House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a petition signed by constituents in my riding of Perth—Wellington regarding potential changes to the Elections Act.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in the House to present a petition from voters in my area who want to ensure that Canadians have a fair electoral system.
The petitioners recognize that our current system produces false majorities and that the seat count of each party in the House does not reflect the vote count that they received in the 2015 election.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure voters can cast an equal and effective vote, are governed by a fairly elected Parliament, and live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians who represent a majority of the voters. They call upon the House to introduce a form of proportional representation.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition from Yukoners who note that the number of MPs a party achieves is not reflective of the number of voters who had cast votes for that party, and where a fair voting system would give each community fair and accountable representation.
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada, to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that Canadians live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority voters.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today.
The first petition, I have to say, shocked me when I received it from petitioners. Because February is Black History Month, I was particularly disturbed by this petition, that I do support, which is called “Recognition of Derogatory Geographical Names in Canada”. Believe it or not, there are a number of place names that use the “n” word. I am not going to use it in this context obviously, but there is a [Blank] Rapids, Le Buttereau-du-[blank], Premier rapide [Blank]-Eddy, and so on.
The petitioners ask that the House of Commons recognize that these geographical names must be replaced with names that cease to be racist and prejudicial, and do not reflect Canadian values.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is very straightforward. It refers to the issue of the management of marine protected areas.
The petitioners ask that the government branches simplify multilateral communications and responsibilities within marine protected areas.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and present this petition on behalf of a couple of hundred of my constituents from Louisdale, River Bourgeois, Grande Greve, Mabou, and Louisbourg.
The petitioners are concerned about the state of poverty in the country and want the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories to implement an anti-poverty plan based on human rights that focuses on income security. The petitioners want us to work with partners to establish measurable goals, timelines, and indicators on the progress.
I am very pleased to present this on their behalf.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition dealing with visitors' visas, in particular from residents of Winnipeg North. There is a lot of frustration in countries like Ukraine, Philippines, India, and particularly the Punjab. They are trying to get visitors to be able to come to Canada for wonderful celebrations, such as weddings and graduations, or just to be able to visit with family, and being turned down. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to take into extra consideration how important family connections are and to do what we can to improve the system so that more people can visit Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
moved:
That the House (a) acknowledge that mounting job losses combined with a lack of access to Employment Insurance (EI) contribute to growing income inequality and a situation where too many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet; and (b) call on the government to honour its campaign promises and Throne Speech commitment to strengthen the EI system “to make sure that it best serves both the Canadian economy and all Canadians who need it,” by taking immediate action to: (i) create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for EI, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment, (ii) immediately repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government, including those that force unemployed workers to move away from their communities, take lower-paying jobs and those that eliminated the Extended EI Benefits Pilot program to help seasonal workers, (iii) protect the EI account to ensure that funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and never again used to boost the government’s bottom line.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.
I am very proud to table and move in the House our opposition motion on how important it is for Canadians to be able to access employment insurance. In Canada, we are lucky to have social safety nets that help people who are going through difficult times to provide for themselves until they get back on their feet. Unfortunately, those safety nets are unravelling.
A growing number of families are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet in a struggling economy where good jobs are increasingly rare and many jobs are part-time and much more precarious. Entire sectors of our economy are in trouble or disappearing completely. I therefore hope that we will all agree that it is high time we began repairing our social safety nets and helping all Canadians improve their situation and live a better life.
Employment insurance is a very important safety net. It enables people who lose their jobs to pay their bills, put bread on the table, and help their children go to school. It benefits both workers and employers who need qualified seasonal employees to operate their business. It is no secret that many businesses such as golf courses need skilled workers. Because of the EI reform, these are seasonal workers. We can all agree that in northern regions such as Quebec there is no golf in the winter. Those golf courses need seasonal workers and those workers need to receive employment insurance benefits. The workers have the skills and training to cut the grass and maintain the course. That may not seem like a big deal, but that expertise is important to the golf courses. Unfortunately, with the changes that were made to employment insurance, the expertise goes away.
Over the past two decades, it has become harder to access employment insurance. Let us be frank, the previous governments really did a number on employment insurance. The biggest problem is that time and again governments use the employment insurance fund to balance the budget. That should be prohibited. Over the years, we have seen the government dip into the EI fund that belongs to workers. Those are the workers' contributions. The government balances the budget on the backs of the workers. It is unacceptable.
