Michael Savage

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 2nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is intimately aware of research and innovation in Canada. One of the concerns we are hearing increasingly about the budget is that it has provided cuts to the research community.

In my own community, Gerry Johnston from Dalhousie very quickly sent me a note, even while the budget was being unveiled, to say that we are losing money on the tri-councils, and all the research investments made by the Liberal government to make Canada such a research magnet and to reverse the brain drain are being reversed. Cuts to the tri-councils have caused real hardship and will cause much more.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the cuts to research and innovation.

[Youth Voluntary Service, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to the motion. I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Papineau who is new to the House but not new to many Canadians. The motion is entirely in keeping with the work that he has led in Canada, being very involved in Katimavik, and as a leader of young Canadians.

I also want to associate myself with the generous comments from the member for Sault Ste. Marie about the member's father, which is entirely in keeping with the way he does his business here. Pierre Trudeau was a great leader in Canada. One of his great friends was Jacques Hébert. Jacques Hébert was the person who really formed Katimavik and battled for its survival when it was in peril. He was very involved as well in Canada World Youth. These are very noble people who have done a great service to Canada. This motion is in keeping with the work they have done.

I want to congratulate my colleague for the motion. It is one that I am proud to second and support enthusiastically.

The member for Papineau is well known in Canada for his support of young people and their engagement in our country. He understands the incredible benefit to our communities and our country when young people participate and are engaged.

This is the overarching purpose of the motion, to begin the debate about young people and their role in making Canada stronger.

We often hear, as politicians in the public discourse, that young people are not engaged, that they are too busy or perhaps do not care. That is not my experience at all. I would argue that there is a wealth of interest in our young people to understand their communities, their country and the world.

As a member of Parliament, it has been one of my highest priorities to meet young people. I visit schools whenever I can, elementary, junior high and senior high. One of the things I hear most often is this interest in providing service to the country, both for their benefit and, more particular, for the benefit of the country and the world.

I have had the chance to hold youth forums within my responsibilities as critic for human resources, meeting students involved with universities and colleges. The young people I meet, almost without exception, care deeply about their communities, the world around them and understand the importance of solving some of the pressing issues of our time better, in a lot of cases, than the adults around them.

My sister has been very involved with Canada World Youth and Katimavik, but she spent many years for Canada World Youth, another great program that takes kids from Canada and pairs them up with kids from other countries, usually developing countries, to do projects. It is a great building experience for young Canadians. She is now working with WUSC, which is another great organization that does work internationally. She is in Sri Lanka, a country that is torn by all kinds of troubles right now, and doing wonderful work there as well.

I have had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to travel, as most of us have, and I have had the chance to see places where Canada can make a difference. I remember a trip to Kenya with my colleagues from Scarborough—Guildwood, Halifax and Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, where we saw among the poorest people in the world, but we saw Canadians working there, helping out, providing service both to that community, to the world and to themselves.

If people do not think we can make a difference through private members' business and private members' motions, I refer them to my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood who produced Bill C-293, the overseas development act, in the last Parliament and steered it through all the challenges and got it adopted.

We can make a difference here through motions like the one the member for Papineau has proposed and the one the member for Scarborough—Guildwood had adopted in the House and proclaimed last year.

There is great work to be done and my colleague, the member for Papineau, spoke about some of the domestic work.

We can do more in the world, as well, and the overseas part of this is really important. I am a little too young to recall exactly, but I read a lot about the Peace Corps of John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, the AmeriCorps of Bill Clinton in the 1990s, the Gap year in the U.K. and in other European countries. It is so important that young people have a chance. They want to be involved. They want to have that opportunity. They want to know how they can help serve their country and serve the larger community.

The response from students is very important, and it is more than most of us would hope for. There is a sense of optimism and a sense that we can make the world better, and the motion before the House, which I encourage everybody to support, will go a long way in helping them to do that.

[February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking time out of his busy schedule to come here and read the departmental briefing notes.

I sincerely want to ask him a question because I know him to be a man with a big heart.

His government denied that the economic situation was bad and all of a sudden it agreed that it was bad and getting worse all the time. In light of what is facing Canadian workers, does he not think it is time to rethink the measures in the budget and do more to help Canada's unemployed?

[February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on February 2. The response, frankly, was not an answer and I thought I would take this opportunity to chat about it again.

My question was about comments the minister had made in referring to the EI system. When asked why she had not opened up the EI program more and made it more available across the country, and perhaps made the benefits a little more accessible for people who are now not working, she made the comment that she did not want to make EI too lucrative, that she did not want to pay people not to work. That statement is offensive to Canadians. Let us take a look at the situation.

There were signals before the stimulus package came down that EI would be radically overhauled. It was already clear that EI was going to be a very important part of the social infrastructure for Canadians who were losing their jobs. In the budget, the minister added five weeks, included some money for retraining and a few other things, but did nothing about the two week waiting period, did nothing about the critical issue of evening out access across the country so that all Canadians could have access to EI.

