Bill C-50 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits

This enactment amends the Employment Insurance Act until September 11, 2010 to increase the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants. It also increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid to certain claimants not in Canada.

Employment Insurance Act

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of walking away from the meeting, I have worked with the hon. member on committee before and I ask him to go to his minister and ask her where the agenda for that alleged meeting is. One of the protocols was that we would have the agenda in advance and that the two co-chairs, the minister and I would approve the agenda. They are always very simple. There were two issues, really, regional fairness and the self-employed, and maybe one or two other things. We would approve those the week before they would be sent out. That is when I called the minister to ask her where we were on that. I never got a call back. Where is the agenda for the meeting it is said that we walked away from?

We walked away from nothing. We kept going back time after time. We were prepared to be flexible to find something significant, not like something that is being thrown at us today, but something significant. We never got it. I understand how people would say that this Parliament is dysfunctional and that committee was an extension of it. We tried to make something work. We indicated that we were flexible. We asked them to give us a good idea and we still have not received anything.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, every day we certainly see a lot of theatre from the government. It is all about messaging in terms of what the government tries to do. I have seen the TV shots of the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister sitting in the room. That was theatre. It was orchestrated to try and send a message.

However, that message is confusing to the public, because this Prime Minister is all about division and, in my view, deceit.

I have a question for the member on Bill C-50. I know the member is very experienced on the employment insurance issue and has worked very hard on this file, but what will this proposal from the government do for those who do not qualify for employment insurance?

The big issue is the 40% to 45% of people out there or higher who do not qualify under the current system and are left without a job and without funds for their family and loved ones.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it does nothing for those who do not qualify, those 800,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs and who are not receiving any benefits, and that is the shame of it.

I want to stress one thing. The Liberal proposal was good on a number of fronts. A lot of people called for the 360 hour national standard. I have gone through the list of people who have. Our proposal was for one year. Why one year? Because now, more than ever, we are in a period of economic crisis and, for the first time that I can recall, Canadians have been talking about stimulus for the last number of months.

EI is perfect stimulus. A 1.61 turnover rate for EI is better than infrastructure and tax cuts. This is the perfect time to do something for Canadians. This is what Canadians need. By the way, the people who get the money happen to need the money an awful lot. They need this combination of a one-year stimulus program and an overall review of the EI system.

This t is not like other recessions. When we cleaned up the last Conservative recession and EI changes were made, we were going into a period of a healthy economy and a robust Liberal recovery. We do not know how far this will go. We are talking about little green shoots in the economy but people are still being laid off. EI is the way to go, both for the people who need help and for this country.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we all know here in this place that the Liberals walked away from the table of compromise to try to find a solution on this. We also know that the Bloc will never be able to deliver the goods for Quebeckers. It is only the Conservatives who can do so. In particular is the addition of five weeks, which will help the 300,000 Canadians in the work-sharing programs and other creative programs.

I have heard this member, in the past, talk about older workers. I wonder, first, whether or not he supports the extra $60 million to help older workers. We in this Conservative government feel there is a real benefit to having older workers continue on and to finding solutions to their dilemmas in this economic global crisis.

In particular, I wonder if the member believes that the 45-day work year that the Liberal government is proposing, which is going to cost at least $4 billion, is really sustainable and long term. Does he believe that will really help Canadians to find employment, to find training and to find education, the things the Conservative government is doing for Canadians? Does he really believe that that is sustainable long term?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that when a person loses his or her job, it is one of the most traumatic things to endure for the individual, his or her family and the community.

I want to correct my colleague from the government who said that the Liberal plan was going to cost $4 billion. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer actually took the government to task by saying that the government was flat-out wrong. He said very publicly that the Liberal calculation saying that our proposal would cost $1 billion was indeed correct and that the government's figures were dead wrong.

Workers from across Canada pay into the EI fund equally and yet the benefits that they accrue can be very, very different. In my province of British Columbia a person has to work almost twice as long to receive lower benefits than someone, for example, in the Maritimes would receive. Does my friend not think it would be fair and equitable for workers from across Canada to be able to receive the same amount of EI for the same length of time?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple of questions on this very important item we are discussing here this morning.

Off the top, I would like to ask the member for Chambly—Borduas who has worked very hard on this file over a number years whether it was not a bit ironic that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asked about these regional differences in the number of weeks to qualify when in fact it was his government that brought in that regulation in the first place and it is perhaps something he and his party might want to do some soul-searching about.

I know the member for Chambly—Borduas and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour feel very passionately and strongly about this issue, and we have worked together on the human resource committee to try to put in place a national anti-poverty strategy. There has been a lot of work and I appreciate the sincere efforts of everyone at that committee to try to get this done.