More than $57 billion in EI premiums were taken to pad the government's budget. Had they left the money in the fund, accessibility would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the result is that only 38.9% of unemployed Canadians received benefits last December, the month for which we have data. This does not mean that the remaining unemployed workers found jobs or that the economy was doing well. Often the unemployed feel discouraged. The reforms put in place by the previous government discourage workers.
I will talk about an example in my riding of Jonquière. The Service Canada office in Kénogami was closed. In addition to having a hard time accumulating hours and getting information, these people can no longer go to an office. It is no longer accessible because it was closed. Workers become discouraged, and now we have people living in poverty because they do not receive unemployment insurance.
This is also a vicious circle. In fact, Canadians with no access to employment insurance have more precarious jobs, which make it difficult for them to accumulate enough hours to qualify for benefits. I am not making this up. The parliamentary budget officer himself pointed out this problem.
I can provide you with many examples from my region and my riding of Jonquière. There are many seasonal workers in the area who are skilled and who really like the work they do.
These people have chosen to come to the region not only because we have a very nice quality of life in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, but also because they have a job for which they are qualified and of which they are proud.
Natural resource companies are having to lay off employees because the the cost of raw materials is too low and the business is therefore not profitable. When an employer wants to rehire these workers, they are no longer available. They have had to leave the region because they cannot get EI. In my riding of Jonquière, a number of people have had to leave the region. I have met many of them who are leaving Quebec in search of work. They are leaving their families and selling their homes. We are seeing an exodus from our communities, municipalities, and region. Most importantly, we are losing skilled workers with good experience.
Some car dealership employees have been locked out for three years and have not been able to return to work. These are service jobs and things are slowly turning around, but as a result of the EI reform, the people affected by the conflict are no longer entitled to benefits. They cannot access their benefits under the act. These people are unfortunately waiting to return to the work that they studied for, that they are qualified for, that they believe in, and for which they want to stay in our region. Unfortunately, they will end up with no income, below the poverty line.
We need to protect the employment insurance fund once and for all, to ensure that it serves Canadians. I am not just talking about providing benefits, but also about providing training. When workers lose their jobs, they need money to access training and find new jobs in their communities, in their region.
Of course, we also have to repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government. During the election campaign, I was very happy to hear that we were not the only party wanting to repeal the employment insurance reform. We all know that was a very popular topic during the election campaign. Many people who are now members of the government advocated for abolishing the employment insurance reform and even said that the number of hours should be reduced to improve access.
Forcing workers to accept a job that pays up to 30% less than their previous job or risk losing their benefits is totally demeaning to them. There are a number of factors that affect employment insurance benefits, including hours worked and regional unemployment rates. For example, under the Conservatives' reform, a mom who decides to move to a particular municipality might have a hard time finding work. Yes, people choose to move, but we have to make sure there are places where those people can work. For seasonal workers in particular, it is not the workers' fault, it is the industry's fault they cannot work. For example, the brush cutters who work in our beautiful Canadian forests cannot work there in the winter. They cannot work as brush cutters during that season.
I could talk about this all day, but I will conclude by saying that this is why we think there should be a single 360-hour threshold for everyone, no matter where they live. I hope to get a lot of support from my colleagues in the House to make changes, bring in universal benefits, improve access by reducing the number of hours, and restore services. Most importantly, the government must never again take money from the employment insurance fund.
MaryAnn Mihychuk LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, what is the position of my colleague on providing assistance to the areas hard hit by the commodity drop and what does she recommend for those people who are impacted in Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador?
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
As I said earlier, money could be set aside to provide additional training to people who want to go further in their sector.
In my riding, Jonquière, some businesses closed. It is our responsibility to take care of the people who lost their jobs and to set up programs. Funding needs to be allocated to provide training to these people so that they can find new work. We have to come up with innovative, creative ways to keep our economy going and develop other sectors that these workers may not have thought of before. We might also entice them into becoming entrepreneurs.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.
For 20 years or so, first under the previous Liberal government and then under the Conservative government, we have seen successive cuts to the employment insurance program, as the hon. member knows quite well. The vast majority of unemployed workers cannot access the insurance program that they paid into.
When a person or family that contributes to EI cannot access it when they need it, there is a serious problem.
