Yves Lessard

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

He should refer to Bill C-308, which we introduced and which contains the 360-hour eligibility threshold, with a general reduction of 70 hours in the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance.

Regional factors should also be reviewed periodically to ensure that they truly reflect the new reality. With regard to the level of employment, it naturally changes a great deal especially in these times. That has been the case for Ontario in particular. In the past, this province was not as hard hit by unemployment. Now look at the unemployment rate in Ontario. The member is right about that. The committee is also looking at that issue.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member is both right and wrong. He is right when he says that the previous Liberal policies were primarily responsible for the situation in which the unemployed find themselves. He is wrong to claim that the 360-hour eligibility threshold, if implemented, would cost $4 billion.

Even the House economic adviser—I do not remember his exact title—who was given a study, or a 20-page report, refutes that claim and has told us what this measure will cost. It was estimated at $1.2 billion in 2005 when the House committee reported to Parliament. That is a fourfold difference. Here is their theory: if you want to get rid of your dog, just say that it has rabies; if you want to kill a measure, say that it will cost four times as much.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister’s speech earlier, and it would have been appropriate to ask her several questions which have not been answered. Despite the briefing session yesterday by officials from the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, certain questions remain unanswered with regard to the persons targeted by this bill. Who does Bill C-50 include and who does it exclude? These questions have still not been answered.

Yet one has the impression that the department is fully aware of the answers, since it has said that 190,000 unemployed persons will be eligible under these measures, for which there is a budget of $935 million. Therefore, we are entitled to specific answers to the type of questions I have just raised. But no, there are no answers. So we must look into the impact that this bill may have on the people who have lost their jobs.

First, let us look at what is not covered in this bill. It does not cover the nearly 60% of unemployed people who do not qualify for employment insurance right now. There is nothing to improve accessibility for all those who do not qualify. Furthermore, according to the department’s own Web site, over 55% of people are presently excluded from the system. So there is nothing for them.

Moreover, this bill excludes young people, women, the self-employed and a good many seasonal workers, for these are the categories of persons who make most frequent use of employment insurance. Let us remember the rule set forth in the bill: one must not have drawn more than 35 weeks of benefits over the last seven years. In other words, that automatically excludes seasonal workers, women and other persons who move in and out of the labour market. So this applies to quite a lot of people.

The minister says that 190,000 people will be able to benefit from this measure. Allow us to doubt this. In fact, the minister accompanies this statement with another, about the cost of $935 million. For a budget of $935 million to be needed, 85% of the people receiving employment insurance benefits would have to use all of their allotted weeks of benefits. But that is not the case, since only 25% of people use them.

So let us remember this: to arrive at the extra $935 million projected in the bill, 85% of people would have to use all their allotted weeks of employment insurance benefits.

Facts are stubborn things, and they shed the brightest light. In this case, the fact is that only 25% of people reach the limit of the number of weeks to which they are entitled. In other words, we come back to between 25% and 30% of the amounts already announced.

We were not given specific information. So we asked in writing how one could arrive at this result, but were provided no answer. So we worked it out and understood that, in fact, this will cover 60,000 persons—at the most—out of 1.5 million or 1.6 million unemployed people in the country. This also changes the number of millions of dollars. Instead of approaching $1 billion, we are closer to $300 million, at most.

Perhaps they can prove otherwise. This they have not done. They make statements without being able to show the method by which they arrived at the results they present. The calculation must be done over again. If you were to do this as well, Mr. Speaker, you would find that you end up with the same result.

My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour spoke briefly about the shamefulness of the situation, that is, why there is no pilot project.

Usually, when such a project of a specific duration is presented, the government does not have to formally table it in the House. It says that taking steps to set up a pilot project is one of its prerogatives. It could very easily do this. It does not need to come here. On the other hand, the government is well aware of the shamefulness of what it is doing. To introduce such a bill, it has to create a third category of the unemployed, what the Conseil national des chômeurs is now calling “the bad unemployed”. According to the government, there are the good unemployed and now the bad unemployed.

