Debates of Feb. 25th, 2016

Employment Insurance

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her speech. I listened to it carefully.

Of course, I acknowledge all of the efforts made by Service Canada, which was gutted pretty badly by the former government, but we will still wait until we see results before we start applauding.

People may be wondering why some of the measures that were announced are not included in the NDP motion. I think that we led the charge on almost every aspect of employment insurance in the previous Parliament. Obviously, I do not think that anyone in this Parliament would take exception to an increase in compassionate care benefits, for example. The crux of today's motion is how we can deal with this urgent situation.

Is it realistic or logical to think that workers who lose their jobs should have to be able to prove that they worked 420 or even up to 700 hours before they are eligible for the employment insurance program that they paid into? That is like telling someone who has health insurance that, even though he is sick, the services he is able to receive will be based on the rate of illness in the region. That does not make any sense.

People need immediate support when they lose their jobs.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reforms to EI would ensure that more Canadians are able to access EI when they need it. We are committed to improving the EI program so that it is responsive to the needs of Canadian workers and employers, and also so that it meets our fiscal responsibilities to all Canadians.

To that end, we are moving forward with initiatives that include eliminating discrimination against workers who are newly entered, reversing the 2012 changes of forcing individuals to move, rationalizing and expanding labour market agreements, developing more flexible parental benefits, easing access to EI supports, reducing wait times, improving service, reducing EI premiums, and undertaking a broad review.

That broad review will include comments from experts, Canadians, indigenous people, and those who are workers, on the issue of a flat rate. That is the point of having an open and fair discussion.

I look forward to the continued consultation on EI reforms, but at this point the issue here is to allow Canadians to speak to the question.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour for her speech and for being here today. I am buoyed by the fact that the Liberals will be voting against the motion.

The minister talked about addressing unemployment from every angle, but the one angle she has not talked about in her 20-minute speech was having an atmosphere to help create jobs, which is the most important angle when it comes to addressing unemployment.

Yesterday in question period, she mentioned that employment insurance is not working for any Canadians right now. I wish she would talk to people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Atlantic Canada who are relying on employment insurance right now and ask them if it is working for them, as they are using it to pay their mortgages and keep their heads above water.

However, in her speech she also talked about how important it is to give Alberta the $250 million and how much that is going to help Albertans who are out of work. That is $60 per Albertan. How does the minister feel this token $250 million is going to help the 125,000 Albertans out of work?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to point out that this is a government that ran on a platform of job creation. We talked about the need to invest in the economy, to invest in infrastructure, to create those new jobs, and to help to redeploy those workers who unfortunately were laid off because of the commodity price depression that we are facing. These are investments that will make a difference in Alberta, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and across the whole country. Our focus is job creation.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister on her speech. I am very excited about the forthcoming changes, but like many in the chamber here, I too am a fan of the great American philosopher, Willie Nelson. Willie Nelson has shared with us his definition of leadership. Willie said that when one sees a group of people heading in a certain direction, one should grab a baton and jump out in front. I have been here for 15 years now, so maybe you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but there is a little bit of cynic in me.

I see today's motion by New Democrats as sort of saying a little bit, “Let's jump out in front of it”. They know that the Liberal government ran on a platform of change for EI. I can speak first hand to the investment that the minister has made, working with her officials and her colleagues in Alberta on coming up with a package that makes sense, that is progressive, that will be really respected by the Canadian people.

I know the minister is close to making an announcement over the next bit of time. Looking at much of what we see in today's motion, does the minister think the package coming forward will address many of the concerns that are being brought forward in the NDP motion today?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to once again indicate that, yes, we support much of the motion that the NDP presented, but I must point out that it was this Liberal government that ran on EI reform, not the members across the way.

In fact, it was their decision to argue that they would balance the budget, which would have meant reducing supports for workers, reducing supports for the middle class, and actually seeing even higher unemployment.

