Look in the mirror, for God's sake. Look in the mirror.
House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.
Health October 21st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, pregnant women with H1N1 influenza have higher rates of hospitalization and death than does the general population.
Yesterday, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control issued a joint statement giving detailed information regarding vaccinations for U.S. women.
The Conservative government's information for pregnant women is now months out of date. When are Canadian women going to get current accurate and reliable information?
Afghanistan October 20th, 2009
This is too much.
Employment Insurance Act October 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak tonight to Bill C-395, which is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act addressing eligibility as a result of a labour dispute.
This country has been and is going through a major economic crisis. While there is talk of a rebounding economy, the reality is that it is a jobless recovery. The reality is that there are still people who are continuing to lose their jobs.
We know that at this moment there are over 700,000 Canadians receiving employment insurance, with over 1.5 million unemployed, so we can do the math in terms of who is receiving employment insurance at this point and who is not able to receive it.
Inaccessibility of course has been a major issue throughout this crisis. Many Canadians have not been able to access employment insurance at all, and many others of course have now exhausted their benefits and are not part of the small group that the government has chosen to be the deserving group to receive extensions on their EI benefits. I have no problem with extending it, except that it should be a much broader initiative to cover all of those people who are now in dire straits.
To come back to this bill, we all know that currently the act does not specify what happens after a work stoppage. It is not clear and this is important to clarify. How does the qualifying period impact people who have been on strike for awhile and then are laid off shortly after going back to work? The act is not very clear in that context. This bill actually clarifies that and certainly ensures that people are not left in the cold.
The qualifying period, as we know, is 52 weeks immediately before the start date of a claim or the period since the start of a previous EI claim, if that claim started during the 52 week period. While that part of it is clear, there is still the issue of what happens to people who find themselves out of work because of a strike. We do have coverage in other ways for other groups, such as sickness, but this is not something that is captured very clearly. This bill aims to clarify what happens to that qualifying period and I welcome that clarification.
Workers should not be penalized because they are out for a week, two weeks, ten weeks or however long it is, for a strike, because they do not have the choice to strike or not to strike. Obviously, if there is a lockout or a strike, the workers are affected very directly.
At the same time, they have not been laid off. None of these workers have actually received a pink slip that says they are no longer employees so that they can go and apply for EI during that process. They cannot. They are deemed to still be employees of that company and they are deemed to be workers receiving benefits and so on until such time as they are no longer employees.
However, if they are laid off through no fault of their own after the dispute is over; that is, shortly thereafter, and sometimes it can happen very soon after, this whole area is not clear as to whether that whole period can qualify them for coverage or not. In many cases, of course, it does not.
This bill takes care of that problem and it extends the qualifying period for the length of the work stoppage. That is a very valuable thing to do and I support that. As I said before, I do not believe that any worker who is either on strike or has been locked out should have to lose financial support.
I know that on the government's side, the hon. members have said that these two things need to be connected because it favours the employee over the employer and this is a problem that causes inconsistencies and conflicts.
I do not see that at all because whether or not there is a strike or a lockout, it is not always very clear. It should not affect the workers. As I said, the workers have not been laid off. They have not received layoff slips. The workers are still employees of the company. Therefore, they should be looked after. A lockout or strike should not impact whether workers qualify for EI if they are laid off after the work stoppage comes to an end.
The EI Act is quite convoluted and complex in many ways as it has been amended over the years in many different ways. If there is a work stoppage during an EI claim, it could be contentious if it is not specifically described in the act.
As I said, the act can be very difficult to interpret and it has a lot of different aspects. This is an area which to some degree has been left open and needs to be clarified. This is the right way to do it so that we do not continue to have the same kinds of tensions that exist now. The bill makes the process simpler and clearly defines how a claim can proceed if the worker was part of a work stoppage in the 52-week period prior to being laid off.
If people lost their jobs because of a long labour dispute, it prevented them from accumulating the required hours in the 52 preceding weeks. This is the impact of the current situation. This bill would make them eligible for EI, which makes a difference. It allows people to receive what is their right, in essence.
