improve, to change, to address the shortcomings of the system that we have in this time of crisis.
When I hear the support we are getting from across the country from labour, they are saying that there is a bigger project for labour out there that has to be addressed, but the solution is not taking $1 billion off the table so the Liberal Party can call an election.
What does my hon. colleague of the role of the House of Commons? We do not have to agree with each other. We do not have to like each other. However, Canadians sent us here. Canadians dealt the cards that put all of us in the House and told us to get something done.
Now we see something that can be done. It goes part of the way. It does not go all the way. We hear the Bloc members saying that they do not want to have anything to do with it because it does not give them everything they want in a perfect universe.
However, the Liberal members are saying something more insidious. They are saying that they do not want this on the table because they want the Liberal Party leader to get his chance at running for the leadership of the country. I think it is absolutely bizarre and delusional. I am sort of worried for his mental health if he thinks the cards are in his favour right now.
Would the member tell us why he thinks the Liberal Party members are putting their own personal interest above the interests of hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers who are calling on us to get some action on unemployment?
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. I too am rather perplexed. We on this side of the House are trying to work with an economic action plan and trying to work through this recessionary time, which is a global issue. There are only so many things we can do, but we must work with the parties in the House.
I appreciate the interest of my college from the NDP in at least working to see what we can develop together, with our limited resources, that will help some reported 190,000 people. That is a considerable effort to work together on.
On the other hand, I find that it is not just perplexing, it is rather shameful that we have another party in the House, the official opposition, that is not interested in trying to discuss, trying to debate on some improvements for the 190,000 hard-working people.
I find it absolutely shameful that the Liberals are seemingly more interested in pulling the plug, going into an election early, an election the country does not want, a $300 million election that we cannot frankly afford, than working together with all parties in the House to help those 190,000 people. That is worthy of working together.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.
As we have heard a number of times, this is a very specific bill that would address a particular group of workers in this country who have been in difficulty because of the economic downturn.
Specifically, the bill would address the needs of claimants whose benefits would begin after January 4, 2009 and who have claimed less than 35 weeks over the past five years. They would get from 5 to 20 extra weeks of benefits depending on how long they have been paying into the EI system.
The maximum additional weeks for those who have been paying at least 30% of their maximum annual premium in seven of the last 10 years is five weeks. To get more than that, an individual needs to have been paying that 30% for a longer period of time. To get the full 20 weeks, an individual needs to have paid in for 12 to 15 years. This is a very specific proposal that has come from the government in this regard.
We have heard different estimates of how many workers this would actually help during this recessionary period. The government has estimated that 190,000 workers would be able to take advantage of it. Others have suggested that the number is lower. It is a significant group of people nonetheless.
Thousands and thousands of Canadian workers would be able to extend their EI benefits because of their long attachment to the workforce. That is important to remember as we talk about this particular piece of legislation.
Almost $1 billion is on the table to help these workers. That is a significant change from the attitude of the government in recent months. The government was not prepared to extend more money to help workers who had lost their jobs and were suffering through the recession. To put $1 billion on the table to help workers is a significant concession by the Conservative government. We need to take that seriously because people need our assistance. To not accept the possibility of that assistance at this time is not a responsible position for a member of Parliament to take.
The particular group of workers that this legislation would help are older workers, workers who have been in their positions for a long period of time and have been paying into EI over a long period of time.
From years of experience we know that older workers who lose their jobs often have great difficulty getting back into the workforce. People in their mid to late fifties and sixties who lose their jobs face incredible challenges in finding work based on their age, based on their lack of training and lack of up to date training. That group of workers is often difficult to help retrain, to help get back into the workforce. That is why this legislation is particularly important. It would probably help older workers the most. We also need to pay particular attention to that when we are considering this legislation.
Older workers have been of particular concern to New Democrats and to people in the labour movement. Finding some help for them in this period of crisis would be a significant step forward.
Does this legislation address the 1.6 million Canadians who are out of a job? No, it does not address that incredibly high number. Does it address the 800,000 people who have lost their jobs and do not have access to EI at all? No, it does not do that. This is a very specific measure.
How do we say no to those older workers, to those workers who have lost their jobs after a long period of attachment to the workforce? How do we tell them that they do not deserve the particular help that is being offered to them now? I am not in a position to say that they should not have this assistance.
I suspect that many of the workers who are not covered by this legislation, who still are not getting the kind of EI benefits that they deserve, are not going to say that older workers should not get the help that is proposed for them either. Workers will understand it is important that people who need help get it and that we will keep working to ensure that is broadened and other workers are brought in to programs that will give them assistance in this time of economic downturn.
