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.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the reason it was put in the consolidated fund in the first place is because that was the recommendation by the Auditor General and we had to do it.
There is a book calculation as a result, following that, but we are here for the workers. We are here to try to create growth and prosperity in the country, and that is what we will continue to do.
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to speak a little bit about the 40% threshold, the fact that we have an employment insurance program that just benefits literally close to 40% of men and women who are working out there who could use a program like this.
One of the commitments made by this government is on the issue of dealing with those who are not part of the labour force, but in fact, could be on welfare, could be on some form of social assistance, and the skill development that would go with that and the training.
I am just curious as to how the member sees us developing a strategy to deal with those people.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, part of our strategy outlined in the election campaign is for those people who contribute to the employment insurance system. We have to try to strive to increase the number of people who qualify. Some cannot for various reasons.
Beyond that, when we look at the total package that the Liberal Party ran on, we find that there is greater advantage for skills training. The list goes on in terms of trying to find other means of ensuring that those people who do not fall under the system have the social safety net and the economic means to be able to look after their families.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance file is an important one across our entire country, and is of particular significance in the small towns and rural communities in my home riding of Central Nova.
There is some common ground between the proposed motion and my views. In fact, I campaigned on a number of the points that found their way into today's motion. However, to two preliminary objections will prevent me from supporting the motion.
The first is that there are ongoing efforts by the minister and by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to conduct a review of the employment insurance portfolio. I fear the rushed process will lead to an incomplete result that will undermine these positive initiatives.
It is in the best interest of Canadians, and my constituents, to allow the government to deliver on its ambitious campaign commitments after a proper and fulsome review is complete, which considers how Canadians can derive the maximum benefit from the program in communities all over our great country.
In addition, the imposition of a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours will not create regional equity that recognizes nuances that exist within regional economies.
EI is a critical program to support Canadians faced with job loss or challenging life events. In my own backyard, we have an economy that was historically built on primary industry, such as fishing, forestry, and farming. Being on both the eastern shore and the Northumberland Strait, the riding naturally relies on tourism as well.
Each of these industries relies on a talented group of hard-working seasonal employees who need a strong EI system to protect these historic economic drivers of our region. The disrespect that these workers receive when seeking benefits can be astonishing at times. They form the backbone of a regional economy that supports year-round workers and should be treated with the respect that they deserve.
Moreover, when seasonal workers are forced to leave their jobs or leave their area, it causes an increase in the cost of business because the requirement for employers to train new employees who may only be around for one season.
The timeliness of this discussion is also very important to me in light of some recent developments at home. One of the historically largest employers in my community closed just a week ago. These economic challenges may be present in my riding, but I know Central Nova does not have a monopoly on difficult economic circumstances.
Different regions have different challenges, but all Canadians depend on a strong safety net to help workers deal with changes in their careers and their lives during difficult times.
The EI program is specifically designed to respond to economic changes like this. There is flexibility built into the program that allows it to respond to deteriorating economic conditions and changes in our local labour markets as measured by regional unemployment rates.
When a region's unemployment rate rises, the entrance requirement is reduced and the duration of benefits increases. There is built-in flexibility, but we know that we can do even better. We can do more to make the program more relevant and responsive to the needs of Canadians today and in the future.
In addition to reacting to changing life circumstances, a strong EI program can help employers avoid layoffs and protect the jobs of local workers through proactive measures, such as the work-sharing program. The work-sharing program, under the EI system, is in place for precisely this purpose. It 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. The program provides income support to eligible employees who agree to work a temporarily reduced work week while their employer regains financial footing. The goal is for all 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 valued skilled employees and avoid 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, as well as an income during difficult times.
I am very proud to support the government's agenda to improve the quality of service that Canadians have come to expect and will receive from the EI portfolio. Our government is committed to improving access and flexibility the EI program to better support the needs of all Canadians.
We are moving forward with initiatives, such as eliminating discrimination against workers who are newly entering or re-entering the workforce, by changing the requirement that new employees work 910 hours before accessing benefits. This policy has a disproportionate impact on young people; those who are recovering from serious illness; and women, who more often than men make professional sacrifices to raise young families before re-entering the workforce. The appropriate threshold needs to be responsive to the regional realities that reflect the needs of people on the ground in their day-to-day lives.
Of course, we are committed to reversing the prior government's 2012 changes to the EI system, which force unemployed workers to move away from their families and out of their communities to take lower-paying jobs. These challenges have a dramatic impact at home for my friends and neighbours. In Central Nova and much of Atlantic Canada, out-migration of youth and working-age community members is a major social demographic problem. Out east, we love our communities as much as anyone in this country. The previous government's policy would exacerbate this negative social trend by kicking people when they are down, by demanding that when they lose their job they have to leave their home as well.
When young people back home are told they need to leave their community, they often leave the province or the country instead, in search of greener pastures, rather than leaving their home town to take a lesser-paying job 100 kilometres away. This phenomenon leaves fewer tax-paying and hard-working workers in a region with an aging population, which has the effect of putting an additional social strain on the province's health care systems.