Yes, there are many parts of the motion we support, but we will go much, much further.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the minister has joined us in the chamber today. It is always nice to have a member of the executive branch of the government.

The Liberals have a less than exemplary record on employment insurance. When they were last in power, they raided the EI account to the tune of $54 billion. It was money that was used to pay for corporate tax cuts and whatever else they wanted.

The Conservatives continued on this. Stealing a page from the Liberals' play book, they diverted billions of dollars of EI premiums to cover budget holes. These premiums were paid by workers and by employers for one purpose only: to insure employment.

Will the minister commit today to protecting the EI fund, and if she is not prepared to make that commitment, could she please provide this House with a reason why not?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the use of EI funds for other purposes, which was illustrated by the Conservatives in 2010, I believe, to actually backdate part of the huge debt incurred through those measures, was a very tough time and in fact emergency measures were needed, but dipping into the EI fund to pay for them was questionable at best.

In today's world we are saying that EI is actually for the workers who receive it, and that indeed, any surplus will be seen, for example, in the reduction to EI costs that people pay.

Our intention, as the platform indicated, is that EI contributions will be used for the EI system.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments that were just made interesting, because the general practice of the previous Liberal governments was to deplete the EI fund to balance the budget, both in the Chrétien and the Martin governments, to the tune of almost $60 billion.

Will the government continue that practice, to use those funds to balance its budgets?

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we committed in the platform and as we committed to Canadians, the goal of the EI system, with the payments that workers and businesses make, is to support a platform that helps workers when they unfortunately lose their jobs.

That is the purpose of the system. It is an insurance system, and that is how we intend to manage it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. This vibrant, young colleague represents the up-and-coming generation of young women we are very proud to have within our caucus, and we are proud of all the young men and women who joined our party and were voted in during the last election.

Today is an opportunity for us to reaffirm the importance of employment insurance. EI is an important tool for workers who unfortunately lose their jobs. Job loss is a reality of the job market, and we have a system to mitigate the damage of losing one's job. For example, I am thinking about young families dealing with job loss. Employment insurance is there in these situations.

Our government worked over the past decade to strengthen the system, especially for the most vulnerable. Extra benefits were added for people who experience health or legal problems, for example. We always worked to improve the EI system, and we are open to more improvements. I will add that I was an EI recipient more than 20 years ago, and I appreciated it at the time. We had young children, and EI helped us make ends meet.

The New Democrats are unfortunately on the wrong track today. They have moved a motion that contains falsehoods, but most importantly, these reforms would take us in the wrong direction. Reforms should aim to give the unemployed more opportunities to earn more income, not make them poorer. Unfortunately, that is what this New Democrat motion proposes. It proposes unproductive, ineffective, and costly measures, and it also contains some falsehoods, which I will talk about later.

Basically, what the New Democrats want is to let people work for two months and collect benefits for a year. We all know that employment insurance benefits amount to a fraction of the income recipients earned previously, so that could limit workers to a lower income for a longer period of time. The point of employment insurance is to give people a decent income while they are unemployed, but it is also to encourage people to get back into the job market.

I should also point out that these measures would be costly. As we all know, the money in the fund comes from employers and employees. This plan would put a lot of pressure on everyone. Some estimate that the New Democrats' unrealistic proposal could cost as much as an extra $4 billion. For one thing, companies need all of their resources to invest in productivity and compete on the international market. For another, employees would have to contribute more to pay for a costly, ineffective measure that would wind up making them poorer.

Benoît Bouchard, a former Conservative minister, clearly explained and defended this position some time ago, in 2009, on Le Club des Ex, a program I was on with my friend Simon Durivage. Benoît Bouchard said that we could not have a standard threshold of 360 hours for employment insurance eligibility. We would be paying for it for years because when the economy recovered we would return to a period of normal employment.

This measure was brought forward in the midst of an economic crisis. What happened 20 years ago will happen again. People will work nine weeks, go on unemployment, and receive benefits for 50 weeks.