I do not think this legislation pretends to be a comprehensive reform of the EI system, far from it, but we could use that.
New Democrats have proposed for a long time that we need to get back to the basics of what the unemployment insurance program was all about and recover some of the ground that we have lost over a number of decades, lost primarily, I have to say, under Liberal governments that gutted the unemployment insurance program.
The Liberals started that back in the 1970s. In fact, they lost their minister responsible for unemployment insurance when they first decided to gut the program back in the 1970s. The minister resigned over those changes that were imposed on Canadians back then. We saw them gut it again through the 1990s so that it is now a shadow of what it once was.
We saw the Liberals squander the money that they collected from employers and workers in Canada through their contributions for EI. That 54 billion, 55 billion, 56 billion, 57 billion dollars of money that was taken in over and above what was paid out in EI programs was applied to the deficit and the debt when it should have been applied to the needs of Canadians, when it should have been applied to ensure that the EI program was there when workers needed it.
If that $57 billion were still there and available in the EI fund for workers today, we could do something significant about the situation of the unemployed in Canada. We could do something significant to stimulate the Canadian economy, because we know that employment insurance is one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. We know that EI targets people who need money, families who need the money the most. It targets communities that have often been hit the hardest by an economic downturn. We know that every dollar that goes into an EI program when people are unemployed gets spent by those workers, by those families in those communities. It is a very efficient way of delivering assistance to individuals, to families and to communities that need it most.
We still need that kind of program. We still need that kind of reform. Sadly, that is not what is before us today. What has been offered is a specific program that looks to assist older workers with a long-term attachment to the workforce, and I do not think we can turn our backs on that.
New Democrats have been very clear what we think needs to be done instead. New Democrats have, I believe, 12 private members' bills on the order paper that would amend the Employment Insurance Act to improve it, to improve accessibility, to improve benefits, to improve EI maternity benefits for women, to do all of those things that would make it a better program, that would make it the kind of program we in this corner could be proud of and that workers across Canada could be proud of.
We are not backing off from those ideas. They are going forward. We look forward to debating them in this House and seeing if we can get the support of other parties to make those important changes to the Employment Insurance Act.
We have also worked hard to push our ideas through this House. Back in the spring on our opposition day, when we get a chance to put forward our ideas, we put forward ideas about what needs to be done about employment insurance. We said that the two-week waiting period needed to be eliminated. We said that we should reduce the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance down to 360 hours. We said that self-employed workers should be included, finally, in this program. We also said that the benefit rate needed to be raised to reflect the needs of folks who lose their jobs here in Canada. We put that forward in an opposition day motion. We debated it for a day here in the House of Commons. When it came to a vote, a majority of members of the House of Commons supported those recommendations.
Now, if the government took this place seriously, if the government took the will of the elected representatives of Canadians seriously, I would expect it would move on those ideas, on that broader reform of the EI system, so that we could restore it to a place that would make us proud and would offer Canadians the kind of assistance they need in this very difficult time. We have not seen that kind of movement yet.
What we do have on the table today is Bill C-50, with this specific program to assist up to 190,000 Canadian workers, to put a billion dollars into expanding the EI program. Those workers need help. I do not think we can turn our backs on them. It is not what we would have done. In this corner of the House, we will keep pushing the government to make other important changes, to do the right thing on EI. However, for now, we support this particular option that is before the House of Commons.
We are not giving the government a blank cheque. We are going to judge each proposal that comes forward to this House on a case by case basis. We are not going to turn our backs on this kind of assistance for workers in Canada.
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Madam Speaker, the member opposite raised a particular concern about long-tenured employees, and that is on the training. I had a personal experience in Edmonton with the closure of a major plant, and it was during a relatively buoyant economic period. The Maple Leaf plant put some 700 people out of work. Many of those people had been there 15 to 18 years. They had known no other life than that type of factory work. They had had regular income for a long period of time and then all of a sudden, they were out on the street.
It took years for them to find and eventually get employment. One of the most crucial factors for them to get employment was to go through some form of retraining. There were no jobs of the type they were used to.
This program affects so many people, so many workers in such a time of such great need. I ask my colleague, what is his impression on how the other two parties on that side could turn their backs on these workers? How could they want to take the stance for an election, which nobody across the country wants, based on the backs of the hundreds of thousands of workers who will not get these benefits if we go into an election?
I want to thank the member across the way for his comments, but maybe he could help to direct some of the public at large watching this to some type of rationale, some type of thinking on what would make two parties think they could turn their backs on all these workers and go into an election causing the workers not to get these types of benefits.