House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 74% of the vote.
Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act May 6th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, we will have to look at the specifics of what the hon. member has proposed. We will certainly undertake to consider it.
My personal view is we need to ensure that any benefits that are interrupted and not available should be corrected by this bill. We will do everything possible to ensure that happens and take whatever constructive suggestions the members opposite may have to ensure that is achieved when the bill is passed.
Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act May 6th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, my minister indicated that she would consider all reasonable amendments. I would do the reasonable thing and go along with all reasonable amendments.
It is fair to say, generally speaking, that this is a very specific amendment that we all support. We want to ensure that no one is left behind. When the bill is enacted, personally I would like to see that anyone who has been in service, or is in service, and is not able to qualify for all of the 35 weeks of parental benefits is given the opportunity to do that and is not prejudiced by the fact that those weeks have been interrupted because he or she was deployed to service.
We certainly will work with the opposition to ensure that comes to pass.
Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act May 6th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important bill that will support Canadian military families. By improving the access of Canadian Forces members to employment insurance parental benefits, we are recognizing their profound and dedicated contribution of service to our country and to all Canadians.
The men and women who serve in the Canadian Forces play an enormous role representing Canada abroad and serving our interests at home and around the world. Our contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan is only the latest of many overseas missions past and present, which have called our service men and women away from their families on behalf of service for us all.
When we recognize their service, we must also recognize their sacrifices. We recognize those who make the ultimate sacrifice. We should remember them always and every day as we go about our lives in peace, security and prosperity in a country ruled by laws and blessed by freedom. We remember them solemnly every November 11 and we commemorate them on April 9. We did that less than a month ago in a moving ceremony not far from this place.
By the same token, we must recognize the tremendous hardship that arises when a Canadian Forces member has to leave his or her family because of an imperative military requirement, and it is an imperative requirement for the members to do so. Our Canadian Forces members spend many months on end away from their families, often more than eight or nine months at a time. This is very hard on a family and even harder on a family with or expecting children.
Our service men and women in these situations deserve our support. We need to help them preserve and strengthen the ties of family. The bill would help them do just that. The current Employment Insurance Act does not recognize the unique circumstances that our soldiers and their families face. It is time the act recognized the important and imperative contributions made by our Canadian Forces and the members of the forces.
We also announced in budget 2010 that we would take steps to make it easier to access EI sickness benefits for immediate family of military personnel who unfortunately died as a result of a service-related injury. This change will provide recognition of the impact on family members of losing a loved one in service, the shock and the sadness that no family should have to endure, but many do endure because they have to.
All Canadians are deeply and profoundly touched by the sacrifices made by our soldiers on behalf of us and on behalf of others. That is why Canadians, by the thousands, line up each unfortunate time to observe the memorial motorcades on the Highway of Heroes. That is why on Fridays Canadians wear red.
I cannot adequately express the thanks we give to our service men and women. Through initiatives like this bill, we can get a step closer to ensuring our soldiers have access to the programs and services to which they are entitled. As our minister has stated, the bill is the right and fair thing to do.
Canadian soldiers are willing to give their lives for our country. They are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, often make many other painful sacrifices for all of us. The least we can do in return is to give them some time with their families.
Technically, what the bill would do is extend the eligibility window for EI parental benefits by the number of weeks that a Canadian Forces regular and reserve members' parental leave is deferred or interrupted because of an imperative military requirement during the eligibility window. The window would be extended by up to a maximum of 52 weeks for a possible total of 104 weeks to allow these individuals to access part or all of the 35 weeks of EI parental benefits available to them. This would allow Canadian Forces parents time to share in those important milestones that form an integral part of every family's story. That is why we are doing this.
As I have said, we must recognize the service and sacrifice of these brave men and women. They face circumstances other Canadian workers do not. Most Canadians do not face imperative military requirements as a normal part of their daily life. Canadian Forces members put their lives on the line for our country and our government is proud to stand behind them and support them in whatever ways we can.
Under the legislation, we propose to address the specific challenges faced by Canadian Forces members, including reservists, who have their parental leave deferred or are ordered to return to duty while on leave due to imperative military requirements. The measure we have proposed is similar to what is offered to parents on EI parental leave who have a child in the hospital. The period in which parents can claim benefits is extended one week for every week the child is hospitalized, up to a maximum of 104 weeks.
EI parental benefits play an important role for many new parents by providing income replacement. Use of EI special benefits, including maternity and parental benefits, is high. The 2008 monitoring and assessment report found that more than 186,000 Canadians accessed parental benefits in 2007-08. The number of parents sharing parental benefits continues to rise. Parents use almost 95% of the time available to them under the benefit. It is well used and well received. Everybody recognizes the importance of the early years and the intellectual and emotional and social development of children.
Canadians recognize that service in the Canadian Forces is honourable, but comes at great personal risk. That is why our government values the extension of parental benefits as a meaningful gesture to the men and women serving in the Canadian Forces. It shows that we value their sacrifice and we value strong families.
Military families also deserve our support in another way.
As it currently stands, eligible individuals who are unable to work due to illness, including the stress caused by the injury or death of a loved one, can qualify for up to 15 weeks of EI sickness benefits.
Budget 2010 proposes to facilitate access to EI sickness for immediate family members of military personnel who died from a service-related injury. This recognizes the impact on family members of losing a loved one in service to their country. It reflects our country's deep appreciation for the new generation of men and women in uniform who stand up for the values and principles that Canadians hold dear.
We owe so much to the Canadian Forces members who have served and continue to serve with great distinction. I encourage my fellow members of Parliament to show their support to military families by facilitating access to EI and by passing this bill. I would ask that this bill be passed quickly and unanimously by the House.
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to disturb the Speaker but the member has strayed for a considerable period of time from the essence of the bill.