Mr. Bouchard also said that is why Claude Forget, in his 1986 report, stated that the unemployment insurance program had to stop competing with employment.

Therefore, I will repeat that the EI program must stop competing with employment. I am privileged to come from a region where the entrepreneurial spirit is phenomenal.

We just came out of an election campaign. In Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, we have been dealing with a shortage of skilled labour for about 10 years now. I have met business owners who have had to make the difficult decision of investing south of the border sometimes because they cannot find skilled workers at home. This has happened in Sainte-Justine, for example. This slows economic growth and the growth of our communities.

This government seems unusually preoccupied with large urban centres, and yet the regions are the economic backbone of our country. The manufacturing and agricultural sectors are important, and they play a critical role in the regions. Those businesses could use a boost from the government. They are having a hard time finding skilled labour.

The measure proposed by the NDP here today would shrink the potential labour pool even further. Jobs in the regions are often very well paid. Those jobs pay people enough to raise a family and live decently. That is the reality in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, the reality that I faced during the economic crisis and during the reform that our government brought in.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Jonquière said this morning. She said that seasonal workers, more specifically those who work at golf courses, do not have jobs in the winter. She suggested that the reform therefore had an impact. I attended meetings where the Lac-Etchemin golf club said it was hard to retain its skilled workers from one season to the next to maintain and develop the course. The general manager of the Mont-Orignal ski hill was in the room at the time. Needless to say, a logical connection was made between those two businesses. The workers can work for the golf course in the summer and the ski hill in the winter. Their earnings are therefore much higher than what they would have received in employment insurance benefits. It is a win-win situation for everyone. More money ends up in the workers' pockets. There is also more opportunity to create jobs to address the labour shortages in the region. This in turn leads to more economic activity. Obviously, Mont-Orignal would need a bit of snow, but this winter we are not so fortunate.

I am quickly running of out time, and I just barely touched on the first point that I wanted to raise, that of reform. Of course, it is important to point out that the money belongs to workers, to employees, and I hope that the government will confirm that. The government cannot dip into that fund.

I would like to remind members that our Conservative government paid off all the deficits and helped workers and employees. The government injected over $10 billion into the employment insurance fund to compensate for the economic crisis. It is because of our policies and the 1.3 million jobs that we created that there is now a surplus in the employment insurance fund. The best remedy for unemployment is job creation. We hope that the government will make that a priority.

I will end now by saying that improvements could be made. For example, I am thinking of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, an independent, bilingual, non-profit organization in Canada that makes recommendations. People like Michel Bédard and Pierre Fortin work with that organization. The NDP's recommendation is not consistent with those made by credible organizations that have shown what EI reforms should look like.

In closing, the best remedy for unemployment is job creation. Unfortunately, that is not what the NDP is proposing today. I therefore do not intend to support the motion.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather hypocritical of the Conservatives to say that it would cost taxpayers, workers, and employers a lot of money to abolish and modify the Conservatives' reform to make benefits more accessible.

The Conservatives are the ones who helped themselves to $3 billion from the EI fund and put that money into the public funds account. This money should have been given to workers in need, but it was taken by the Conservatives. Before them, the Liberals took $54 billion from that same fund.

There are plenty of farmers in my riding who cannot work when the land is frozen. However, they need agronomists and machinery workers, for example. These are qualified workers, experts in their field. Farmers cannot lay off these workers for three or four months in the winter, since they need them for the following season.

Farmers need to be productive and competitive, and they need to keep these excellent workers in our region to prevent it from declining. We do not want the regional economy to crumble as a result of backwards measures like those of the Conservatives.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon. colleague from Jonquière that in 99% of cases, our reform helped workers find a higher-paying job more quickly. The big winners in our reform were the workers who found higher-paying jobs and the regional economies that benefited from a more skilled workforce.

I invite my colleague to consider a quote from the New Democrat member from Montreal who acknowledged that there was a $9-billion deficit in 2011. During the economic crisis, there were so many unemployed workers during a short period of time that our Conservative government invested $9 billion in the EI fund. Obviously, it was only fair to restore the balance.