Can the hon. member talk about the consequences of those cuts in the Jonquière and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, cuts that have resulted in unemployed workers not having access to employment insurance?
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
This is having a huge impact. Since I often engage with the people of my riding, I met some people from the forestry sector, which is mostly seasonal, who have been left without EI benefits.
The five-week waiting period, the infamous black hole, was working well for seasonal workers. If by some misfortune a machine broke, the weather was bad, or snow arrived early, seasonal workers would not have enough hours, so those five weeks could be a big help. They could also help families continue to invest in our economy, pay their bills, and put food on the table.
The consequences are enormous. This leaves people without any income, and that is catastrophic. When single mothers or fathers who need to provide for their families are left with no income, they sometimes have to part with their things. This has a huge impact on our regional economy.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the NDP wants to establish a 360 hour threshold. There is no recognition at all in regard to the different regions of the country. Rather, it is one threshold that would apply to the whole country.
Does the NDP believe employment situations differ among regions, or should every region be treated the same? If so, why 360 hours?
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important, very pertinent question about the 360-hour eligibility threshold.
It is important to have a universal threshold. For instance, my riding is divided into two main geographic areas. If two people work for the same company but live 50 km away from one another, they do not have the same eligibility threshold. If the company is forced to shut down after its employees have worked 300 hours, some will have access to EI while others will not. It also depends on the context. They might be seasonal workers.
It is therefore important to our economy to have a universal threshold of 360 hours, which I think is reasonable, in order to help our workers.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to speak to the NDP motion today, essentially calling on the new Liberal government to act immediately to fix employment insurance for Canadians.
The NDP has always stood up for Canadian workers, workers who depend on a strong social safety net, a safety net they can rely on. That safety net has been under attack in the last few decades. The most vicious attacks were undertaken by past Liberal and Conservative governments, whose actions in the 1990s caused a great deal of harm, particularly to the employment insurance system.
In recent months, we have heard a great number of promises from the government benches on how they plan to fix the EI system, a system that many of their constituents rely on as well, but we have yet to see that kind of support in action. In fact, despite commitments that were made even in the election campaign by the governing party, one commitment that definitely was not made was to stop pillaging billions of dollars from the EI account.
I believe that members of Parliament always have to know their history, so let us look at that history. Let us go back to the 1990s. The Liberal prime minister at the time adopted a series of measures that led to a drastic drop in EI eligibility. The fundamentals of these changes were brought into place as well by the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. When the Liberal Party got back into power, it did not miss the opportunity to continue the work of dismantling the employment insurance system.
In 1994, then minister Axworthy proposed a reform of the employment insurance system and the adoption of a new bill in 1996 that radically changed how employment insurance, then called unemployment insurance, worked. It changed the system from an insurance mechanism to something that put more emphasis on individuals' responsibility to sort out their employment situations. The consequences of these measures were dire.
The proportion of unemployed Canadians who received benefits was nearly cut in half between 1990 and 1997. It is not just progressive economists and researchers, but many others, including the Conference Board of Canada, who have made a direct connection between the cuts to employment insurance and the rise of income inequality in our country. The Liberals of the 1990s continued to push forward with their changes and we are still living with the consequences today. Employment insurance is one of the strongest links in our social safety net and it should come as no surprise that its demise has led to skyrocketing inequalities.
Let us look at one of the most dramatic decisions to date when it comes to EI. Some $51 billion in the EI fund was pillaged by the Liberal government. This, as many know, was not government money, but the money of Canadian workers and employers that has been put into this fund. The money was taken from the premiums that employers and workers paid into the system, which should have remained to help workers on an ongoing basis.
Previous Conservative governments went full speed ahead with dangerous reforms that put a huge strain on Canadian workers. Even if only half of unemployed Canadian workers had access to EI in the midst of the Liberal reforms in the 1990s, the Conservatives doubled down on the challenges to create even more barriers to accessing employment insurance. Many of these changes were mean-spirited, forcing workers to take jobs that would be up to one hour away from where they lived, and taking lower-paid jobs at that. We often heard that the Conservatives wanted to match every job opening with Canadians able to do the work, but for seasonal workers in particular they created conditions that required many of them to give up their trades and leave their home communities.
Today, less than four Canadian workers out of 10 facing unemployment have access to EI. In terms of accessibility rates, the unprecedented historic low of 36.5% eligibility was reached while the Conservatives were at the helm.