Some people have contributed to employment insurance at such a level that they qualify for the program and have had the good fortune not to have to claim employment insurance benefits. It is the most vulnerable who are excluded. All those who are included are those who have had the benefit—and I am happy for them—of a stable job over the last 7, 8 9, 10, 11 or 12 years, since the bill sets the eligibility rules based on the weeks to which you are cumulatively entitled, on a rising scale. The better a contributor you have been to the fund, the fewer benefits you have received, the more gold stars you earn and the more weeks you qualify for.

Fair enough. Naturally this will favour certain people. In my opinion, the employment insurance system has to be improved from top to bottom, not piecemeal as is the case at present. Some people will see an improvement in their benefits as a result of this bill. This must not be a bill that is discriminatory or arbitrary toward certain segments of society that are being favourably targeted. In fact, it is not a favour, since this it belongs to them as well. But why discriminate against the others? That is the question we have to ask.

Let us return to the idea of a pilot project. What is shameful is having the House and all the parties present vote on and sanction a bill that is discriminatory. Naturally we are not opposed to the principle of this measure. What we do not accept, and what the House must not accept, is discrimination against the majority of unemployed people.

This morning the hon. member for Joliette moved that the bill be referred immediately to committee so that this type of debate can be held and appropriate amendments made for the purpose of removing these discriminatory measures. Why?

In our view, an effort has to be made, even if this is not something that is going to reform the entire system. We believe that it is necessary to make this effort. It must not be done just any old way. We must not abandon those who are in need of the fastest assistance.

This bill also prevents us from debating the crux of the problem—the fact that the employment insurance program has become outdated and does not reflect today's reality. That has happened because it has been drained of the resources required to properly fulfill its mandate of providing benefits equitably and for enough time that people can live with dignity. We know that the former and current governments diverted billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund every year for the past 13 years. The current estimate is that $57 billion was taken out of the employment insurance fund.

A number of people who participated in this debacle would be quite happy if we stopped talking about it. But we never will because it is an injustice. It represents a serious economic crime that was committed against the unemployed, families, and regional economies and communities in every province. In Quebec, people have had to apply for social assistance because almost 60% of those who should be eligible for employment insurance have been excluded.

In recent years, we have proposed concrete measures. We have tried to make this House aware of the fact that more people must have access to employment insurance. We are looking at 360 hours. We are pleased that the Liberal Party has also taken up the cause. The Liberals rallied to our side when we debated Bill C-269 in the last session. We also made recommendations to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the last session.

I would like to talk about the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in February 2005. The committee recommended the measures that we now find in Bill C-308, which I was honoured to introduce on behalf of my party. We had a one-hour debate at second reading this week in the House.

I can list the measures. They include, of course, the 360 hours. We must ensure that everyone, without discrimination, permanently goes from 45 to 50 weeks. We want benefits to be raised to 60% of the claimant's income. This is a sensible measure that immediately injects money into our economy. We are calling for the waiting period to be abolished. That is a measure that costs the government nothing, because the individual receives the money at the beginning of the two weeks instead of at the end. This way, people are able to receive benefits from the beginning, and it puts money into the economy immediately. This spring, the Conservatives promised to introduce changes to allow self-employed workers to voluntarily participate in the employment insurance program. They did not follow up on this, and that is also in our bill. We are demanding that there be no more discrimination against people who work for a family-owned business and are related to the owner.

When we talk about comprehensive reform that truly takes into account the difficulties that unemployed workers are facing, these types of measures are the ones we need to take, and not the piecemeal measures that discriminate against people, as we are seeing now.

A little earlier, I spoke about the fact that the employment insurance system is currently based on two criteria that help determine eligibility and access to benefits, and they are the number of hours worked and the unemployment rate in a given region. The current bill, as it stands, creates a third criterion based on contributions to and use of the system. This is the cornerstone of this bill, and that is what we must focus on in this debate.

That is why, this morning, our House leader made the recommendation to send the bill to committee immediately. However, to our surprise, the Conservatives refused, even though the three opposition parties were in agreement. Why did they refuse? As the others have already said, they were playing politics, petty politics, to stall the debate and put pressure on the opposition parties. By stalling the debate, they are effectively delaying the implementation of this bill. It is hard to find anything worse than that. Once again, they are playing twisted political games with the lives of workers, and that has no place here.

