40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 063
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Employment Insurance

Ms. Siobhan Coady (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to an issue that I first raised with the minister on April 28 and that is the issue of eligibility for employment insurance.

This is a critical issue, not just for my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl but one that reaches every corner of our country and one that the government is really failing to address. Unfortunately, the government would rather leave Canadian families to fend for themselves than to fix this crucial program.

I believe, as my party does, that a temporary national 360 hour standard of EI eligibility should be introduced for as long as the economic crisis in Canada persists. This would help families, as it would make it easier for workers who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, to qualify for benefits during this crucial time of economic downturn.

There are 58 regional standards currently governing the eligibility and benefit periods for EI, and they are clearly not meeting the needs of our country and our families.

Let me give a few examples of this. To qualify for benefits in my riding, workers need a minimum of 630 hours of insured work. This standard exists for both St. John's and Mount Pearl as well as the rural community of the Goulds as well as the fishing community of Petty Harbour. No consideration is given for the different industries in these communities, but all are simply subject to the same standard as the urban areas which have a very different economic picture. During this time of record job losses there are varying standards that are creating unfair problems for my constituents.

I recently heard of a young woman in my riding who was an occupational therapist and has been laid off from her job. Her hours had been already scaled back. She was mostly working part-time in the months leading up to the permanent layoff. As a first time filer in my region, she needed 840 hours to qualify for the benefits. The reduction in hours and taking part-time work meant that she only had 581 insurable hours, not nearly enough to qualify.

I think about the fisheries workers in Petty Harbour, for example, who work hand in hand in fish plants with colleagues just one community over. They tell me that the eligibility rules are completely different. They need to have 630 hours to qualify. The people in the next community that they work hand over hand with in the same region of my province, the same area, have to have only 420 hours. That makes a disparity for some people because of the downturn in the fisheries industry. They will not even qualify this year. Does the minister not understand that?

I could go on. One of the processing plants, for example, was scaled back in recent years and another constituent of mine decided to leave the province looking for work. That happens all too often in my province. People have to travel outside the province looking for work.

This individual went with a friend who lives in another community, not necessarily in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl but a more rural riding. Both worked side by side. One qualified for EI and the other needed an additional 200 hours.

The government's solution to a national crisis is just to reannounce training funding when fewer than 40% of unemployed Canadians actually qualify for this. It seems like the government's solution to the EI crisis really has not been effective.

I note in response to my question the minister stated, “The worse the situation gets, the easier it is for people to collect benefits”. That is not quite the answer we were looking for. Yes, businesses are closing. Companies are failing. More Canadians are losing jobs and the thresholds are really not changing. It is an inadequate strategy.

Does the government fail to understand that people are losing their jobs, that they need help now, that it needs to expand the EI system, or is it just going to fail people as it has failed the economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear the concerns raised by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Of course, our government is concerned by the job losses being experienced by Canadians. As I said earlier this week, our government is absolutely committed to helping Canadians through this crisis and we will continue to do so.

Our government is making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians. Among other things, we have extended EI benefits by five weeks, more than double the two weeks advocated for by the opposition. We have extended the work-sharing program. More than 110,000 Canadian jobs are being protected by working with Canadian employers to share costs and avoid layoffs.

We are investing $500 million in skills training and upgrading for long-tenured workers, $1 billion in further training through the EI program, and $500 million in training for those who do not qualify for EI. We have made changes that will process claims faster and cut red tape for employers. To do so, we have invested more than $60 million for processing, including hiring additional staff to manage workload and implement budget measures.

We are also monitoring the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are effectively helping Canadians. However, what we will not do is implement the Liberal 360 hour, 45 day work year idea. The opposition members can say what they want about this scheme, but the fact is that this irresponsible proposal would result in a massive increase in job-killing payroll taxes that will hurt workers and businesses alike at a time when they can least afford it. This irresponsible proposal certainly will not help Canadians find new jobs or get new skills. It will simply add billions to the tax burden on Canadians.

Let us see what others are saying about this irresponsible Liberal plan. In the Vancouver Sun, on May 26, Harvey Enchin said:

The Liberal option not only seems illogical but it would raise the federal deficit--and probably taxes--while doing nothing to address the fact that many of the jobs that have been lost are not coming back. The Conservative government is right to reject it...The federal government is on the right track with investment in skills training and transition programs.

In the Calgary Herald, on May 26, Don Martin said:

But just 360 hours to qualify? For a benefit payment period that's just shy of a year? Come on, that's a bit rich, even for Liberals...Yet there are many better ways to reform the system, starting with the Conservatives' re-announced $500-million to stretch benefits for long-term workers--

Unlike the opposition's hollow rhetoric and irresponsible plans, our government's economic action plan is helping Canadians get new skills for new jobs. It is helping Canadians through these tough economic times. Unlike the opposition, on this side of the House, we will not force all working Canadians and businesses to pay more taxes for this irresponsible and ill-conceived proposal.

Our government is helping and will continue to help Canadians get the training they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will continue to help preserve jobs so that hard-working Canadians can continue to pay their mortgages and provide for the needs of their families.

Ms. Siobhan Coady:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear, in the response, that the Conservatives are committed to helping Canadians through this crisis. I would just like to know when they are going to start.

The member responded by talking about the EI training program. While I am fully supportive of funding for training, it is not going to help one single new worker qualify for EI. That particular worker will not be able to benefit under this program. In his response, he talked about monitoring measures to see if they work. I hope the government is monitoring measures because it will see very quickly that they are not working right now for Canadian workers who have lost their jobs.

One of the ways we can stimulate the economy and help families is by making some changes to EI. If Canadians cannot qualify for assistance in the first place, how is it going to do them any good?

Mr. Ed Komarnicki:

Mr. Speaker, over 80% of those who pay into EI do qualify. There is a monetary program for those who do not qualify. Regardless of what the member may say, the fact is that we are making unprecedented investments to help vulnerable and unemployed Canadians.

We are investing $8.3 billion in the Canada skills and transition strategy to help Canadians recover from this downturn and to better position themselves after this economic downturn for the prosperity and opportunities that lie ahead. The Liberal plan is to adopt irresponsible NDP proposals to change EI. They are proposals that will do absolutely nothing to help Canadians acquire new skills so that they can get the jobs of the future.

The only thing the Liberal plan will do is add billions more to the tax burden facing hard-working Canadians at a time when they can least afford it. Higher taxes are the last thing Canadians need when they are trying to get through these tough economic times. That approach is simply irresponsible and it will not be supported by this government.

TOP