How did we get here? We got here by repeatedly putting up barriers to accessing employment insurance.
The increase in work hours required to access employment insurance, now between 420 to 700 hours, depending on where one lives, is a considerable barrier to accessing the system. A Canadian living in western Canada might have to work much longer than a Canadian in the east in order to access employment insurance. Having inconsistent access rates between regions has the unintended consequence of the the government not being able to take into account a rapidly changing economic situation in certain parts of the country. This has to be changed. That is why the NDP stands by its proposal, with many other advocates, in supporting the proposal to move to a universal 360 hours threshold for workers, regardless of where they live.
The Alberta government has requested an alleviation of the hours required and demands that the government take into account the rapidly degrading economic situation in its part of the country. Premier Notley said Albertans should be able to enjoy the same access to benefits. We hope that the federal government will act on their needs.
This dramatic shift in the economic situation for the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and other parts of the country is one of the reasons we feel it is a priority to present this motion in the House today. The creation of a universal qualifying threshold, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment, should be a priority for the government. The regional threshold never made any sense, but it has been shown in recent months to be an ill-advised approach to administering a critical program.
The bottom line is that employment insurance should be there for every worker who needs it, regardless of where he or she lives, and the system has to take into account the economic condition of various areas in the country so that things can shift quickly. A lower threshold would also allow more Canadians to have access to the regime. We hope the government will take this into account immediately.
We are also proud to introduce a proposal that would repeal other aspects of the harmful Conservative reforms, including the need for Canadians to uproot themselves to find employment. A one-hour commute should not be imposed on Canadians as an eligibility criterion to receive the benefits for which they have paid.
We are also proud to present measures to protect the EI account from political interference and to ensure that what workers and employers pay into the system will only be used for their benefit, and not to fund tax reductions for the richest Canadians or the biggest corporations.
Considering the timing of the motion, we hope that our colleagues in all parties will find that the federal government must take immediate action.
The motion moved by my colleague from Jonquière is very timely. It bears repeating that the previous government's employment insurance reforms must be repealed, and this has the support of many people in Quebec and the Maritimes.
Anyone who has applied for EI knows that the barriers to program access have become insurmountable for too many workers.
In fact, more than six out of 10 Canadians who lose their jobs are deprived of their benefits. This means that a majority of Canadians who lose their jobs can find themselves without any income when their professional situation deteriorates.
As I mentioned, this is the result of a series of both Conservative and Liberal reforms that have dismantled this important component of our social security program.
This work must be carried out in a meaningful way, and we hope that, together with civil society and the unemployed, we will keep up pressure on the government so that it puts together a social safety net that meets workers' needs.
The motion in front of us today is fundamentally about justice, a principle that ought to guide all of us as Canadian parliamentarians, the need to achieve justice for Canadian workers and the need to achieve justice for Canadian families. Let us fix employment insurance.
Rodger Cuzner LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my colleague and I am very proud of the platform put forward by our government throughout the election.
It is interesting to note that at the outset of the committees being re-established, my colleague across received support for a study on EI and EI reform. Therefore, how is circle squared between wanting to go forward with an EI study and presenting these changes in the motion today?
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that our motion at the human resources committee is going forward. It will be a very succinct, focused study based on hearing from Canadians about what exactly they are facing right now, and to add urgency to the need for action, we are presenting our motion the House of Commons today.
As the member across pointed out, many commitments were made in the election campaign by the government. It is time to act. In Alberta, the rate of employment insurance applications has doubled. We know that only 39% of eligible workers are receiving EI. It truly is reaching a crisis point.
What we are saying is that we need to act. We need to hear from workers, advocates, industry, and from stakeholders. We should not delay action. We hope that the new Liberal government will act to fix EI immediately.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the member mentioned the fact that her party has consistently stood up for Canadian workers.
One of the things that I believe Canadians want is to work. What this motion proposes is two months of work for, effectively, one year of EI. It is important to have that social safety net as a temporary measure for difficult situations. However, I would be more curious to hear the member's position on supporting jobs and job growth for Canadian workers.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening to my speech, employment insurance is paid for by Canadian workers and Canadian employers and is critical to closing the inequality gap in our country.