What worries me, and I put this on the table at my caucus meeting before we left for the summer, is the number of people who, if we do not do something, will fall off employment insurance, if they have not already, in the next short while and then end up on welfare, which as we all know is not a very happy place to be. Having spent the summer back in Quebec, how many people does the member expect, if we do not do something about employment insurance right here right now, will fall onto the welfare rolls and the responsibility of communities and therefore create a terrible situation for provinces, municipalities and of course the families themselves?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say how much I appreciate the work my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has done on this issue. He is very concerned about poverty and takes every opportunity to improve people's understanding of its impact and how it should be addressed.

Earlier on, I demonstrated tremendous courtesy toward my Liberal colleague. It is absolutely true that these measures were implemented by the Liberal Party. We must remember that. It is great that the Liberals are now choosing to cooperate and change some of these measures. However, the measures they have proposed are temporary. They believe that the 360-hour eligibility threshold should be in place only until the end of the crisis. All they would have to say is that we are recovering from the crisis, and then they would not have to implement the measure. We have to be very careful here. The Bloc has a lot of reservations about the way the Liberal Party is framing things when it comes to employment insurance.

Once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Chambly—Borduas not only on his speech, but also on the excellent work he is doing on issues that affect unemployed workers in Quebec and, by extension, in the rest of Canada.

My colleague has been on the committee that deals with unemployment issues since he first came to the House of Commons. Yesterday, in his question for the minister, my colleague said that it was cruel of her to introduce a bill that included such obvious discrimination. I would go so far as to call it cynical. Since coming to power, the Conservative Party has never shown any sensitivity or interest in doing anything to help unemployed workers. Then when everyone starts talking election, they suddenly come up with a new measure. They are even trying to convince older workers that this bill will help them.

I would like my colleague from Chambly—Borduas to clarify things. Personally, I see nothing in Bill C-50 that looks like an income support program for older workers.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. He also does an excellent job on agriculture.

What is happening is that the government is trying to make older workers believe that this measure will provide them with income. Older workers are those over 55 who were previously covered by the POWA. Most of these people have already used up their benefit time and will not be eligible. The program for older worker adjustment is completely different. It is misleading to compare the two programs. It is a red herring, and that is unacceptable.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-50, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and to increase benefits.

I have 20 minutes to talk about this bill, but it is not very long, so I will give a brief history of employment insurance.

I would like to start by emphasizing the extent of the employment insurance problem in Canada. Workers are unable to qualify for EI and receive the necessary benefits. There are more bills currently before the House of Commons that target employment insurance than for any other program. I was just counting the number of bills that have been introduced in the House and are under study.

The NDP has 12 bills on EI before the House. The Bloc Québécois has six, and the Liberals, two. Maybe they do not believe there are many problems with the system. The Conservatives have one. The Bloc Québécois has only six bills, but each one addresses a number of problems, which makes for fewer bills.

In 1986, the Auditor General said that employment insurance funds should be placed in the consolidated revenue fund. That is when the employment insurance problems began. That is when the government's cash cow was created. The government began to realize that employment insurance funds were going into the consolidated revenue fund. It was easy to tell Canadians to tighten their belts, that there was a deficit and that it was impossible to balance the budget. Subsequently, however, EI funds arrived by the shovel full. It was a good place to get money, which had been placed where it should not have been.

I recall a demonstration was held in 1988 when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney visited Inkerman, New Brunswick. The people were already demonstrating against the changes being made by the Conservative government of the day.

I cannot repeat enough that on July 31, 1989—I remember it well and it can be verified in the archives of L'Acadie nouvelle—the Liberal opposition stated in the papers through the former member for Acadie—Bathurst that all New Brunswickers should fight all of the changes to EI made by the Conservatives because they were disastrous for New Brunswick.

I think it is important to speak of the past. In the spring of 1993, the Liberal leader at that time, Jean Chrétien, sent a letter to a group of women in Trois-Rivières telling them that the problem was not the unemployed but the economy. The economy had to be fixed and assistance to the unemployed could not be cut because they were becoming victims.

Surprisingly, in the fall of 1993, with the election of the Liberals, the changes continued. I cannot say that the changes were any worse than those made during the Conservative era, because we did not know how far the Conservatives would have gone, but the changes continued under the minister responsible for human resources at the time. I think Mr. Axworthy was heading what was known as Employment and Immigration at the time

Then, there was a new appointment, that of Doug Young, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It was the period of the great changes in 1996. We reached a point where only 33% of women and 38% of men qualified for employment insurance under the Liberals.

