40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 122
CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Employment Insurance

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to speak about employment insurance. I had asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development a question about a bill introduced and voted on in the House. Under the bill, seasonal workers are not eligible for the additional 20 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism had mentioned, some time before, that six additional weeks would be paid to those who deserved it. I had included these remarks in my question.

People need employment insurance. People are not working because of the Conservative government's inaction on economic recovery and infrastructure. They continue to lose their jobs.

The unemployment rate has continually risen throughout the country. Our seasonal workers live in resource-rich areas and work in the forestry, agriculture, construction or tourism industries. All these sectors have experienced serious difficulties for years and things are not like they used to be.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, these people do not deserve employment insurance. Such comments are unacceptable. She seems to think that they have not worked all their lives. In many cases, they have worked for the same company for 5, 10, 15, 20, or even 30 years. They only thing keeping them from working 12 months a year is the fact that we live in a country where these companies are more active in some seasons and less so in others.

Seasonal workers are people working in forestry, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and construction, as well as students who start working after completing their studies and mothers who go back to work after raising their children. Some women go back to work when their children start school. However, if a mother unfortunately loses her job after having worked for just a few years—say one, two or three years—she would not be eligible for the 20 extra weeks of employment insurance.

If workers in the forestry, fishing, tourism, construction and agriculture sectors lose their jobs because they cannot work 12 months of the year because of the weather, the Conservative members and ministers believe that they do not deserve employment insurance benefits.

This is a clear demonstration that the Conservatives have no knowledge of or sensitivity towards the needs of Canadian workers. They will say they have invested a lot of money and added more weeks. However, those additional weeks have not been granted to those who need them most. All workers deserve those weeks, not just an exclusive group, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism seemed to say. We should be helping everyone in times of crisis. This is about the well-being of families and their survival.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the hon. member by asking what he would do about those who have paid premiums for a long time, those who have not collected benefits for many years of work who find themselves without work and are unable find a job. The bill was directed specifically to them.

It does not say that others might not want to have been on the system. We have a certain set of dollars for the particular group we have targeted, those who are hurt most by the unfortunate economic conditions. What would he say to those people? Approximately 190,000 would be benefited by the bill. What would he say to them about the fact that he and his party voted against that bill? If they had their way, those benefits would have been taken away from 190,000 potential recipients.

Even if the member wanted to benefit another group or a different group of people, why would he and his party vote against the bill, other than the fact that at the time they were of the view that they wanted to trigger an election that no one wanted. Therefore, the interest at which those members were looking at that time was self-interest and not the interest of the people who were intended to be benefited from the bill.

The member is right. We have taken many actions to help hundreds of thousands of Canadians through our changes and improvements to the employment insurance program. Indeed, we added five extra weeks of EI benefits to all Canadians on EI. More than 365,000 Canadians have received additional weeks of benefits, thanks to the extra five weeks which were included in our economic action plan.

Therefore, we were not excluding anyone when we did that. All Canadians were affected quickly by the sudden onset of the economic troubles and the large number of layoffs that happened last fall and winter. We took action and provided the five extra weeks of benefits to all who needed them.

However, we did even more than that. We froze the premiums for 2010. We are delivering on our commitment to improve the governance and management of the EI account by establishing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

We have taken action that is helping businesses and workers immensely in a way that is protecting jobs and helping companies. We are doing this through improved and more accessible work-sharing agreements. That was very well received, preserving jobs that otherwise would not be there. More than 167,000 Canadians were protected by work-sharing agreements, which are in place with almost 6,000 employers across Canada. It is a win situation for the employers and for the employees, and it was very well received.

These jobs are being protected. The workers are being retained by their companies. Their skills are staying up to date. This is a big help to businesses across Canada.

Our government also focused on helping Canadians get back to work so they could provide for their families. That is why we made unprecedented investments in skills training. The career transition assistance program is a new initiative that will help an estimated 40,000 long-tenured workers who need additional support for retraining to find a new job. We have extended the duration of EI regular benefits for eligible workers for up to two years if they are in longer term training. We are allowing earlier access to EI for eligible workers by investing in their training by using all or part of their severance package.

These steps have been taken because we know that those who are unemployed need some extra assistance in not only upgrading themselves, but also finding other jobs. Where possible, we try to preserve their jobs.

Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours:

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the parliamentary secretary was that the Conservative government is excluding many workers. It does not make any sense.

I am anxious to hear what the government will have to say to the workers at the J.D. Irving sawmill, who have again been laid off indefinitely.

I am anxious to see what it will tell the employees of Maple Lodge, the slaughterhouse in Saint-François-de-Madawaska, who have lost their jobs. With the current economic situation, these workers have already used too many benefits weeks over the past five years. Consequently, they will not even qualify for the additional 20 weeks under the criteria set out in the bill, even though some of them have been working, often at the same place, the same plant, for 20, 25 or 30 years. That is the reality. If these are not long tenured workers, I wonder who that refers to.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary should come and see for himself. He would realize that people do need help. Casting some workers aside, pitting workers against one another, will not do people any good and help those in greatest need right now.

Mr. Ed Komarnicki:

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of pitting one group against the other. I just went through the numbers: 165,000 jobs preserved; five weeks of extra benefits for 365,000 Canadians; 40,000 additional long-tenured workers helped; and 190,000 who would benefit from the extension of five to twenty weeks for which the member voted against providing benefits.

I have asked the question. The member failed to address it. Why? Even if he wanted some additional benefits for someone else, why would he oppose benefits to 190,000 when he could have supported that? What was the purpose of that? What was the reasoning behind that? There was no good, valid reason for the party to oppose an extended five to twenty weeks to 190,000 additional people except self-interest. He has not answered the question. I think he should.

TOP