We were there for workers. As a result, we left the current government a $1-billion budget surplus and we created 1.3 million jobs in the last decade.

[MaryAnn Mihychuk, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government in the past looked at fiscal responsibility. What it did with its goal of saving money and redirecting expenditures to its own priorities was to create a system that did not meet the needs of all Canadians. In fact, we know that over 60% of working Canadians who pay into the insurance program are not covered. Obviously, that is a deficiency.

Not only was it ineffective, it was inefficient and mean-spirited. I hear the member's claim that the motion by the NDP would in fact throw away fiscal responsibility completely at a time when that party just ran on the idea that it would balance the budget. It is an interesting flip-flop.

Does the member support the previous Conservative system of EI, which left 60% of Canadians out in the cold without any coverage?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, 99% of the workers were not impacted by the measures we put in place. There was just more revenue.

I would answer the minister's question with a question for her own government. I refer to the Institute for Research on Public Policy, an independent, national, bilingual, non-profit organization. It clearly states on page 2 of a report of theirs that the biggest impact of any reform for workers was done in 1996. I think the Liberals have their answer within their own government.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for sharing his time. I know that his time in government provided him the opportunity to study, consult, and evaluate this very important program.

I respect his comments and his knowledge of the issues.

I will not be supporting this motion put forward by the NDP. As I have said several times in the House, I have worked with many Canadians during my time as an executive assistant to the member of Parliament for Elgin—Middlesex—London. From 2004 to 2010, I worked directly with constituents on their employment insurance claims, an experience that has given me invaluable knowledge that benefits me greatly in my new role.

This is definitely not a new debate in the House and many before us have spoken on this topic. Studies, debates, and consultations have already been done on this topic, and the bottom line is that this would cost up to $4 billion, according to a study in 2009.

I have heard many speak about how Canadians do not currently get employment insurance, but we need to look at the basic numbers in front of us. I am going to put this in common terms so that all Canadians watching today's debate will understand. I am citing these numbers from many years of my experience in sitting down and looking at what the numbers are, what people are contributing into the employment insurance plan, and how the benefits are paid out.

Currently, a new claimant must have 910 hours to be eligible for benefits. This is approximately 24 weeks of full-time work in a 52-week period for eligibility requirements. I do not want to confuse the topic, so I will not address the labour workforce attachment hours for returning claimants.

Currently, the maximum that a Canadian personally pays toward employment insurance is $930.60 in personal premiums. Currently, the maximum benefit received by an individual is $524 a week. The simple math shows that in less than two weeks, the personal premiums paid annually are recovered. It is really important when we are looking at this that we understand that it is highly subsidized by the Canadian government. Therefore, when we talk about people receiving their benefits, we must recognize that we are talking about $930 put in, and up to $45,000 recovered. We have to recognize that there is not a true one-on-one balance.

I will quote directly from the Service Canada website, which states:

You may receive [employment insurance] regular benefits for a period ranging from 14 to 45 weeks. The number of weeks you may receive benefits depends on the unemployment rate in your region and on the number of hours of insurable employment that you accumulated during your qualifying period, which is usually the last 52 weeks before the start date of your claim.

This is just one side to the EI benefits, as there are many other variables and numbers of hours required for special benefits, such as maternity and parental and sick benefits. Sticking with the average claim, we must recognize other factors that are used, including the best 14-weeks, a really great change that I am so proud the Conservative government put forward. As I said, I saw many Canadians benefit from this change. When calculating the benefits, we also have to recognize the family supplement for some low-income families making less than $25,000 and the re-entry requirements for new people or return claimants.