Coming from western Canada, I am aware of many people who are hurting a great deal right now, losing their jobs. People are moving back to Manitoba because they have lost their jobs in the oil patch and need something to pull them through until they find their next job.
We need to take seriously what people are going through, the fact that they have paid into EI, that they have the right to access EI and, of course, as was pointed, the fact that most people in western Canada are not eligible given the unfair barriers they face.
Today, we are here to talk about the need to fix a system that workers have paid into, that belongs to Canadian workers, and I hope that all Canadian parliamentarians will support this.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
The employment insurance program has been in place for 75 years. What we have seen over the years is that the reforms have always had the same result. They make access increasingly difficult while benefits shrink.
The 360 hours are a first step, but I would also like to hear my colleague talk about the important changes that we would like to see to the Conservatives' reform. For example, I am thinking of the concept of “suitable employment” and the three categories of employment, which, in my opinion, have dire consequences for the program.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and acknowledge the wonderful work that he has done when it comes to employment insurance.
Obviously, there is a whole list of reforms that need to be made to undo the measures imposed by the Conservatives. As the motion indicates, we hope to push the government to take action as soon as possible.
Whether we are talking about the reality of seasonal workers where I live or those in eastern or western Canada, Canadian workers are in crisis right now. We need to take immediate action, and that is why I am proud that the NPD has moved this motion. We hope that everyone will support it.
MaryAnn Mihychuk LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, this opposition motion gives me an opportunity to discuss Canada's employment social safety net and the urgent changes that are needed as well as to explain why we will oppose the motion.
Any system wherein some regions of Canada 26% of workers are covered and in other areas 95% of workers are covered is a system that is not working. The state of unemployment and the rapid job losses in areas with a strong dependency on commodities is top of mind for this government.
In recent years, Canadian labour markets, demographic profile, family and community supports have continued to evolve rapidly, at times challenging an old model and unfortunately leaving workers outside the safety net that was created to help them, even though they are the ones paying for that protection. This is a real problem, and that was why the Liberals made a strong commitment to Canadians in the election.
We are working hard to strengthen employment insurance to ensure it serves both the Canadian economy and the Canadians who need it. Our goal is to modernize our worker insurance program to make it fair and flexible and respond to the needs of all Canadians.
Let me now tell the House what we have in the works.
We have committed and are prepared to eliminate the NERE provision, which means those who are newly entering or re-entering the workforce. This is a particularly offensive change that the previous government brought in. Unfortunately, this motion does not address that. I hope does not mean that the NDP is opposed to those changes.
First, the current rules put immigrants and youth at a disadvantage, a program which is ineffective and makes youth engagement in the workplace even more difficult. Canada's young people and immigrants deserve a fair chance. That is why we will do away with these mean-spirited Conservative government provisions. Our changes to NERE will ensure that all Canadians are treated equally under our EI system. These changes will allow many more Canadians access to the EI program.
Second, and here we agree with the opposition's motion, is about modifying the 2012 changes that forced workers to move away from their communities and take lower paying jobs. This was, and is, totally unacceptable, and we are working to change the situation. This was a Liberal Party platform commitment and we intend to keep it.
We are also committed to helping young families, something the opposition motion does not address. Does this mean once again that the opposition supports the present system in terms of parental EI benefits? We understand the system is not meeting the needs of families and the middle class. We are committed to providing a more flexible parental benefit program.
To complement this, we plan to introduce a more flexible compassionate care benefit. Many Canadians find themselves looking after elderly parents or other sick family members and the system must be more inclusive. The Liberal plan is to make this available to caregivers who are providing care to seriously ill family members, again an area the opposition has chosen not to see as a priority.
When people lose their jobs, it is important when they collect their first cheque. Time is of the essence. Canadians expect to receive their benefits as quickly as possible. That is why our government will be reducing the waiting time or deductible from two weeks to one week.
We will improve service standards by improving service delivery, something the previous government chose to compromise. We will begin this process by streamlining program rules. The present rules are cumbersome, hurt workers, and actually cost the government in administrative wages.
We are also committed to reducing EI premium rates, which will help businesses, particularly small businesses, by reducing payroll costs. This initiative will help all payers, both the workers and the employers.