Two examples support what I am saying. The first, which we heard about earlier, is the pilot project. That approach would be perfect. So far, that is how it has always been done, since it is a short term project. The second example is the refusal to debate it immediately in committee. What does the Conservative government have to gain by that? Ultimately, by drawing out the debate, first here in the House with five hours of debate today, and sending the bill through all the normal steps, the deadline, which is mid-October, will not be met. The Conservatives can then say that it was the opposition that was stalling.

This is completely outrageous and unacceptable.

Since this time last year, 500,000 workers have lost their jobs in Canada, including 70,000 in Quebec. We have come back to this House over and over again, trying to have Parliament adopt measures to help these people right away. I cannot help but think of the forestry industy in Quebec, for instance. There is really nothing in this for that industry, which is a shame. We have been refused every time. It has been drawn out. Now the Conservative government is afraid of being ousted, so it comes to us at the last minute with vote-catching measures that take into account only certain needs, and it wants to put all the blame on the opposition for delaying this bill.

In closing, I would like to remind the House of our position from this morning. We remain convinced that Bill C-50 must be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for study. Otherwise, we will be forced to vote against it, if this course of action is not done properly. I do not see how we could go back to our constituents and say that we agreed to a bill that is discriminatory, arbitrary and that favours one option that will go on for so long.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I know that he is sincere when he says that he wants to make things better for unemployed workers, despite his own party's former positions, of course.

Yesterday, I was surprised by the secretary of state's arguments, just as I am by the minister's arguments today about how the program we are now considering, Bill C-50, will fill the gap between the end of employment insurance benefits and the beginning of old age security benefits. But that is not the case. I think that is reprehensible.

My question is about a point that my colleague touched on. How can he explain the fact that the government is not implementing this measure as a pilot project? The program is for a limited time only. What does he make of this measure given that the government decided not to run a pilot project?

[Income Support Program for Older Workers, September 16th, 2009]

I do not know if this issue interests the member who is speaking out loud, but it concerns him too.

The program for older worker adjustment was launched in 1988. My colleagues referred to it. It was cancelled in 1997 for cost-cutting reasons to eliminate the deficit. It was, however, relatively inexpensive to run with an EI account that had some $16 billion in it at the time. The program costs were a mere $17 million. This goes to show that the decision made was a targeted one, and it has hurt a specific group, namely older workers. We have been trying to bring the program back because it was very popular and it delivered.

Before getting to the point I want to make here, let me set something straight. Much to my surprise, the government's parliamentary secretary claimed that what we are calling for is an early retirement plan. Either he does not understand the first thing about this debate or he is engaging in demagoguery. My sense is that he understands what the debate is all about. Early retirement plans are for workers with jobs to whom support is provided to help them transition to positions that remain active. This is completely different from what he said.

We are talking about those situations where workers lose their jobs. The positions have been abolished. These are massive job cuts, and the workers are laid off. When their EI benefits run out—if they are so lucky as to qualify for x number of weeks—and they go looking for work, there are no jobs for them. Employers may not want to hire them because of their age—it happens—or they do not have the qualifications required for the jobs that are available or, as is often the case, there are no jobs in the region where they live.

I will give some examples. Whirlpool, for instance, is the former manufacturer of Bélanger stoves in Montmagny. It used to employ 300 workers until it closed five years ago. Twenty-three percent of the workers were over 55. That was the main plant. Most of those workers were unable to find another job. They wanted to work; they were not lazy. The Liberal government was in power at the time and it suggested that they go work in Alberta. Can you imagine? A mother or father who have raised their children, who live in Montmagny with their entire family and they are going to move to Alberta to find work? That was the thinking in those days because there was no work nearby. But how would they survive in the meantime?

I remember a 57-year-old man. He sent out 91 job applications. He had one interview. People were discouraged.

In Huntingdon, it was textiles.

The job losses are staggering. And how many suicides have there been? These people are not lazy. They worked and paid employment insurance premiums their entire lives. There are no jobs. There is no early retirement program. It is callous and insulting to say that. It is tantamount to telling people that they were lazy, that they did not want to work, that there were jobs but that they did not want them.

I will give another example with which our colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is familiar. The Régence shoe factory in Charlesbourg closed four years ago. When he was elected, he promised that he would do better than the Liberals. When elected in 2006, he met with representatives of the Régence factory workers. He was taken aback that they did not have a POWA program. He promised that they would get a POWA program and told them that they were not lazy. He told them that MPs make a lot of money and so on and so forth. He told them that he would look after them. Three months later the same people went to see him. He told them that progress was being made. You will remember that he was elected in January.