One thing I noticed and question in this motion is subclause (b)(ii) that indicates that the previous government forces unemployed workers to move away from their communities. I am not sure if the member who presented this motion has ever worked with an El claimant, but I have never seen this occur. Rather, when claimants complete their El claims, they are provided with a list of opportunities in their areas that might be suitable for them, an initiative that is called “connecting Canadians with available jobs”. To me, this is a fantastic tool. As we have heard so many times in the House, Canadians are looking for jobs, not for handouts, and this is a way of getting Canadians back into the workforce. I have personally seen, when people are putting in their claims, three or four jobs pop up right after their application is completed. It inspires people and also gives them the right to go out to try to find a new job if one is available to them.

Once again, I would like to share the following from the Service Canada website. What are the responsibilities of a claimant? Although I tried to reduce this list, I want to share the common sense approach that is used when providing employment insurance details. I apologize for this being very lengthy, but we need to look at what a claimant is responsible for.

When one applies for regular benefits, including fishing benefits, which can be looked at as seasonal work as well, one must be capable and available for work.

One must actively be looking for and accept suitable employment. I must note that “suitable employment” is underlined here. Therefore, we are not asking people to do things they would not regularly do or are not skilled for.

One must also conduct job searches, prepare resumés and cover letters, register for job search tools, attend job workshops and fairs, network and connect with prospective employers, submit job applications, attend interviews, keep a detailed record of proof of job search efforts, let Service Canada know when a job is refused, record all periods when not available for work, keep appointments with the office, notify the office of any separation from other employment, report absences from Canada, and report all employment and earnings.

To me, this seems extremely reasonable. I say to my children that if they are looking for a job, these are the exact steps that any Canadian should be doing, whether unemployed or looking for their first job. It is very reasonable. If one is looking for a job in the community, then start knocking on the doors, or go on the Internet and look for those jobs. This is exactly what the Service Canada requirements are of an EI claimant.

I have looked high and low trying to find in section 2 of the motion, and nowhere is it to be found, that one must leave one's area. That is nowhere to be found, and hopefully someone can bring that to my attention, because I cannot find it in black and white whatsoever.

After reviewing the responsibilities of the claimant, can anyone share with me the unreasonable request of a claimant? Claimants are asked to look for employment, prepare resumés, and attend interviews.

We as the official opposition have stated many times in the House, when dealing with the current economic climate, that Canadians are not looking for a handout, they are looking for jobs. That is one of the key reasons that I will not support a motion like this. Canadians are looking for jobs, and we have discussed this many times. We need to build our economy and provide opportunities for people to work. I could come up with an easy remedy, like working with energy east. We have heard that many times in the House. However, we do not seem to have the target audience of the government on board.

Instead, we see motions put forward by the NDP, and perhaps just because those members too do not see the co-operation of the government as well. Unfortunately, I know this is untrue as in the NDP's previous platform, prior to any of the losses here in Canada, there was a reduced number of hours required. How can we have a sustainable program to help Canadians with loss of employment when claimants are required to have only 360 hours of work, just under 10 weeks, or in regular terms, 45 days out of 365 days a year? I think we really need to look at that and put it very simply.

I heard one of my colleagues from the other side talk about agriculture. I come from a farming community, and, yes, I do respect that there are times when farmers and their employees cannot get on the fields. The member referred to four months of freezing, but in the motion that was put forward to us it is 10 months of freezing land. Therefore, we really have to look at those things. Also, if we are talking about times of unemployment, we cannot use agriculture and golf courses as the reference.

I see this motion as a very short-term solution. It is important that we come up with long-term solutions, and job creation to me is just that.

Last night I was speaking to my husband. I always like to prepare my speeches on FaceTime and share with him what I am thinking. His thoughts were, “10 weeks of full-time employment over 52 weeks is all you need? Really?” Then I got a really blank stare, one a little different than usual. It is interesting to hear his perspective. He is not involved in Canadian government and politics. This is just my husband saying that. Imagine what all Canadians are saying. This is supposed to be a program, a social safety net, not a clear approach to sustainable long-term solutions.