Let us talk about economic crises. I do not want people to forget the past. Do you think there was no crisis for plant employees and fishermen in 1992-93 when groundfishing was banned and fishing stopped in the Atlantic? At the time, they were labelled lazy in Atlantic Canada. People said they did not want to work. They said that they were going to put them in their place. That is what the Liberals did at the time. And then they began to build surpluses at the rate of $7 billion or $8 billion a year. They were EI surpluses. Where did the money go? It went into the consolidated revenue fund, under the fine formula of Brian Mulroney, who was Prime Minister of Canada in the 1980s. They put the money from EI into the consolidated revenue fund.

It was not workers who were depending on employment insurance any more, it was the government so it could boast that it was paying off the deficit and balancing its budget. On whose backs? On the backs of the workers.

I was elected in 1997 because people had had enough of that in my riding. They had had enough of someone from the area who should have understood the problem and the plight of seasonal workers. If he had understood the situation, he would not have made the changes, or most importantly, he would have told the Prime Minister to get him out of there and put someone else in if it had to be done. I am talking about cutbacks. That is what happened.

They said here in the House that the problem existed only in the Atlantic provinces and not elsewhere in the country. At that point, I went to meet working people all over Canada, from Newfoundland to Whitehorse. I visited 10 provinces and Yukon, 21 municipalities and regions. I took part in 52 public meetings in two months. The people told us what the problem was all over the country. That was when I made 13 recommendations. We are in 2009 now and still talking about the same problems.

The Liberals want to appear now as the saviours of employment insurance, but it is only temporary. It is clear, that is what they said. But it is temporary. Supporters of their party or ours who think the Liberals are going to made big changes to employment insurance and make them all eligible tomorrow morning should forget it. It is just temporary.

When the NDP tabled a motion in the House of Commons in June 2005 to make it the best 12 weeks, it was the Liberals who voted against it. The Conservatives were in favour of the best 12 weeks.

Some people may know that I am the last in a family of 11 children. In 1972, I had to leave home and go to work in northern Ontario. I was not the only one who had to leave home and go to work in the north of this province. The 11 members of my family left New Brunswick. If anyone knows how tough it can be in the regions where there are no jobs, I think I am one of those people. I was fortunate enough to work, to get a job. I was fortunate enough to be able to return home and get a job in the Brunswick mine. I was lucky. I was fortunate enough to work for the United Steelworkers, to act on behalf of workers, and defend local people who were destitute because of what the Conservative and Liberal governments had done. I had that opportunity.

I had the honour and privilege to be elected by the local people to come and work for them here in Ottawa.

We have always supported employment insurance bills in the House of Commons so long as they were moving in a positive direction. I am not talking about budgets because some people will say we may have voted against budgets that made changes.

Some people say now that there is nothing for seasonal workers in this bill, and that is true. It is a bill for long-tenured workers, those who have worked 17 years or more without ever drawing employment insurance benefits, or very few, under 35 weeks over the last five years. That is what the bill is. Some people are saying that they were ignored. Yes, seasonal workers were ignored. However, we are talking about Bill C-50 currently under study.

When the government introduced the criterion of the 14 best weeks, that was of no benefit to people in Ontario, where unemployment was low. Nonetheless, the majority of Ontario members did not vote against this measure, and it was adopted. When the government wanted to extend benefits by five weeks, not everyone in Canada was able to benefit, since this measure targeted the regions where unemployment was high. All the same, the others gave their support.

For my part, I would not be ashamed to vote today in favour of Bill C-50, but I do not want us to simply take this bill and make it law tomorrow morning. That is not our responsibility. It would be our responsibility if the bill were complete. That is why, this morning, I liked the position of the Bloc Québécois that this bill be sent immediately to committee so that it can be studied and amendments can be made, and if possible, be changed. That is what Parliament does. That is what the people have sent us here to do: make bills and changes to improve the lives of citizens, of Canadians and Quebeckers. That is what the people have sent us here to do. That is our responsibility.

On the other hand, if Conservative or Liberal governments do not want to grant employment insurance benefits to persons in need who have lost their jobs because they consider them lazy slackers, we shall say no to that.

Our Canadians and Quebeckers are brave people who want to get up in the morning to go to work, to earn good pay and a good income so they can feed their children and their family, and send their children to school so they can receive a good education, so the next generation is better than the one before. They have a right to that.

For example, in France, if a person loses his job, he receives 80% of his salary. When I raised this matter in France last July to some parliamentarians, they told me that this was the workers’ program and it was the workers who contributed to it. If the people want their money, that is fine; it is money that goes back into the community. I said this to the House last week, or earlier in the week.