I do not see this as giving the workers an advantage over the company, as the hon. member on the government side said. The workers and the company both contribute to EI. I do not think people would stay on strike longer simply because they know that period is still covered. I do not believe that would be a defining factor in any way whatsoever. Therefore, I do not see that it gives a benefit to one over the other.
With this bill, benefits can be calculated based on the weeks worked prior to the labour dispute despite the length of the dispute. In my view, this tells workers that they are still employees of the company and during a lockout or labour dispute they will not be penalized with respect to employment insurance should they lose their jobs shortly after going back to work.
The hon. member across the way said that this would give advantage to the workers. However, the employer may also choose to let people go once they return to work for reasons that are not necessarily legitimate in order to punish or cut back the labour force. One could go in that direction as well and argue the other side. I do not believe that either one should be argued.
For me, quite frankly, the bottom line is whether the workers are still employees of a company, yes or no. If they are still employees of the company and they are not working because of a situation over which they have no control, then they should be able to continue to qualify for EI benefits for that period if they lose their jobs shortly after they go back to work.
I will be supporting this bill. It is going in the right direction. I would like members of the House to look at it from that perspective and support it.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 14th, 2009
With regard to the Employment Equity Act: (a) has the progress of the Act been evaluated since the last parliamentary review of the legislation and, if so, what were the findings of this review; (b) did Human Resources and Social Development Canada develop a workplace equity integration strategy for persons with disabilities and Aboriginal peoples; (c) have these two under-represented groups in the public service increased in numbers; and (d) how has employment equity progressed in workplaces covered under the Federal Contractors Program since 2002?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 14th, 2009
With regard to the government's public consultations to modernize Part III of the Canada Labour Code: (a) how many groups have made submissions; (b) how many individuals have made submissions; (c) how many face-to-face or telephone meetings has the Minister of Labour had with groups and individuals in relation to these public consultations; (d) what are the names of groups and individuals of (c); (e) what are the names of groups and individuals that have made submissions; (f) what is the budget of this public consultation process; (g) what is the cost so far of these consultations; and (h) is the legislation to modernize Part III of the Canada Labour Code being drafted?
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
With regard to replacement workers: (a) has the government reviewed subsection 94 (2.1) of the Canada Labour Code which prohibits the use of replacement workers if these workers are used to undermine a trade union’s capacity to engage in bargaining and represent its member; (b) has the use of replacement workers ever been prohibited under subsection 94 (2.1); (c) has the government compared federal legislation to provincial legislation as it relates to replacement workers and, if so, what were the findings and conclusions; (d) has the department held consultations or provided information to the Minister of Labour to define what services would be deemed essential under federal jurisdiction in the event of a labour dispute should a ban on replacement workers be implemented; (e) does the government intend to take any action on replacement workers in 2009-2010; and (f) has the department provided the Minister of Labour with any documentation indicating that the number of work stoppages would increase and last longer if a replacement worker ban were implemented?
Questions on the Order Paper September 14th, 2009
With regard to the wage earner protection program WEPP, (a) how much money was spent on this program in 2008-2009; (b) how many individuals received payments of any kind eligible under the program; (c) were payments in (b) more or less than budgeted; (d) what was the average payment per individual; (e) how many claims were made last fiscal year; (f) how many claims are expected this year; (g) has the government planned for an increase in bankruptcies and insolvencies this year; (h) what are the administrative costs of this program; (i) how many staff are employed to administer this program; and (j) does the department plan to hire additional staff in the face of the current economic crisis to administer the WEPP?
Points of Order June 18th, 2009
They can scream or yell, but that is the fact. At the end of the day, the programs that my colleague listed were programs that the government eliminated, and if she wants to say that is crazy, it is their programs that they are calling crazy, not my colleague.
Points of Order June 18th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, during question period the minister responsible for Status of Women, in responding to my colleague, after a long list of government programs, called them crazy, which means they are crazy programs from the government, but it is offensive to women in this country to suggest that a questioner is crazy. This is absolutely offensive. This is not the kind of behaviour I expect from the minister for Status of Women Canada.