Prior to October 2015, the Conservative government created well-thought-out plans to assist Canadians and made enhancements. When going through the economic downturn, the Conservative government made changes to help employees through programs like the work-sharing program, which is a very effective program to avoid layoffs when there is a temporary downturn. There was the best 14 weeks pilot program to allow employees to have benefits calculated using the best 14 weeks of earnings. Also, working while on claim is an initiative that gives Canadians the opportunity to earn more and keep more money in their pockets while on claim. The previous government also introduced the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, which extended EI access to self-employed Canadians for maternity, parental, sickness, and compassionate care benefits.

A great introduction to the EI program was the EI support for parents of critically ill children, providing up to 35 weeks of special benefits. In unfortunate times, the previous government created a program to help parents of murdered and missing children as well.

I believe it is important to protect the employment insurance account to ensure that the funds are only spent on benefits to Canadians, including training as noted in this motion. I believe that we must continue to connect programs and opportunities for all Canadians with Service Canada initiatives.

In a perfect world, no one would need employment insurance, but this motion does not create better opportunities for employment or better options for Canadians, and overall it is fiscally irresponsible. If we moved forward on a plan to do this, it would not be a sustainable program. We need jobs, and we need a plan for jobs. This is the important piece of the puzzle that we are missing, and something that we should be striving for if we are looking for equality. Employment insurance does not equal equality; job creation equals equality.

I appreciate the time, and I look forward to this discussion.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually offended at what the Conservative member just said. Does she know that because of the Conservatives' EI reforms, fewer than four people in 10 can now collect employment insurance benefits?

Employer and employee contributions cover the cost of benefits, so people who lose their jobs should be able to collect employment insurance. Fewer Canadians than ever now have access to benefits because of the Conservatives' misguided reforms. The Liberals and the Conservatives swiped billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund. That total stands at $57 billion.

The worst part is that workers who want to collect benefits have to accept jobs that pay 30% less than what they were earning before and that are an hour away from home. In places like Salaberry—Suroît, which is very rural and far away from major centres, jobs are not going begging, and not everyone can start a business. It is very hard for families to make ends meet during hard times like these.

What does the Conservative member have to say about the fact that only 38% of workers currently have access to employment insurance?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really understand the question because I look at some of the facts the hon. member provided to me.

I am from Sparta, Ontario, population 300. That is rural Canada, so I do understand these things. I am from a farm where we plant and we have grains and oilseeds throughout our communities. There is also work to be done after those times, and the planting season is not just two months as the member indicated. The farmers in my community work. They fix their tractors during their different returns throughout the winter, and there are different things to do on a farm, not just between March and November. We have to look at that.

I also worked on a golf course, so it is interesting that the member brought that up. I worked on a golf course closing up skunk holes in March, and closing the traps in October. Those are really interesting things when we talk about the limited time.

The bottom line is we are talking about 365 days in a year, and the NDP motion is asking for 45 days of work. That to me is not a sustainable program. I think it is very important that we are putting forward job initiatives, job creation, and getting Canadians back to work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for many years Liberal members of Parliament have been talking about the importance of employment insurance and how we needed to change programs so that employees from coast to coast to coast would have a social safety net. That need for change was talked about a great deal in the last federal election.

Our Prime Minister made the commitment to look at reforming the employment insurance program. We have heard consistently from the minister responsible, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, talk about bringing forward a comprehensive package to deal with that. We are very sensitive to the unemployment needs in some of our regions. Whether in Alberta or Saskatchewan with the commodity prices, or in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a need for change.

My question for the member is this. Would she not acknowledge that due to what has taken place in the last number of years there is a need for reform, and that members should seriously look at what the current Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour is talking about, in particular some of those changes that are on the horizon?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that employment insurance is a short-term plan. It is exactly that. It is a social safety net. I look forward to hearing the minister's full and comprehensive plan. It will be interesting.

At the same time, we need to have something sustainable. Our government put through some fantastic initiatives to help employers and employees in a time of recession and some great things moved forward with that.