The idea that a change in employment insurance would be an inducement not to go to work is an insult to workers. It is as if GM were given $10 billion and then the company did nothing more and closed its doors because it was not given enough money. It is as if the government were to decide to give billions of dollars in tax reductions to big corporations, and after receiving it, those corporations stopped investing because they had received enough money. Yet the government has no hesitation about granting tax reductions to the big corporations and those persons.

Since we have such a large deficit today, perhaps the government should eliminate the huge tax reductions it is offering the big corporations that have made money. Perhaps it should instead assist the corporations experiencing problems in times of economic crisis, like the forestry and fisheries sectors, for example, where the price paid for lobster has fallen to $2.75 for small lobster and $3.50 for large.

In the fisheries, for example, the price paid for lobster has fallen to $2.75 for small lobster and $3.50 for large lobster. The amount of $65 million was injected into the fishing industry, but fishers were receiving only $15 million. The money did not go to the fishers. We must inject money for changes to employment insurance and to bring in the 360 hours we have been demanding for so long. It is not true that this would cost over $4 billion. It is more like $1.148 billion to help out these workers who are having difficulty making it through to the time when they start working again.

We have to accept the fact there are seasonal jobs in this country. Parliament has to accept that reality. This is what happens to us. We do not all have the good fortune in this country to go to work in a mine that is there for 45 years. I had that opportunity, but not everyone does. Not everyone has the good luck to go to work in a paper mill that lasts 100 years. All the same, though, the Bathurst paper mill lasted nearly 100 years but it went down too this time because of the economic crisis. As a result of the global way of doing things, the forestry mills lost money and closed their doors. People have to be prepared for that. They need training, and we encourage it. We want people to be able to change jobs and continue working, but at the same time, employment insurance is there so that people are not thrown onto welfare. This program belongs to the workers and employers who contributed to it. They pay for the system themselves. The government does not pay a penny. Actually, it steals money from the system. Fifty-seven billion dollars was taken from the employment insurance fund belonging to working people. Those who are really dependent on employment insurance are governments, both current and previous.

Last month I met some fishers from my riding who said they would not even qualify for employment insurance benefits this winter. It is the same in the Gaspé, where I spoke with some fishers. The problems in the fisheries and with lobster are well known. These people would not qualify for employment insurance. What is being done to help them?

This all amounts to saying that we are here to work hard to ensure that changes are made to employment insurance. Regardless of who is in power, we will work hard for change. I can say, though, that the Conservatives and Liberals have never exactly been the friends of the unemployed. The economic crisis in the Atlantic region started in the early 1990s. That was when the biggest cuts to employment insurance were made, with the support of the Conservatives.

The question about the bill before us today is whether we are going to vote it down. Are the figures accurate? We do not know. We do not know whether it is 190,000 workers. I hope not, because we do not want people to have lost their jobs. It might cost a billion dollars, but so what? It is their money. There is a $57 billion surplus in employment insurance, and so what? We want the government to think about these things and have a heart.

We are here in Ottawa to represent Canadians. Everyone wants to have a job and never lose it. We need to have this much respect for our workers and not treat them like lazy slackers who will not go to work any more once they get employment insurance benefits. That is unacceptable.

We will support this bill so that it can be studied. We are going to work hard to improve it so that workers are treated fairly and we will continue to make other changes for working people.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am really surprised at the member for Acadie—Bathurst getting up and basically supporting a bill on employment insurance that would do absolutely nothing for fishermen in his riding. And he admits that. That absolutely amazes me. Usually we can count on the member to stand up and be counted in terms of people facing unemployment.

I have a double question for the member.

First, with respect to the fishermen who have had poor prices this year, would the bill do anything for them? I would like him to be specific on that.

Second, where is the rationalization plan that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced which would help substantially as well? This plan has not been delivered in my area of Prince Edward Island in terms of actual cash. Is there any delivery on that in his riding in New Brunswick?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked how I could support a bill that would not help the fishermen of our region. If the member had been listening, clearly I said it would not help and I said it was sad. The bill would not help. Bill C-50 is like many of the bills the Liberals brought in. Did they help all Canadians? No.

When it came to the extra five weeks, was that for everybody in the country? Are we not here to help all the people in this country, or are we here to help people just here and there? In areas where the level of unemployment is high, only 420 hours were required. In areas where the level was not high, 700 hours were needed.

Where were the Liberals when people lost their jobs? They were in power for 13 years. Where was my colleague from P.E.I. when I introduced a private member's bill and a motion on the best 12 weeks to help workers in his region and mine? He voted against it. Where was the member that day?