The government's agenda has also contemplated how the program can help Canadian families. We have pledged to develop more flexible parental benefits and to ease access to EI support for caregivers through the compassionate care benefit, when a family member is suffering from a serious illness. We also plan to reduce wait times to assist families who experience the stress of not knowing where the next rent cheque will come from when faced with difficult changes in their lives and their careers. In addition, we plan to reduce EI premiums to allow employers and families to keep more of their money, to promote a fair and more efficient Canadian economy.
Improving the EI system is not an easy task, so we want to give it the attention it deserves and get it right the first time around. It is important 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. The government is planning to evaluate the success of the EI system and it will assess whether it is delivering its core mandate to provide income security to workers in an ever-changing labour market.
My constituents and Canadians across our country deserve a policy that is informed by the hon. minister's thorough review of this important file, so they can access a system that effectively identifies and responds to their needs, to help build a strong economy that works for all of us. We want a better future for the economy and the country.
I look forward to working with my colleagues from every party in this House to develop a policy that works for all Canadians. If we all work together, we can build on the work already under way and ensure that all Canadians have a real and fair chance at success.
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
The NDP motion is about the 360 hours of work, the universal qualifying threshold that would really help workers, particularly those in my region, where communities are really spread out.
Since my colleague does not feel that the 360-hour threshold is acceptable, I would like to ask him what exactly his plan is and whether he can share some details.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand here and say that 360 hours is absolutely inappropriate either. One of the points that I tried to emphasize during my remarks is that there are positive ongoing initiatives that are conducting a review of the system at present, both through the minister's office and through the applicable standing committee. In the member's region, 360 hours may be determined to be an appropriate qualifying threshold, but in mine it may not be. However, after a thorough review by the hon. minister and the applicable standing committee, we will have a better idea of what the appropriate qualifying thresholds should be in all regions across our country.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the NDP motion is a good one, and I will certainly be voting for it, but I think we ought to also look at the larger issue of income inequality. I have been encouraged to hear that the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is showing an interest in what we must do to ensure that we eliminate income inequality and poverty in Canada, and that is moving to a guaranteed livable income.
I wonder if my friend for West Nova has any thoughts on that as the next major plank in protecting our social safety net.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the question from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who I will note has some experience in Central Nova as a candidate in a prior election.
Income inequality is one of the major economic problems that our country, in fact the developed world in the 21st century, is facing. The notion of a guaranteed basic income is one of the most exciting potential social reforms that is being discussed.
At this time, I do not know if there is enough information, through proper studies that have been conducted, to say that the time is now; the place is here. However, I think we are certainly at a time and place where we should be chatting about it. We should be exploring more information, because with more information we can make a better educated decision.
I am looking forward to the exciting reforms that the minister the member referred to may propose, and I look forward to working with him so that we can help the most vulnerable people in our country. Whether it is through that program or another, there would be severe administrative savings on programs like EI if we chose to go a different route.
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Kildonan—St. Paul Manitoba
Liberal
MaryAnn Mihychuk LiberalMinister of Employment
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled with the valuable debate that we have had in the House.
I would like to ask my colleague if he has given some thought about what people in his riding are looking at for those individuals who are not in the system but are now called “vulnerable workers”. There is a growing number of people who are choosing to work part time, and seasonal workers, who have fallen outside of the parameters of the existing EI program. Where does the member see Canada moving toward supports for people who are not the typical nine to five full-time worker? That is a growing trend, and it looks like it is going to accelerate.
In general, I want to thank the House for some very insightful debate, and I appreciate the well thought-out comments.
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
The minister has identified a key sector of the population that is present across our country, and certainly within my riding as well. One of the pieces of the greater EI program that I find quite exciting is the focus on skills development, in addition to helping people who have come across difficult times. This is going to help people help themselves.
We are going to be investing in programs like labour market development agreements with the provinces and territories. That is going to provide over $2 billion in funding to the provinces and territories to support programming for skills development and employment services, such as counselling and job searches.
In addition, the Canada job fund agreements are going to invest $500 million a year to support training for all Canadians, regardless of employment status, through the Canada job grant and other employer-sponsored training initiatives, as well as employment supports and services, with priority given to unemployed persons who are not eligible for EI—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
We are out of time. I would remind hon. members to address themselves to the chair, which helps us to give time signals and so on to help members stay within the time allotment.
Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, I will let her know that there are approximately seven to eight minutes left in the time remaining for the debate on the business of supply this afternoon.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this has eaten into my time, and I will do my best to squeeze what I should have had into a shorter time period. I would, if time allowed, be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan, but it is sounding as if we have been cut short, sadly. I would have loved to have heard him.
Statistics Canada has reported that in 2015 Alberta lost 51,000 full-time jobs, the worst loss since the 1982 recession. Alberta's unemployment rate has almost doubled to over 7% and the layoffs have continued, in large part in the resource sector. A huge majority of these are well-paid professional jobs impacting middle-class families. The number of Albertans receiving EI has doubled in just one year from more than 31,000 to more than 62,000.