Programs need to be reviewed. The economy changes and our population changes. It is important to review many of our programs. At this time I look forward to what the minister is going to bring forward.

Once again, the most important thing to me is job creation. The employment insurance plan does not necessarily match job creation. I am looking forward to that from the government.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never have I been happier than I am today to have microphones in the House of Commons to carry my voice, because there was no way that I was going to stay silent on an issue as important as standing up for workers. In case my voice gives out, I would like to say right away that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

During the 41st Parliament, I was lucky enough to be our employment insurance critic and to learn from one of the greatest defenders of EI and workers' rights of all time, the former member for Acadie—Bathurst, Yvon Godin, whom I salute in passing and whom I thank for sharing his passion and above all his knowledge with me for so many years.

The issue before us this morning is extremely important. It is based on three main pillars, which have been neglected by both the Liberals and Conservatives in recent years.

This is evidenced by the fact that every time the EI system has been reformed since its creation, the same two things have happened: it has become harder for people to access the system and the benefit amount has been reduced.

We are talking about employment insurance. It is an insurance plan. That says it all. People contribute to it in order to draw benefits when they need them. In an insurance policy, the criteria are specific and well established.

Imagine if after choosing life insurance, car insurance, or property insurance, we were told how much it would cost and then we were told that there was a 64% chance that we would not be covered when the time came to make a claim. We would probably look for another insurance provider as quickly as possible.

The problem is that when it comes to employment insurance, there is only one plan in Canada, and the employers and employees who contribute to it and keep it going are the least entitled to it.

Oddly, since the beginning of this debate, we have heard all sorts of misleading statements about how the former Conservative government rescued the employment insurance plan by injecting $9 billion into it, but paid itself back afterward. The Conservatives put $9 billion into the plan because they had taken $52 billion out of it. If we take 52 and we subtract nine, then we can see that the plan absolutely had the means to be self-financing. That is the key to the plan.

I would like to recognize another former colleague, Robert Chilsom, who introduced a bill in the 41st Parliament to protect premiums paid by employers and employees into the employment insurance fund and to ensure that every single dollar paid into this fund is used only for the purposes stated in the Employment Insurance Act.

We know that a Supreme Court ruling more or less legalized the misappropriation and use of money from the employment insurance fund by a former Liberal government. Just because something is legal does not make it legitimate. That is why the NDP has been fighting for months and years to protect the fund. No government, regardless of its political stripe, can use this fund for anything other than to support workers.

I will now move on to the second most important point. Oddly enough, when I was the critic, there was a lot of talk about unemployment in Quebec and the Maritimes, whereas the economy was in high gear in western Canada, especially Alberta. I always maintained that it was an insurance program.

I hope that everyone has the good fortune of paying for insurance their whole life and never needing to collect a cent. However, insurance is insurance, and when disaster strikes we have to be able to do something about it.

Now disaster has struck in Alberta and the workers in that province are in exactly the same situation as all the workers in eastern Canada, Quebec, and Ontario, some of whom had to face this type of stress long before them.

The threshold of 360 hours is just the beginning. There is no reason in the world why the stress level of a person who loses a job would differ from one region to another, because job loss is one of the most stressful things that can happen in life. Health insurance would not be offered differentially from one region to another because the rate of health or illness is different. That is absurd. When people get sick, they need health insurance and they get the services they need. When people lose their jobs, they need employment insurance, and if they paid into it, they should have access to it at a set threshold of 360 hours.

For a while now, I have been hearing the same rather short-sighted reasoning from our Conservative friends who are going on and on about how people will only have to work two months to be eligible for EI, as though workers might make a way of life out of doing that. However, for people who work odd hours or who are in a precarious situation with fewer hours of work per week, it does not take two months to accumulate 360 hours of work. It may take six or eight months.

Take for example the closure of all the Target stores in Quebec just a few months ago. Most of the employees who worked there every week were ineligible for employment insurance benefits. Three hundred and sixty hours is not two months of work. It may be many months of work for those who are less wealthy and who really need this little boost.

