Lynne Yelich

[March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that individuals use, on average, less than two-thirds of their employment insurance entitlement before finding employment. The member will be pleased to know that even in areas of high unemployment, claimants rarely use more than 70% of their entitlement. With regard to benefit amounts, the family supplement enables individuals in low income families with children to receive up to 80% of their insured earnings.

Again, for seasonal workers, it was this government that launched a number of new pilot projects, continued others, and is extending employment insurance transitional measures again for two regions in New Brunswick and Quebec.

What is important is what this government is doing on the other side of the employment insurance program. We are creating jobs: 89,000 jobs in the month of January. Our unemployment rate right now is at its lowest level in over 30 years. While some regions are seeing this more than others, all regions are poised to do better than they did under the Liberals and under that member's government.

[March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the time for these debates is usually reserved for members who believe they did not receive an answer to their question or who require further clarification. I believe anyone who were to refer to Hansard for the minister's response during question period would find that he gave a complete response to the member on that occasion.

In any event, I am pleased to say that employment insurance continues to help Canadian workers adjust to labour market changes. It continues to balance work and family responsibilities.

The government has made substantial progress over the last year. We have simplified and streamlined the whole EI processing system. Today, under this minister and this government, EI routinely meets or exceeds its target of paying 80% of all claims within 28 days across the country.

For the month of January in the member's region, for example, HRSDC processed 86% of all claims within 28 days. In fact, 86.5% of all claims for Newfoundland and Labrador were paid in that timeframe. In Prince Edward Island the number was 90.8%, Nova Scotia 82.1% and New Brunswick 87.9%.

Those are phenomenal percentages of claims that were paid in very short times. I must say that these people in his riding have probably been better served under our Conservative government than ever before under the previous Liberal government. These statistics speak for themselves.

Not only are claimants receiving their benefits quickly, access to them is also very high. Nationally more than 83% of those who pay into the program and have a qualified job separation are eligible for benefits. In areas of high unemployment, such as Atlantic Canada, this increases to more than 90%.

Equally important, evidence shows that both the amount and duration of employment insurance benefits are meeting the needs of Canadians. In fact, the program is designed to ensure that the benefit duration increases when the unemployment rate rises. For example, in areas of high unemployment, as much as 37 week of benefits can be available for the equivalent of as few as 12 weeks of work.

For seasonal workers, it was this government that launched a number of new pilot projects. We continued others and are extending EI transitional measures for two regions in New Brunswick and Quebec.

With regard to benefit amounts, the family supplement enables individuals and low income families with children to receive up to 80% of their insurable earnings.

This is good news for Canada and for those seeking a job. Canadians should be given every opportunity to participate and succeed in Canada's growing economy.

[February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for again bringing this situation to the attention of the House so we can explain to the people that there is a process dealing with these disputes. This process, which is now underway, allows parties to appeal the initial decisions to an umpire.

I think the member will be happy to know that the minister has contacted the department and he has, at the very least, instructed the department to do everything it can to expedite the process by filing the appeal to the umpire. Recognizing the situation faced by the Clearwater employees, the minister has asked the department to expedite this process.

On the minister's behalf, I assure the member that we are doing everything within the minister's purview.

[February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for raising this issue both last week and now. Listening to the member speak I must congratulate him for spelling out his concerns so rationally and so very easy to understand.

Unfortunately, he will not like what I have to tell him. An independent, arm's length process is reviewing this matter and we cannot take it any further. I cannot express how disappointed I am for these people.

As the government, like the member, we are very concerned when workers face a disruption to their employment. We are also concerned about the status of the Clearwater employees from Glace Bay. We are also concerned about respecting the independence of the arm's length process.

Our respect for the administrative justice process is robust and we are sincere. We believe and Canadians believe it is important that processes like these continue without political interference. I am sure the member understands that.

We cannot have political interference and we must share that belief. I assume that the member does as well. It therefore follows that we must allow this process to take its course and it would be inappropriate to comment on the particulars of this matter further.

What I can say though is that our government sympathizes with the workers who find themselves in these sorts of situations.

Canadian workers support the Conservative Party and they support us as the government. They know we share their priority on developing and maintaining a strong economy. They support us because they know we want to support them with a strong employment insurance program.

We believe it is a tragedy when anyone loses their job. Far from letting Canadian workers down, the government has rewarded workers with a record number of jobs. Just last month we created 89,000 jobs. We have lowered the GST. We have encouraged apprenticeships. We have delivered support to families through the universal child care benefit for their children and tax relief and benefits for their parents.

We have also been working to support Canadian workers with a range of benefits that are available for those who qualify. We are succeeding. Eighty-three per cent of those who face job disruptions through closures are able to receive benefits.

What I can also say is that the employment insurance legislation, which applies to all cases, currently stipulates that no benefits can be paid in situations where a claimant loses employment or is unable to resume employment because of a work stoppage attributable to a labour dispute.

There are situations where there is a difference in interpretation on how to apply these provisions of the legislation. These differences of interpretation are not resolved at the minister's desk. These are not political disputes. These disputes on how to interpret the law are sent to an objective body, an arm's length panel of referees.

The process for dealing with these disputes also allows parties to appeal--

[Government Programs, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of those programs to students, to organizations and to communities. We are committed to ensuring that this program will be continuing to help these organizations, communities and students.

I suggest the member wait and see. Stay tuned, it will be coming soon.

[Employment Insurance, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who he is because the member never said. I do not know if the minister said that. However, I want the member to know that changes to the EI program take into account impact it would have on employees, employers or beneficiaries.

I do not understand what he is talking about, when he said the minister said that.

[Employment Insurance, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the people who are not working. We want EI to be there for the people who need it. I am not sure what the member is talking about because I have been informed that there is not an eight week waiting period.

[Employment Insurance, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we understand that the labour market impacts of this concept be considered before we make any changes to the EI program. That is why the government has used the pilot project that the member is speaking about. It examines whether the EI benefits are based on a claimant's best weeks. The government is committed to ensuring that the EI benefit is there and accessible to all who need it.

[Employment Insurance, February 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention to the hon. member that 83% of the people who can access the EI account do in fact access it. The people he is speaking about are people who have not qualified and have not been entitled because they did not have enough weeks, they were self-employed, or did not pay into employment insurance. That is why his figures are absolutely incorrect.

[Business of Supply, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on this one because I heard the hon. member talking about the big corporations, the big money and the working poor.

In Saskatchewan, which has an NDP government, crown corporations gave their CEOs one tremendous wage. It was almost prohibitive compared to the raises that the working people in Saskatchewan were receiving. The union there, SGEU, represents the people who run the snowplows on our highways. They went on strike because they could not get a raise. These people asked for a raise but they could not get it. They asked for a raise because the crown corporations gave their CEOs a tremendous raise.

I find it rather hypocritical to hear the member talking about this party and the CEOs and big raises when in fact that is exactly what his counterparts in our province did. They have a monopoly. They have control. They give raises to CEOs, but the hard-working people who really do the ground work have to go on strike. Replacement workers took their place, which is another issue that we have to question. Replacement workers were needed in our province to ensure that the best interests of the public were--