40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 042
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Domtar Plant in Lebel-sur-Quévillon

Mr. Yvon Lévesque (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a problem in Lebel-sur-Quévillon concerning the closure of the paper mill and sawmill, which put 425 employees out of work. For that town, it was the equivalent of 550,000 jobs in Montreal. On that day—budget day, as you may recall—the minister replied, “I invite the member to wait for this afternoon's budget and to support us so that we can rebuild the economy together.”

However, further to the request I made to the minister, after reading the budget several times, I have not found anything that would answer the question I asked. I would remind the House of a few facts. The Employment Insurance Act used to be called the Unemployment Insurance Act. Before that, the federal government had gathered together legislation that existed in all the provinces, but did not exist at the federal level. In the provinces, including Quebec, legislation was passed in the 1920s to help those most in need, and in 1939-40 it was temporarily taken up by the federal government, which allocated funds in order provide a decent income for the time.

As soon as the economy recovered and the program was put in place, the government ensured that it would self-sustain itself and stopped funding it, while keeping control of operations and grabbing surpluses to use them towards the federal deficit. It is in that context that, in 1996, the Minister of Finance released the name, the thrust and the goals of that program. Indeed, at the time, the minister changed the title of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which referred to the situation for which this legislation had been passed—that is to protect the workers and local economies affected. Until 1996, the program had always been indexed to the cost of living, or close to it.

So, ironically, the minister renamed it the “employment insurance” program, as if the income provided by our employment was not in itself an insurance provided by our work, and as if we needed other compensation in addition to the income provided by our work.

Worse still, the minister reduced insurable amounts from $47,000 to $39,000, in addition to reducing from 60% down to 55% the percentage used to calculate the amount of the benefits to be paid. That percentage was also reduced each time a claimant would rely on these benefits, down to a threshold of 50%. This means that benefits which, in most cases, amounted to $28,000 in 1994-95, went down to $19,500 in January 1996, and, in many cases, to much less than that. In his desire to grab money as quickly as possible, this minister, who went on to become the Prime Minister, had made his legislation, which was passed on April 30, 1996, retroactive to January 1.

In response to the question that I put to her on March 10, when I came back, the minister said that there were very great challenges in these tough times for a great number of people, and that the government had a framework and intended to stick with it.

We are now going through another crisis, and it is important to give back access to employment insurance to those who need it. People serving two or three years in jail can maintain their right to employment insurance, but that is not the case for workers, and today they need that program.

Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the employment insurance program has been expanded. A number of things have been done to enhance the program.

The EI program's basic insurance principle stipulates that the premiums paid and benefits disbursed must be reasonably close in terms of both timing and value. That is why the EI program's qualifying period is clearly established as the 52 weeks preceding an application for benefits. It is a core principle that would need to be enhanced or dealt with in any program.

We analyzed the labour market and consulted widely with Canadians before developing our economic action plan. The result is a framework that responds to the current economic situation by assisting workers financially now and helping them to prepare for jobs as the economy improves.

The changes we have made to the EI program are an essential component of our economic action plan. There are a number of enhancements to the program. They include: providing nationally the benefits of the previous five-week pilot project and increasing the maximum duration of benefits available under the EI program by five weeks, raising it from 45 weeks to 50 weeks; allowing earlier access to EI regular income benefits for eligible individuals purchasing their own training using all or part of their severance package; a pilot project that will provide extended EI income support to long-tenured workers while they are on claim; temporarily increasing the funding to the provinces and territories for training programs and services, an additional $1 billion to top up the current funding of $1.95 billion; and a two-year strategic training and transition fund to create opportunities for employment, enable community self-reliance and provide flexible support to individual workers for skills upgrading and training.

Clearly, these measures and others, such as the targeted initiative for older workers, show that this government continues to take action to adjust the employment insurance program to meet the needs of today's workers and prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow.

That being said, I wish to assure the hon. member that we will continue to monitor the current EI system to ensure that the program is working and responding effectively to ever-changing economic circumstances. Built within the employment insurance program is the provision that if unemployment in a region rises, benefits are longer and the time to qualify is shorter. That part is flexible. We are making sure that the needs of those who are most vulnerable are met.

Mr. Yvon Lévesque:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor just underscored a point which absolutely needs to be tackled. He said that the plan must adapt to the emerging needs. Because of the cost of living and the urbanization, the needs of today, in this crisis, are much more pressing than they were in 1920 or 1940. Given that there are enormous amounts of money in the employment insurance coffers, that the government draws from to pay off the debt, that money should instead be used to help the ones who paid it in the first place: businesses, workers and communities. Without employment insurance revenues, these people cannot recover the money owed to them. We are forcing workers to get into debt, and they become helpless.

Mr. Ed Komarnicki:

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, there are 58 regions in the country and they adjust automatically month by month so that they react quickly. Eighty-two per cent of those who pay into the system actually receive benefits.

We understand that many Canadians have been affected by these economic times. We empathize with them and understand where they are, in that they have lost their jobs through circumstances beyond their control. For those who are able to qualify, these benefits are there for them. We want to ensure that we continue to take steps to get the money to those who need it most.

It is critical that these benefits, as they are applied for, are processed expeditiously. We have taken steps to ensure that happens.

TOP