People who pay into EI should have access to EI. It does not seem all that complicated a formula. As a stimulus, EI is particularly useful.

Ian Lee from the Sprott School of Business referred to a survey which indicated that when different types of spending measures were ranked in terms of stimulus, spending on employment insurance actually came out at 1.61. This means that every dollar disbursed to someone who is unemployed generates $1.61 of economic growth. It is more significant than infrastructure. It is certainly more significant than tax cuts. It is certainly far more significant than the tax cuts that were in the budget which disproportionately favour those who need help the least.

Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said that six out of ten Canadians do not get EI. Everybody agrees that is a problem, but the government inexplicably decided to ignore the problem. That will lead to disaster.

Even Finn Poschman of the C.D. Howe Institute said, “It is surprising, given how much money is being spent on initiatives of one kind or another that the government couldn't find ways to ease access for laid-off workers”.

If we want to help people on EI, there is a myriad of ways we can do it. We could eliminate the two week waiting period, which in many ways is an affront to Canadians. It is similar to saying that they should not have EI and they should sit for two weeks in the penalty box before they can get it.

We could extend the length of the benefit period. We could increase the rate of benefits and base benefits on the best 12 weeks. We could standardize benefits nationally, which is very important. We could eliminate distinctions between new entrants and re-entrants. We could increase the maximum yearly insurable earnings.

EI's most important role is to provide for those who need help the most, those who make the least amount of money. However, we can imagine people in the auto industry who make a pretty good wage, who are not rich by any standard but they make a pretty good wage, and all of a sudden when they are laid off they are told that EI only covers 55% of part of their earnings. It is not even 55% of their total earnings.

We see in today's news that the year over year hike in EI take-up has gone up 16.6%, 33% in B.C. and 30% in Alberta and Ontario. In London, there is a 75% increase in EI take-up.

Canadians are being forced out of work. The very least the government could do is support them through the employment insurance system. It is good social infrastructure. It is also good stimulus. It makes for a better Canada. It is the type of system that Canadians believe in.

I ask my colleague, is it reasonable to suggest that EI might become too lucrative when the average EI earnings are $333 a week?

[February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy serving with my hon. colleague on the human resources committee. He mentioned that we are supporting the budget and that is very true, but he also has to understand that it is not a carte blanche endorsement of the budget. In fact, the day that our leader, the Leader of the Opposition and soon to be prime minister, indicated that he would provide grudging support for this, he said:

It [meaning the budget] extends EI benefits but fails to extend EI eligibility.... It doesn't go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost--or will lose--their jobs.... We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them. And should [the Prime Minister] fail to satisfy the expectations of Canadians, we will be ready to defeat him and lead in his place.

EI will be part of that discussion, I am sure, as we go forward. We want to see better treatment of Canadian workers who are losing their jobs. So far, we have not seen enough. It is going to have to get better really quickly.

[February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. It came from a newspaper article where she was quoted, and she has never denied it, saying that she did not want to make EI too lucrative or pay people not to work. I see members on the government side are shocked at that. I can see in their faces that some members cannot believe she would say something like that, but she did. It is an appalling statement to make about the unemployed workers of Canada.

We have a lot of issues with EI, but one of the key ones right now is that EI is a very effective form of stimulus. Ian Lee, an economist and director of the MBA program at the Sprott School of Business, talked about a study that ranked the different types of stimuli. Out of tax cuts, infrastructure and the different types of stimuli, the most effective form would be employment insurance.

In today's Toronto Star is the headline, “Welfare 'stimulus' touted. Want bang for buck in economic package? Give the poor a hand...” The same goes for employment insurance. This is money goes to people who absolutely need it. The problem is they are not getting it. Not enough Canadians have access to it.

According to the Caledon Institute in 1976, 84% of unemployed Canadians could receive EI benefits, and I do not think anybody has ever disputed this. Now it is 44%. It is just not right.

On top of that, we have the disgrace of delays by Service Canada. It is not the fault of the wonderful employees of Service Canada that people do not get their benefits on time. I do not think anybody on the government side, particularly the minister, is standing up for people waiting for EI.

A number of members on this side are. The member for Madawaska—Restigouche raised a question in the House yesterday and spoke to this need. He said in a press release that the waiting period for receiving the first EI cheque had been increasing. He said that they were no longer talking about two weeks but more like seven to eight weeks. He added that some people had even waited 55 days or more before receiving their first EI benefit.

I spoke to him as the critic and he told me about a specific person who, I think he indicated, had contacted him on Facebook and had asked for help. My colleague and friend, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, brought it to the floor of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the answers are not particularly forthcoming. That is the concern we have on this side.