It is also important to note that employment insurance is commensurate with income. People who work in precarious, part-time jobs earn a lot less than people who work 40 hours a week, as our Conservative friends calculated. It is completely unfair and out of touch with reality to paint these workers as people who only want to work two months out of the year and live off EI the rest of the time. That is completely ridiculous.

The last important point I wanted to make, since I said I had three points, has to do with the vile consequences of the Conservative reform, and yes, I mean vile. Unfortunately, I have too much to say and not enough time, but let us talk about the notion of suitable employment.

We have already heard a former finance minister in this House say that suitable employment is whatever job one can get. Let us imagine for example a teacher with a university education who has developed a particular expertise. In the first few years of his career, as is often the case, he gets laid off at the end of the school year, because there is no guarantee that there will be enough students the next year to guarantee him a job. If this worker were asked to go and pick strawberries, he would have to prove that he is incapable of picking strawberries. I do not know too many people who would not be able to pick strawberries, so that would be considered suitable employment.

It is completely ridiculous to suggest that a teacher, who has developed an expertise and special skill that society needs, will be deprived of his professional work only to be sent to do a job that he never intended to do. That is not the kind of contribution he wants to make to society. Worse still, because the teacher is taking that job in order to fill the gap months, when the time comes to leave the strawberry patch and return to teaching, if he is offered a contract, his departure will be identified as being voluntary and he will not be eligible for EI, should he lose his teaching job. This is the world upside down. There are many details like this that just do not make sense.

I need to stop getting worked up, even though I could go on and on about other topics. However, I am ready to take questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the NDP chose this motion given the timing. The member for Cape Breton—Canso has been a a strong advocate toward seeing reforms to the employment insurance program. He led the charge, in good part, over the last number of years in the House of Commons. Ultimately, the need for reforms and a comprehensive package on employment insurance was incorporated into a part of the Liberal Party's election platform.

The New Democrats would be fully aware of the fact that this is in the works right now. We anticipate that some significant changes will be made. It appears the New Democrats are trying to get under the wire to perhaps assume some credit. We are a generous government. We are more than happy to share in the credit.

However, could he provide some comment with respect to recognizing that we are moving in the right direction in making the changes the minister talked about earlier in her comments, and that this is the direction we should be going in, especially dealing with the compassion that is necessary with respect to unemployment in some of the hardest hit regions because of low commodity prices?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

In her speech, the minister obviously mentioned many things that are still in the works, which we will evaluate when we see them. I mentioned some interesting points, in particular her desire to increase services at Service Canada. This would enable those who want to apply, and hopefully more than 36% will be successful, to get better service, since we know very well that services were slashed under the previous government.

I also said that no one can take exception to improving compassionate care benefits.

However, I think this approach is misguided unless the government puts it in writing that the EI fund belongs to workers and must be used for the purposes set out in the act. Unfortunately, what I deduce from the minister's speech is that, once again, the Liberal government wants to give itself the same leeway to dip into the EI fund as needed for purposes other than those set out in the act.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about the processes. He has talked about teachers having to pick strawberries or having to leave to go to other professions. It is important that when an opposition or a government puts forward a motion like this, that it study what occurs.

I would like to bring to the attention of the member the process of adjudication. Is the member aware of that? When someone voluntarily leaves his or her job to go on to a better job, that is adjudicated by Service Canada. What he is doing is misleading the members of the House and all Canadians by saying what he is. That is not what happens.

Is he aware of the adjudication process that already occurs within Service Canada?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly familiar with the process because, in my constituency office, I have spent months, years even, dealing with the process that the former Conservative government brought in.

What I see week after week is that people cannot get answers and then have to wait for an unreasonable period of time. I also see that when people find the courage and the time to jump through the hoops, they sometimes get an adjudication, but they are without benefits that whole time. I would say that, most of the time, we help them put together winning cases. Still, it makes no sense to attack unemployed workers rather than unemployment.