A motion was introduced in the House of Commons in October 2006, but he and his colleagues voted against the motion to implement POWA. I speak to these people regularly. I spoke to them again today. They call me because I listen to them. Even his office staff were rude to these people. They are saying that they feel betrayed.

That is rather rude behaviour, if I may say so. It is completely unacceptable to make a commitment to these workers—especially the female workers, because the majority are women—and to treat them the way that the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has treated them. These people worked 30, 35 or even 40 years for a company. It is unacceptable that they are being treated the way the parliamentary secretary treated them today.

He spoke about an early retirement scheme. I do not think I have ever heard anything so offensive towards these people. When we talk about the people of Montmagny, Huntingdon, Charlesbourg, Asbestos—earlier, we spoke with the people of Jeffrey mine and Marine Industries—we can see that these people are often worn out. They have spent many years of their lives working and still want to continue to do so. They have dignity. It is unacceptable to treat them like this. We are here to ensure that the people who built this country and who support our economy are respected and that they are treated with dignity.

But the government refuses to implement this relatively inexpensive program. It is about $100 million. Each province can cover 30% of the cost. In February 2007, the National Assembly voted in favour of a motion asking the Canadian government to reinstate the program. Quebec was prepared to pay its share of 30%, which would leave a cost of $75 million to reinstate this program.

My Liberal colleague rightly said earlier that things have changed since the turn of this century. We saw an increase in mass layoffs. Over the last year, 500,000 jobs have been lost, including 70,000 in Quebec.

Are we going to keep compensating these workers by offering to train them? We are not against training programs for workers who can be retrained and go back to work. Workers are getting involved, but in most cases, only 6% or 7% of retrained workers manage to find a job, for reasons covered earlier.

I invite my colleagues to vote in favour of this motion. It is so important. It is not a binding motion like a bill, but once it is passed, maybe the Conservatives will find enough dignity to introduce a bill and act on it.

[Income Support Program for Older Workers, September 16th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion tabled by my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour. It is an even greater pleasure because I worked very hard on this file on behalf of my party. First, of course, the human resources and social development file includes employment insurance. However, by way of historical coincidence, over the last few years, massive numbers of workers have lost their jobs in many different places. Workers over 55 years of age find themselves in a virtual dead end when there are no jobs in their area for which they are qualified or no jobs at all.

The program for older worker adjustment—

[Income Support Program for Older Workers, September 16th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first of all, allow me to congratulate my colleague for introducing this motion. The hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour has been extremely thorough in his defence of people over 55 years of age who have lost their jobs and who are unable to find other employment. He described the situation very accurately.

Alongside the hon. member, I took part in meetings with workers—at Marine Industries and the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos, among others—and we heard from people whose financial situation was severely affected. For example, they were forced to exhaust all their earnings before turning to welfare.

I would like to hear the hon. member expand on this. Like me, he knows that people over 55 who work for businesses like the Asbestos mine and Marine Industries account for 20% to 25% of all job losses. I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about that.

[Employment Insurance, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, older workers who have received over 35 weeks of employment insurance over the past five years will be excluded from the measures announced by the government. Not only is it inadequate, but this program unfairly excludes thousands of workers who have endured multiple work interruptions over the past few years.

How can the minister so cruelly raise the hopes of older workers, when in reality, she has nothing meaningful to offer them?

[Employment Insurance, September 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard is inaccurate, given that, despite yesterday's announcement, the ongoing problem is access to the employment insurance system. According to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development website, approximately 50% of unemployed workers do not have access to the EI system.

How can the minister claim to be helping workers, when half of all unemployed workers are being left to fend for themselves at a time when jobs are so scarce?

[Employment Insurance, September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive reform of the employment insurance system.

Once again, the Conservatives who promised to do things differently are copying the Liberals and making the unemployed and the contributors to EI pay for the current deficit.

Instead of once again going after the unemployed by dipping freely into the fund, why does the government not look for ways to help workers by supporting the Bloc's Bill C-308, for instance, which we debated just this morning in the House?