Some of the basic principles of EI are that claimants are entitled to employment insurance regular benefits if they were employed in an insurable employment; if they lost their job through no fault of their own; if they have been without work and without pay for at least 7 consecutive days in the last 52 weeks; if they have worked for the required number of insurable hours in the last 52 weeks or since the start of their last EI claim, whichever is shorter; and, if that they are ready, willing, and capable of working each day and are actively looking for work, keeping a written record of employers they have contacted, including when they contacted them.
The EI program is also there to help people balance work and life responsibilities through EI special benefits. For example, a worker could claim EI sickness benefits in the event of an illness, maternity benefits for pregnancy, parental benefits for the birth or adoption of a child, or compassionate care benefits or parents of critically ill children benefits for family caregiving needs.
The EI program is not just about charging premiums and paying out benefits. This is where the labour market development agreements come in. Each year, the government provides $2 billion to all provinces and territories for employment programs and services. These focus primarily on helping current and former EI claimants prepare for jobs and get those jobs.
Our government is committed to moving forward on investing even more in labour market development agreements to provinces and territories and to support training for those unemployed workers.
In addition, we are committed to expanding the Canada job fund agreements, which currently provide $500 million annually to provinces and territories. The Canada job fund is unique in that it provides employment services, and supports those who are unemployed and are not eligible for EI benefits.
We will also continue to strengthen existing tools and services. This includes the national job bank, which is intended to help unemployed Canadians return to work.
As members can see, we are tackling the issue of unemployment from all angles. Our government is also monitoring the level of employment and unemployment across the country, understanding that Canadians need support right now.
My cabinet colleague, the Minister of Finance, took a positive step this week and offered support to Alberta at this time of need. Specifically, the federal government will provide Alberta with the advance of a fiscal stabilization payment of approximately $251 million.
Let me assure members that Canadians who need EI immediately are receiving it. Today, there are double the number of EI claimants in Alberta compared to a year ago. In recent months, the number of claimants in Saskatchewan has shot up by 30%, and also Newfoundland and Labrador has seen staggering numbers.
However, employment insurance requirements are flexible and they need to respond to economic changes as well as the specific needs of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfound and Labrador.
There is some flexibility built into the program that allows it to respond to deteriorating economic conditions and changes in local labour markets. We measure this by looking at regional unemployment rates. When a region's unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced and the duration of benefits increases. We see those forces at work in regions affected by the decrease in commodity prices.
The EI system also tries to support Canadians through the work-sharing program, which is an adjustment program designed to help employers and employees avoid layoffs when there is a temporary downturn in business that is beyond the control of the employer, particularly in the downturn in commodities. It provides income support to eligible employees who agree to work a temporarily reduced work week, while their employer recovers. The goal is for all of the participating employees to return to normal levels of working hours by the end of the work-sharing agreement.
Work sharing allows employers to retain those valuable skilled employees and avoid the unnecessary rehiring and retraining costs when their business returns to normal levels. At the same time, the program helps employees keep their jobs and maintain their skills and connections to the labour market.
While the employment insurance program is designed to cope with varying economic conditions and shifting circumstances, it must also keep up with today's labour market, which is changing rapidly. We need to ensure that the program is better aligned with today's labour market realities and that it is responsive not just to the needs of Canadian workers but to the needs of Canadian employers as well.
We are also aware that service delivery is vital when it comes to EI. We want to make it as simple as possible for Canadians to get the benefits to which they are entitled. With that in mind, we will review the EI system with the goal of modernizing our system of income support for unemployed workers.
Service Canada, which is our front face of service delivery, is continuing to modernize its services to provide all Canadians with ongoing improvements to its business model. This includes increased online services for clients and employers. We are also committed to improving service standards and the speed of pay for the EI program. These modernization efforts will provide Canadians with greater access to an increased range of information and services no matter where they live.
The men and women at our Service Canada offices across the country are keen to serve Canadians better. Moving forward, Service Canada will continue to ensure that the implementation of the EI service transformation agenda is responsive and cost-effective.
The unemployment rate and the need to provide temporary income support is a pressing issue, and our government understands that. We have pinpointed a number of important changes. The upcoming budget will outline those steps that we have committed to Canadians and that Canadians have endorsed. We want to ensure that the needs of Canadians are reflected, that any program changes be founded on a sound analysis of the evidence, and that careful consideration be given to labour market impacts and the costs of individual measures.
Our government is working quickly and diligently to deliver support to Canadians when they need it most. We recognize the need for change, and we are taking action to change the employment insurance system for the better.