The very purpose of employment insurance is to assist workers who have paid into the program when they lose their job through no fault of their own. Regrettably, over several terms of Liberal and Conservative governments, changes have been made not to the obligation to pay into EI but rather to limit access to the funds. We have been told that only four out of 10 workers who pay into the system are qualified to file claims.
In a letter to the Minister of Finance, Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, pointed out that only 37% of employed Albertans qualify for EI benefits. Alberta workers must work 630 hours to qualify, compared to 420 hours in Newfoundland and Labrador. It may be noted that both regions are experiencing significant job losses in the resource sector. Mr. McGowan also expressed concern that over the past decade accessibility by Canadian workers to EI benefits declined from 50% to 38%. He reminded the minister that the Liberals campaigned promising EI reforms and respectfully suggested that unemployed Canadians cannot wait a year for a review.
As my colleague, the MP for Trois-Rivières, pointed out, surely no one in this place would agree that only four out of 10 Canadians should qualify for universal health insurance. Then why support that only a small percentage who pay into EI can claim? He also reminded us of past misappropriations of the EI fund to pay down deficits.
Employment insurance has historically offered greater benefits to the jobless in the most economially challenged regions. Benefits have been less generous to workers in Alberta or Ontario, who were prospering. There is growing support for reform of the program to establish a single, universal, national standard for access to claims.
During the election, the Liberals committed to support this change and now say they are studying the program. We prefer an action verb. However, increased access to workers, including those hard hit in Alberta with the massive cuts in the resource sector, could easily be expedited in advance of a complete overhaul of the system.
As pointed out in a recent Globe and Mail editorial, quick action was taken in 2009 in response to that economic crisis. Why not now? In response to the significant downturn in Alberta's economy, both Alberta's Premier Notley and Edmonton's Mayor Iveson called on the government to intervene to revise EI eligibility rules to ensure more equitable access by unemployed Alberta workers.
The premier has requested the government to make two adjustments to the EI program: one, offer a longer period of EI benefits for Alberta workers; two, require a shorter period of eligibility for Alberta workers in line with other Canadian workers.
Mayor Iveson, in a February 16 letter to the finance minister, raised concerns with the current eligibility rules. He said that regime places the unemployed in our city at a considerable disadvantage in accessing the EI program and exacerbates the personal and social distress associated with job loss.
I received a letter today from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which told me that its younger members are experiencing extended periods of unemployment previously unheard of, and they are struggling to make ends meet. An immediate extension of EI benefits and a lowering of the eligibility hours in Alberta would certainly help in relieving stress and anxiety, not to mention increased divorce and family breakdowns.
This is a serious matter requiring action. Yes, some new jobs have been created, but by and large, they have been part-time positions paying minimum wage. As my colleagues have pointed out, part-time employment creates a major disadvantage for workers in accumulating working hours. This must be considered.
Would Alberta workers, like all Canadian workers, prefer a job? Absolutely, they would. Are they welcoming the promised infusion of dollars for infrastructure and housing projects? Yes, they are. However, in the meanwhile, federal action is needed to address the inequity in accessing EI and the distress for families who have been laid off through no fault of their own.
In summation, we have heard all throughout this debate today that the Liberal government is thinking, consulting, and proposing to bring forward a reform of EI sometime in the future. However, at this very moment we have workers across this country, and certainly also in my province of Alberta, who are suffering through no fault of their own. Many of them have been working in the resource sector, which has been filling the coffers of the federal and provincial governments across this country.
My premier, my mayor, the workers of Alberta, and I think that it is time for the government to step forward and take expeditious action with respect to Alberta workers. They have worked hard and have contributed for many years to the EI fund, and they deserve a break, as occurred in 2009.
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Québec
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.
She spoke at length about Alberta and we understand the situation. The government also understands that the current decline in the price of oil in Alberta is one of the main factors. This situation is also found in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and elsewhere. It is a very unusual situation and truly disastrous for those regions.
However, we also have a pan-Canadian platform. We have a responsible government that must consider all requests. It would not make sense to hastily make a poorly thought out decision.
Should we change the employment insurance program to meet the needs of just Albertans or of all Canadians?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, which I find quite untoward.
I am a representative of Alberta. I am speaking for all workers in Canada, however, I feel an obligation to speak for my constituents and Albertans.
Our premier has spoken out. She has written to the Minister of Finance. My mayor has spoken out and has written to the Minister of Finance.
The current government has said that it would reform EI and make it more accessible to workers who have lost their job through no fault of their own. The plummeting oil price has greatly hurt my province and this country. Many of the workers who used to commute from the Maritimes, Ontario, and so forth, to Alberta have had to go back to their provinces because they can probably claim greater EI. Some of them would probably like to stay, because they own homes in Alberta, and have the opportunity of equal access to the benefits that they have paid into.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the motion.
Shall I dispense?
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
February 25th, 2016 / 6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
[Chair read text of motion to House]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Opposition Motion—Employment InsuranceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, we request that the division be deferred until Monday, March 7, at the end of the time provided for government orders.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until March 7, 2016, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.