Employment insurance is an absolute necessity in these difficult times. There are so many things the government could do to improve it. It could have eliminated the two-week waiting period; it did not do it. It could have increased benefits; it did not do it. It would have equalized access for people who need assistance; it did not do it. It added five weeks at the end and that is small comfort to people who do not qualify at all.

The government needs to step up and represent the people who are losing their jobs through no fault of their own. It is not lucrative to be on employment insurance. Nobody wants to be on it at a fraction of his or her previous salary. I wish the government would not be so out of touch and insensitive to the needs of those workers.

[Child Care, February 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the third anniversary of the Conservative government's decision to cancel the historic national child care program signed by the previous Liberal government and all provinces and territories.

The plan would have created hundreds of thousands of child care spaces and provided long-term and stable funding. It would have made a huge impact on working families, especially working mothers, in getting affordable, accessible and quality child care. It was the first step toward a real early learning and child care system that we need, as our last place ranking in child care demonstrates.

The very first decision, the first act of the Conservative Prime Minister was to cancel child care. The decision was driven by ideology and rooted in the old-fashioned idea that Canadian parents, primarily women, all have the choice to stay at home. Many do not have that choice.

A taxable monthly cheque is helpful, but it is not early learning and child care. By cutting that the Conservatives put politics before people.

The Conservatives have failed our young children and failed mothers and working families by turning back the clock on early learning and child care in Canada. That is a shameful record.

[February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague but the point here is that we could extend benefits for five weeks, but if people do not qualify for benefits it does no good. It is like saying we are going to have income tax deductions, but one's last name has to begin with P to get it. It does not apply to most Canadians. It does not make enough of a difference.

In the United States in fact, the United States Congress has already passed two extensions to employment benefits, and a new bill could see American workers who are laid off collect benefits for up to two years. When the C.D. Howe Institute says to the government that it has not gone far enough, surely the government needs to pay attention to that.

I know my colleague has the speaking notes from the department and he read them very well. He has a wonderful voice. I want to ask him this. From his heart, does he believe the minister was right to say that EI could get too lucrative?

[February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on January 29 the Minister of Human Resources made a comment about EI, which was quoted in the newspaper. When asked why she did not do more to stimulate the economy and to help unemployed workers, she stated, “We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it”. She used the word “lucrative”.

That is taken not just by opposition members but by people across the country, particularly unemployed Canadians, as an affront to Canadian workers. It implies that workers actually want to be unemployed. It reminds people of the culture of defeat comment that the Prime Minister made about Atlantic Canada some time ago. It implies that people would rather be unemployed and receive a fraction of their salaries than to be working.

It is important to note that according to Statistics Canada the average unemployed worker who is receiving benefits, and we have to understand that is a lot lower percentage of the workforce than it used to be, makes $331 a week. That amount is so far from being lucrative that one cannot even see lucrative from that place.

In advance of the budget, there was much discussion about what could be done to improve EI. It seemed as though everybody was saying that something had to be done about EI. We have to stimulate the economy and there is no better way than employment insurance because those who receive it have to spend it. They have no choice; they have nothing else.

We could eliminate or reduce the two-week waiting period. We could increase the rate of benefit, which is now 55%. We could go to the best 12 weeks. We could standardize EI across the country so that everybody has access to EI having worked for the same number of qualifying hours. That is an idea as well. The government could perhaps do something for the people who are waiting to receive their benefits.

I am getting calls as is probably every member of Parliament from people saying that it is taking too long. The standard is supposed to be 28 days to process EI. There are people in my constituency who are waiting 40 to 45 days.

Now the economy is tanking and there is talk of stimulus. A study was done for the U.S. Senate banking committee just two weeks ago about what would be the best stimulative impact for the economy. One could look at infrastructure, tax cuts and employment insurance. The best is employment insurance because every $1 put in actually generates $1.61 for the economy.

After the budget came out, Finn Poschmann of the C.D. Howe Institute, said:

It's surprising, given how much money is being spent on initiatives of one kind or another that the government couldn't find ways to ease access for laid off workers....

Armine Yalnizyan of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives stated:

Six out of 10 Canadians don't get EI and everyone agrees that's a problem, but this government inexplicably decided to ignore the problem - and that will lead to disaster for many.

Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, whom I respect and I look forward to working with him on committee, that this is like a bad movie for Canadian workers. Does he agree with the minister's comments that we are anywhere close to making employment insurance too lucrative for Canadian workers?

[Employment Insurance, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, even the conservative C.D. Howe Institute said that it is surprising the government could not find ways to ease access for laid-off workers.

It seems that everybody except the government sees that EI is critical for families right now, and it is the perfect stimulus for the economy as well as the unemployed.

When will those out of touch Conservatives respond to the needs of our workers who are on EI not because it is lucrative or because they want to be, but because they need it to feed their families in a difficult time? When will the minister stop changing the subject, stop making excuses, and start doing something for Canadian workers?