We seem to have two standards here. It would seem that the member should be brought to the place where he somehow connects the bill to what he is saying. He has ventured off to talk about a whole number of things that are not specific to the bill and perhaps should be cautioned as well.
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I have been addressing the contents of the bill. I do not know where the members were. I do not know what they have listened to, but I have been pretty clear that the bill is exactly what we do not need. What do they find so hard to understand about that?
The bill is unwise for the EI program. It is inefficient, very costly, unwarranted and unnecessary. When we look at the cost, it will be $1.3 billion per year as a result of the bill, which will have unacceptable consequences. The bill is exactly the kind of reckless spending proposal that is harmful to our country's fiscal and economic health, but which the opposition is all too fond of these days. This will not help us in that regard.
The bill is expensive and contrary to the good work that we have already done. A number of economists have said that removing this two-week waiting period is not the right way to go. They say that it is there for a reason, it makes the system efficient and there are other ways to spend the money. Members need to understand that.
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am saying when one looks at the bill in the context of what the Bloc is trying to do, it is a shoehorn or cherry-picking approach that is not acceptable.
This bill is exactly what we do not need to do. It is unwise for the EI program. It results in an inefficient and very costly program change. It is unwarranted in the economic circumstances. It is unnecessary in significant new spending. The department in charge estimates that the bill would cost approximately $1.3 billion per year. That would result in either a deficit or higher premiums, something those members should not be supporting—
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, some members appreciate, and to put this in appropriate context, that if one has to look at this bill, one has to look at it in context. It is taking one aspect of the employment insurance program and saying that this is what we need to do to make employment insurance better.
That is a simplistic point of view. We cannot cherry-pick one item and say we want the House to support that one item, when the fact is that they have not supported other items that benefited more people.
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, of course it is relevant and I think there are some issues that the member can learn. The issue he raises affects unemployed Canadians. The issue he raises is a narrow one that is shoehorned into a bigger picture.
We are talking about the unemployed. We need to know the full picture, how this fits in the context and whether people should oppose it or not. I am saying this bill is not a good bill when put in the context of what is happening everywhere.
Let us go back to December of 2008, more than a year ago, during the first difficult months of the global economic recession.
On December 18, 2008, CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live, someone we all know quite well, welcomed Mr. David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada. He was asked whether eliminating the two-week waiting period for EI was an expenditure worth making. It was a very specific question, which deals exactly with this bill. He was asked whether it would be effective, whether the expenditure was worth making. Mr. Dodge responded unequivocally and without hesitation. He said:
The answer is no. That would probably be the worst waste of money we could make...because there's a lot of churn in the labour market.
His message was that this was understandable and that it was prudent to retain the waiting period, simply from an operational and a practical standpoint. He said, “that two weeks is there for a very good reason”. Mr. Dodge went on to say, “the real issue is that some of these people are going to be off work for a rather long period of time”.
We are focused on what matters to Canadians, creating and preserving jobs, investing in training and helping those hardest hit. How did we know this? Because we asked and Canadians told us.
Our government engaged in the most comprehensive prebudget consultations in Canadian history, leading up to the release of Canada's economic action plan in budget 2009. During those consultations with Canadians, and the member would do well to listen, they told us they wanted EI to be extended to help unemployed Canadians who were having difficulty finding a new jobs or who needed more comprehensive skills upgrading. That is what Canadians told us. That is also what experts like David Dodge told us. That is what we did.
Through the economic action plan, we provided an additional five weeks of EI benefits to all Canadians who needed them, to help them get through the tough economic times. Over 500,000 Canadians have benefited from that measure alone. I wonder what the member would say to those 500,000 Canadians, whom he did not stand and support in the action that was taken by the government.
However, we were not finished. We kept a sharp eye on the situation and we acted again when the need presented itself. This past fall, we introduced and passed Bill C-50, a stand-alone bill, acting further to ensure that the EI program remained responsive to the needs of Canadians. That bill provided fairness for Canadian long-tenured workers. There are Canadians who have worked for many years, who have paid EI premiums for many years and who have rarely, if ever, used the system at all.
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I know those hon. members have a difficult time accepting the truth, but the fact is the items I outlined appeared before the House. Some appeared in the budget, as they said, but some appeared individually. The long-tenured workers and the extension for them appeared in its own bill. When we talked about benefits to the self-employed, it appeared in its own bill. They had a choice to stand up for it or against it and they had to make that decision.
I will highlight the many actions our Conservative government has taken over the past year and a half to help Canadians who were unemployed during the recent economic downturn. It is important to highlight these measures, especially when we are debating opposition attempts to shoehorn their pet projects into systems that, by and large, are working well for Canadians and that they have chosen, for one reason or another, not to support.
It is important to highlight what our government is doing for Canadians. The party proposing the bill voted against the economic action plan that we crafted to help Canadians. There is no question about that. It is also especially important to do this when the actions this Conservative government have taken have been so thorough.
The bill is not consistent with our government's approach. It is—
Employment Insurance Act April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member is of the view that the two-week waiting period should be eliminated. Of course, it would have a cost.
If the member is really concerned about helping those who are vulnerable, those who are unemployed, why is it that he voted against the extension of the EI program, the addition of five weeks for those who were unemployed? Why is it that he voted against the extra weeks of benefits for long-tenured workers? Why is it that he voted against the program that allowed people to maintain their jobs, the work-sharing program that helped thousands and thousands of people? Why is it he voted against that?
Indeed, I am not sure what the Bloc members would have against older workers, but when there was a special provision for older workers, they voted against that too.
Those are millions of dollars of expenditures including millions of dollars to help people upgrade their skills to be able to find new jobs. How in good conscience could the Bloc members have voted against all of that and be fixated on one particular issue of the EI program?